JERUSALEM IS FALLING

[Alive]

11 minutes ago, abcdef said:

All the NT letters were written before the 70 AD destruction, except Revelation.

There is good reason to think that Rev was written before 70 AD as well.

Ken Gentry does a bang up job of discussing this in 'Before Jerusalem Fell'.

It is worth reading.

[Justin Adams]

8 minutes ago, Alive said:

There is good reason to think that Rev was written before 70 AD as well.

Ken Gentry does a bang up job of discussing this in 'Before Jerusalem Fell'.

It is worth reading.

Yes. Agreed. And the whole eschatology house of cards crumbles as millions shelled out cash for all this stuff of their dreams.

[douggg]

19 hours ago, abcdef said:

This does not show the return of Jesus.

It shows the victory of the gospel (sword) over the Roman Empire in the 3rd/4th centuries, when Christianity became the official religion of the Empire.

====================

Rev 19:11-21,

Vs. 11-16, This does not show Jesus returning to planet earth.

It says only that heaven is opened v 11, and that Jesus is seen in heaven with the OT saints from the first resurrection when Jesus rose. It does not say that He is shown returning to planet earth.-

Ezekiel 39:17-20 = Revelation 19:17-18

Jesus Himself is speaking Ezekiel 39:21-29, having returned to earth, following destruction of those armies that will gather to make war on him.

 

21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

 

 

 

[Biblican]

On 1/23/2021 at 9:03 AM, Josheb said:

Nice ad hominem. Duly noted and treated accordingly. 

 

The fact remains your post read a pile of stuff into the scriptures and that fact is not being engaged. Yes, most Bible scholars do understand the historical background of "those passages" and their application to the prophesies and they disagree with your position. Dispensational-style scholar, on the other hand, will agree with you but they are no most scholars. The dispensational-style views constitute only a bout a third of the Christian view(s). They are a minority but they are a very popular and sensationalistic minority marketed well by televangelists and best-sellers. 

You just happen to be one of the many persuaded by such things. 

 

You read a bunch of stuff into the text. That fact is not being engaged. 
The facts regarding the antichrist(s) as stated in scripture are as I reported. Those facts are not being engaged, either. 
Almost two centuries of false predictions are common with the perspective asserted by this op. That fact is not being engaged.
Modern Israel is not the Israel is not the Israel of the Bible except in name only. That fact is not being engaged, either. 
 

Therefore, there are very real and serious problems with the claim modern Jerusalem has any relevance in any of the prophesies asserted. That fact is not being engaged, either.

And I am happy to let you jump around from sub-topic to sub-topic ad nauseam and make fallacious personal attacks that have little or not basis in either the facts of scripture or those of history because that too will prove what I have posted correct, but I would prefer you muster up the fortitude to address what has been posted, one point at a time and we do so collaboratively believing and applying the word of God is our authoritative common ground. 

You prefer the former over the latter? Do please proceed but don't get upset with me when I make note of it. 

 

Modern Israel bears no resemblance to Biblical covenant Israel so it cannot be a fulfillment of prophesy.  

 

1967 is irrelevant. 

A lot of professed Bible scholars lack the basic ingredient that is necessary for interpreting scripture - logic. The passages in Daniel 11 that refer to the antichrist show that he is still operating until the Lord returns in Daniel 12. This fact is conveniently overlooked by those who prefer to adjust the scriptures to their preferred interpretation.

I agree, modern Israel bears no resemblance to Biblical covenant Israel. Yet, the secular nation of Israel exists and it does figure in Bible prophecy as a catalyst for the tribulation. It is view as "Sodom and Egypt" in Rev. 11 and is in existence during the time that the Euphrates river is drying an event that is happening now and not in the first century. Logic.

[Biblican]

20 hours ago, abcdef said:

The Antichrist was revealed already as Caesar at the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.

The iron beast nation was revealed as Rome.

 

Especially the age in which they were written.

All the NT letters were written before the 70 AD destruction, except Revelation.

At the time of the writings, the revealing of the Roman Antichrist and the destruction of the temple were only about 10- 25 years away. Not 1900 years away.

 

The Greek Antiochus. He holds the title of Antichrist for a while before Caesar.

 

The first resurrection judgement, when Jesus was resurrected with the OT saints.

Every thing in the last vision of Daniel was completed by 70 AD.

 

Both the time lines of preterism and pretrib need adjustments. 

Both skip the time from 70 AD until this day.

There is no gap.

We will have to agree to disagree. Revelation was written 25 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and it definitely reveals a duplication of the Roman oppression that was operating in John's day just before Jesus returns. This is also supported by Daniel's visions and I don't have time to go into it here. A one world government is currently under construction and according to David Rockefeller's biography,  he said that he was proud to be a part of it.

Preterism is a man inspired doctrine so any interpretations that are viewed through that lens are going to be inaccurate and in some cases even ludicrous. It is the devil's theology because it eliminates his humiliation that is so  specifically illustrated in Revelation's depiction of Jesus' return. It is also the communists' definition of choice because it eliminates what they refer to as "Doomsday." Therefore I would not be surprised if many of their agents are promoting this false doctrine on Christian forum boards in the U.S.

[Justin Adams]

Instead of either or, why not BOTH AND??

There is no proof anywhere that revelation was after 70 AD. Even the church fathers got it wrong. The main 'father' wrote that Yeshua was past 50 years old.. etc.

So much for that!

Preterist is a handy label. Do you not know, labels are for soup cans!

And your words smack of a Darby and johhny come lately doctrine as well.

Thing is, the Daniel stuff has been so thoroughly indoctrinated thru the church that if you step back, you might see it as just another doctrine. Nothing to do with communism.

You have to make COHERENT observations and studies. If you are smart, you might say, "we just do not really know for sure".

[Biblican]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Hmmm... First I read for the need for logic. I completely agree. Scripture and reason are our friend and the tools or "rules" of exegesis and logic are necessary.

But then I read these two statements. 

Logically speaking..... no one here has proven the secular nation of Israel "does figure in Biblical prophesy" or that it does so "as a catalyst for the tribulation." These are both eisegetic assumptions, not facts or truths conditioned upon logic. Not only does the veracity of these two statements warrant proving but that case needs to be made in light of the facts to which you have just agreed or conceded: the secular state bears no resemblance. 

The position is: A secular state that bears not resemblance to scripture is the fulfillment of scripture. 

That is not logical. 

 

And I have tried to open this conversation up beyond this mere discussion to the matter of examining our sources, not just these posts. If a person goes back and examines how someone, like Lewis Chafer for example, made the case for this view it can be seen you are correct: a lot of professed Bible scholars lack logic. Some of them are very well-educated people. Some of them are otherwise very godly people. That doesn't mean they are always correct or that everything they teach should be accepted as veracious. 

 

Modern Israel bears no resemblance to Biblical Israel. How then is an entirely unscriptural state a fulfillment of scripture?

When I read someone here actually making a reasonable, rational, exegetical case for that I will give it a critical forensic examination to the best of my abilities and accept its veracity based on its merits. Preterism has absolutely nothing to do with it. 

 

 

 

But using preterism and preterists as a scapegoat is common practice for those lacking exegetical merit. Scapegoating, ad hominem, red herring, false cause, false equivalency, and straw men are not logical. 

• Scapegoating: Blame the person for sounding preterist so there's no need to give what they say and consideration.
• Ad hominem: You, because you're a preterist, are evil so there's no need to ogive any consideration to the post.
• Ad hominem: You don't know Jesus, so your post is worthless.
• Ad hominem: You don't have the Spirit so your post is worthless.
• Red herring: If I can get the topic to change to a debate over preterism there'll be no need to discuss the salient matter.
• False cause: Preterism causes bad posts.
• Fales cause: Because you say something has already been fulfilled you must be a preterist (and preterists are evil).
• False cause: Because you believe modern Israel is not a fulfillment you must be preterist.
• False equivalency: Modern Israel and ancient Israel are alike. 
• False equivalency: All statements by preterists are wrong.
• Fales equivalency: All preterist-like statements are all the same and to be equally dismissed.
• Straw man: All preterists believe all prophesies are all already fulfilled.

That list could be a lot longer; those are just a few of the fallacies found throughout posts on these kind of topics. The illogic commonly posted here and on similar topics is abundant. 

So I do understand the challenge faced when I point out thee problems. They are problems!!! But nothing I post is personal. I don't have any ill-regard for any of you. I simply find the dispensational or dispensational-style hermeneutic seriously flawed; seriously flawed both exegetically and logically and I am not the only one in Christendom who do so! 

Here is something for everyone here, regardless of which side of this topic they fall, to consider: for 18 centuries there was no Israel, and because there was no Israel Christian thought, Christian doctrines, and Christian practices developed accordingly. Now within just the last two centuries an entirely new way of looking at scripture has arisen and it does so in direct conflict with what is now 20 centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. 

Nothing I have posted here is new. Neither is it unique. It's not new to Christianity, nor is it unique to a given sectarian theology or unique to me. It is the futurism asserted in this op that is new and unique!!! 

 

So..... logically speaking, deal with the facts in evidence and don't fall prey to the very long list of possible fallacies if you wish to have integrity with your own post when you speak about scholars lacking logic. And remember to whom or with whom you're trading posts because I'm one of those guys who recognizes that dross when it happens, points it out when it happens, and doesn't tolerate it when it happens. Others will collaborate with that dross but I will not. Irritates some but that's not my problem; emotional reasoning is another fallacy. 

 

 

So, Biblican....... We have agreement: Modern Israel bears no resemblance to biblical covenant Israel. This means the veracity of modern Israel's existence must be proven, not assumed. 

Do please make that case and do please do so exegetically and without falling prey to fallacy or eisegesis. I will gladly affirm any content that bears integrity with well-rendered scripture and logic but I will just as equally question any unclear or dubious content and refute any obviously unscriptural content. 

Make the case. Your "thesis" is:

The secular nation of Israel does figure in Bible prophecy (even though it does not bear any resemblance to covenant Israel).

 

 

.

Modern Israel exists to day it is a fact. Jerusalem in the latter days as shown in Revelation is referred to as Sodom and Egypt and will be judged. We are also shown in Revelation and Matthew 24 and Zechariah 14 that Israel will undergo another captivity before the Lord returns. Preterism negates any scriptures that refutes its man inspired unbiblical doctrine that was not taught by the apostles, so presenting the scriptural evidence is vain to anyone who has been preprogrammed by  falsehood, as you have so apptly demonstrated.

[Biblican]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Yes, it is a fact  a country with the name "Israel" exists. No dispute there. 

If that is a reference to Revelation 11:8 then yes, Jerusalem is compared with and referred to as Sodom and Egypt but 1) that has absolutely nothing to do with a restoration of Jerusalem as asserted by this op and 2) the latter days were existent in the NT era so there's nothing in that sentence to prove 21st century relevance. We can agree the comparison of scripture exists but you've yet to justify, let alone prove any application to today. 

Big Fail. 

Zechariah 14 is couched in the coming of the Messiah. The Messiah came in the first century. I have covered this at least a half dozen times in worthy.
Matthew 24 is also couched in the fact the disciples would see the events Jesus was describing. Jesus explicitly stated they would be handed over to tribulation. 
Revelation begins and ends with the explicit report the events described were near, or at hand, and not 20+ centuries in the future.
Once again nothing in that sentence does anything to prove the restoration of Jerusalem as this op is asserting. Everyone agrees Israel undergoes captivity. That is not the  point of dispute. The specific point of dispute is modern day secular Israel figuring in prophesy and you've just spent three sentences are are not a single pixel closer to proving that position. 

Do not hate me for pointing this out to you. 

Preterism is irrelevant. The attempted red herring will not be entertained. It is illogical. Besides, you could prove preterism wron and still not prove your position correct. Big Fail. 

The problem is the one "programmed" looks to be you, Bib. 

 

If this is the best case you have for proving secular Israel is relevant to prophesy the matter remains unproven and it looks like you and the op believe something you cannot prove without red herrings, ad hominem, shifting onuses, scapegoating, and other fallacies. 

 

So let's try it one more time. 

Focus. Try leaving the posters out of the next post. 

The thesis is very plain and simple: 

 

The secular nation of Israel does figure in Bible prophecy (even though it does not bear any resemblance to covenant Israel).

 

You take the affirmative position. Good. I look forward to reading the affirmative case for that position because so far no one in the entire 25 pages of this op has made...

 

a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture 

 

...for that thesis. 

And I have explicitly invited you to do just that.
And I asked you to do so because of your comment supporting logic as necessary. 

So do please give the attempt another try. Do your best to make the case for the position:

 

The secular nation of Israel does figure in Bible prophecy (even though it does not bear any resemblance to covenant Israel).

 

Go!    

 

Because you are continuing to use a preteristic approach to interpreting scripture, nothing I present to you is going to connect. You are saying that the Revelation is about Jesus coning the first time? Ridiculous. The only way you can come to that conclusion is by refusing to coordinate the all the scriptures relating to His return.

The apostles do not support a Preteristic interpretation of scripture. I follow the apostles. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if these man-inspired ludicrous doctrines had not been introduced to the church. The only reason that they were accepted in the first place is that the church was already sliding into apostasy and had diverted from following the apostles 100% as we are supposed to.

[Biblican]

7 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Instead of either or, why not BOTH AND??

There is no proof anywhere that revelation was after 70 AD. Even the church fathers got it wrong. The main 'father' wrote that Yeshua was past 50 years old.. etc.

So much for that!

Preterist is a handy label. Do you not know, labels are for soup cans!

And your words smack of a Darby and johhny come lately doctrine as well.

Thing is, the Daniel stuff has been so thoroughly indoctrinated thru the church that if you step back, you might see it as just another doctrine. Nothing to do with communism.

You have to make COHERENT observations and studies. If you are smart, you might say, "we just do not really know for sure".

I know for sure that Preterism is a man inspired doctrine that was not taught by the apostles. The Daniel stuff is thoroughly researched and accurate. Preterism teaches that everything in Revelation was fulfilled in 70AD (Even though  the Euphrates was not drying up at that time. Just ignore that fact.) Because Preterism eliminates "Doomsday" as the Chinese refer to it, it is the communists doctrine of choice for interpreting Revelation. Help them along.

[abcdef]

On 1/23/2021 at 1:20 PM, Alive said:

There is good reason to think that Rev was written before 70 AD as well.

Ken Gentry does a bang up job of discussing this in 'Before Jerusalem Fell'.

It is worth reading.

The scroll of the seven seals, could not be opened until after Jerusalem fell and the people were scattered in 70 AD.

----

In Dan 12:6, it is asked how long it will be until the end of the "wonders" seen in his last vision.

 

In Dan 12:7 the angel declares that it will be 3 1/2 times until the power of the holy people is scattered. That would be from Babylon until about 70 AD.

(The 7 times, two 3 1/2's, are not 7 years, they are over 2500 years, equaling the same time as the Dan 2 statue. 

The statue is divided into two parts of 3 1/2 t's each.  

The first part of the statue is from when Jerusalem falls to Babylon, until 70 AD.

The second 3 1/2 t's is from 70 AD until Jerusalem is restored to the people of Israel and the toes of the statue end. 1967)

------

Now look at what is said about the scroll being sealed until the time of the end, v 4.

In the time frame that this prophecy is talking about, Babylon until 70 AD (the first 3 1/2 times), the "end times" begin (the second 3 1/2 times), after the scattering of 70 AD.

----

So basically, what the angel of Dan 12:7 is saying, is that Israel will be scattered to end of the first 3 1/2 times (70 AD), after that, when the last times of the statue have begun, the second 3 1/2 times, then the scroll of v 4 will be opened.

Jesus is seen opening the scroll, but it could only happen after the scattering of the the first 3 1/2 times had been completed, and the last times of the second 3 1/2 times had begun. 

------

To meet the requirement, that the scattering of Israel (Dan 12:7), must take place before the scroll (Dan 12:4) can be opened, places the writing of the Revelation after 70  AD.

===============================================

Now I will tell you a truth, it doesn't matter that much if it was written before or after 70 AD, because it says the same thing either way.

Which is, Jerusalem falls in 70 AD, the broken branches suffer from being cut off from God's new covenant blessings, Jerusalem is restored, then surrounded.

The identification of which Jerusalem is shown to be falling, the 70 AD Jerusalem or the restored to Israel Jerusalem, has been under question.

Simply, there was no resurrection at the 70 AD destruction. But there is after Jerusalem is surrounded in Rev 11 and Rev 20.