WHAT TIME DO YOU HAVE?

[Alive]

My heart and spirit just lept for joy!

I near wept.

PTL

[kwikphilly]

23 minutes ago, Josheb said:

In light of the fact a far-distant-in-the-future group is never explicitly mentioned, the belief John was told to tell people living in his time about events they'd never experience has always seemed an odd interpretation of the whole prophecy to me. This is all the more so given John is told some of the events have already occurred, some are occurring at the time of the vision and the remaining third comes after what what has already transpired and what was then happening. 

Well, I should not say, "always" because I used to be dispensationally premillennial. 

Perhaps I should say, "Since I began examining the book for what it actually states....."

This is true, the Apostle was shown many things which included some past, present( his present of course) and future..... That is why I referred to what he was shown in the future, no doubt I didnt wonder about his describing those past or the events that were actually taking place in his time-lol

The Book of Revelation is not an easy read, another good example of how important it is to walk in Spirit & in Truth, leaning not on our own understanding........ Blessings Josh❤

 

 

[other one]

6:57 PM

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

4 hours ago, other one said:

6:57 PM

 

What a coincidence, I read this at 6:57 PM my time!

[Diaste]

On 3/7/2022 at 11:46 AM, Josheb said:

Let me make sure I understand your posts correctly. 

The "last times" and "end of the age" are not synonymous, but those scriptures are not known to the degree that any could be posted in answer to my question. The Spirit is heard in absence of any evidence from the written word but there is confidence that if you, me, or someone else did search the Word, compare and contrast the references, look up the Greek, etc. then a single conclusion will be reached. 

Is that what I am to understand from these last two posts? If not, if I have somehow misread it, would you please clarify it for me? 

Well...no.  I'm not compelled to do anything by insistence or request. There are times the returns are diminished from the onset and a feeling exists the effort is orders of magnitude greater than it's worth. 

The scripture are known well enough as I posted searches I have used, for anyone's convenience. 

I think the the most important clue to start the search for understanding is 'Last Days' and 'end of the age'. They aren't exactly similar.  And it should be investigated.

I have zero confidence a consensus would occur. This is Christianity. It's notably fractured and incongruent. 

On 3/7/2022 at 11:46 AM, Josheb said:

 

According to Paul the ends of the ages fell on the first century believers. In exhorting the Corinthians to avoid the mistakes of faithlessness Israel made he wrote, 

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

The "ends of the ages" fell upon Paul and the Corinthian believers circa 53-54 AD. According to Paul, not only had the "age" come upon them, but the ends of the ages had come. Writing in much the same vein as Paul to encourage faithfulness in their time, Peter wrote his audience to say, 

1 Peter 4:7
The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.

According to Peter, "all things" were coming to end right then and there in the first century about a decade after Paul first wrote to the Corinthians. 

 

Whether or not the "end of the age" lasted only during the New Testament era OR have lasted two millennia up to our current moment in history, the two did exist at the same time in the New Testament. I'm sure, since it has been acknowledged. "The last days began as the Apostles said," you have some knowledge regarding what the apostle said. You know that because they said it. They said it in the written word. They said the last days existed in their gospels, history, letters, and prophecies. I've listed those passages many, many times in Worthy conversations and am happy to do so again if desired. In the two verses above we have clear indication the end(s) of the age(s) was happening in the first century at the same time as the last days. 

So, I have to ask again: do you have scripture informing us the last days and end of the age are not synonymous? I'd also like to ask if you believe the Holy Spirit would ever tell you or me something that is contradictory to the written Word? 

Do you have scripture informing us the last days and end of the age are not synonymous?

Do you believe the Holy Spirit would ever tell you or me something that is contradictory to the written Word? 

Aside from the fact that is a post hoc and extra-scriptural argument, upon which scripture is that based? I have often asserted the truth of Psalm 110:1 = Jesus will remained enthroned in heaven as his Father's right hand at his Father's right hand until God make a footstool of his enemies. That is what the scriptures teach and I can provide a plethora of scripture to evidence that position... by which we could all presumably find agreement - not simply or solely among ourselves but with the word of God plainly stated and read as written with little or no added interpretation! 

So where is the scripture stating the last days and the end of the ages are not synonymous and the end of the age is defined by Jesus being here in the future? 

Which is exactly what I am asking for!!!!! 

Where is the "short study"? Keep the preaching to yourself and show me the scriptures . I am in complete agreement with you on that point BUT according to what I am reading either no such scriptures
are known and the original statement the last days and the end of the age is based solely on something heard from the Spirit, or there is some scriptures supporting that statement and they can be found through study of scripture but none of them will be posted despite my having asked. 

This is what I'm talking about. I have doubts anything I posted wouldn't be summarily dismissed. 

On 3/7/2022 at 11:46 AM, Josheb said:

 

Diaste, if I have in any way misrepresented any of these last two posts then do please clarify it for me and do please be as specific as you feel comfortable being. 

Otherwise, that original statement appears to not have any basis in scripture, it appears to run into some conflict with scripture, and an appeal to the Spirit is at least somewhat dubious since the Spirit of God never contradicts the incarnate or written Word. They all work together cohesively. 

In some cases dogmatism reigns supreme. There's no edification in that.

On 3/7/2022 at 11:46 AM, Josheb said:

 

And..... 

.....it's okay if we agree to disagree. I'd simply like to know what is the scriptural basis for the statement, "The "last times" and "end of the age" are not synonymous..."? And I ask that in hope the scriptural evidence can be discussed in light of that statement. No arguing or preaching required. This is, after all, a Christian discussion board where Christians come to discuss their views and do so in both agreement and disagreement. 

I completely agree. Give me the "short study" as best you understand it. 

Maybe I will. But you tend toward dismissing inference and valid truthful conclusions born of true and valid premises. But who knows, I might jump in.

 

[Diaste]

On 3/6/2022 at 3:41 PM, Josheb said:

In the other he said, "this generation" and when Matthew reported that Matthew used the near-demonstrative conjugation of the terms, thereby precluding a far-distant-in-the-future interpretation (like the one John Walvoord imposes upon the text.

This is the entire quote:

"Now learn this lessone from the fig tree: As soon as its branches become tender and sprout leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near,f right at the door. 34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened."

Obviously it's the generation that sees all these things. The context is the lesson of the fig tree, the idea of seeing the signs and know the time approaches, and the direct statement, "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened"

So it's the generation that sees these things coming that will not pass till all these things have happened. The near demonstrative is appropriate but it doesn't reference time, it references unfolding events. It's the generation near to the quickly populating gamut of events as related by Jesus Christ.

We know it isn't the generation of Jesus time as all those things did not happen and Jesus specifies the generation will not pass before all those things occur.

So unless it can be proven Matt 24:15-31 occurred then Jesus spoke of a future generation. Expectation of the brethren in the epistles is not fact bearing relevance to what Jesus said. Sincere people can be and are sincerely wrong. 

[Diaste]

21 hours ago, Josheb said:

They did happen in that generation. They simply did not happen as modern futurists incorrectly imagine they should happen. Huge difference between what scripture says what happens and what modern futurists say scripture says. For example, some modern futurists say another temple of stone will be built and MUST be built before he returns even though scripture nowhere states any such thing. That position is something the infer.

A valid inference. How does one sit in a temple if there is no temple? It's the same kind of inference we use daily based on existing or past data. We infer, we are going to wake up, the grocery stores will be open, cross traffic will stop when the light is red, our vehicle will start, our kids love us and our wives won't kill us in our sleep!

Now that last bit was hilarious. Just admit it. Lol

21 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

They read it into the scripture, and they do so based solely on their modern futurist hermeneutic. They rejoice Israel has been restored even though the modern Israel bears little resemblance to the Israel of God's covenant. Doesn't matter. For them the current Israel is sufficient. It is restored according to their view, not according to the criteria Scripture established defining the nation. 

I admit dispensationalists are incorrect about many things. But they aren't wrong about everything. We should toss the bad stuff and keep what's good and true. What's good and true can come from anyone and anywhere regardless of affiliation or doctrine.

21 hours ago, Josheb said:

If we take what is stated, and accept what is stated, and do not add to the text, then it states what it states and what it states is this generation, not that generation will not pass away until the disciples had been persecuted by the Pharisees and handed over to tribulation and the temple had been destroyed, and they'd learned of wars and famines and earthquakes. 

It was their generation. 

Those things did happen. 

The generation to whom he was speaking did not pass away before those things happen. People who use a post hoc appeal to say, "It cannot have been that generation because those things did not all happen" are not just appealing to a faulty post hoc argument; they are denying the actual near demonstrative blunt statement, "This generation will not pass away...." 

Accept and believe it exactly as written in its undeniable near demonstrative conjugation. Look it up.

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened."

Just saying 'this generation will not pass away." is an incomplete thought.  The rest of the story is "...until all these things have happened." It is a near demonstrative...to "...until all these things have happened.", not the passing of time. It's not, "...before the last person of this generation dies."

That's reading into the text and filling a gap that isn't there.

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

When it comes to eschatology they are wrong. 

They literally invented a hermeneutic that never previously existed! They literally invent "dispensations" where they are not-self reported by scripture. Not a single prediction they've ever claimed has come true. They do not practice their own hermeneutic with any consistency or live in a manner consistent with the eschatology and the abuse and neglect of whole scripture is demonstrable. There is a chronic utter lack of accountability in the system as a whole. Perhaps we can say there is a comparison to the broken clock: it's correct twice a day, but that has little to do with their eschatology and the hermeneutic by which it is reached. What they share with the rest of Christendom is the best they can say about the veracity of Dispensational Premillennialism. Do you know any other theology so inordinately defined by its eschatology? 

I don't disagree. I'm just saying they are not wrong because of the doctrine. They are wrong because facts either do not align, they were misunderstood, ignored, or massaged to fit a bias. When none of that is the case then we can still find some truth. It's rare, or never the case, that any group is wrong about everything. That's prejudicial. 

I was a dispensationalist. The foundation of the doctrine is unsupported. But that doesn't mean the facts, however misinterpreted or misrepresented, are wrong. In fact the group sent me on a decades long search based on the misrepresentation. I know that sounds weird but things were not aligning and I looked diligently for answers.

So in at least one way it's good as the falsehood in the foundation prompted an objective search by me. 

Maybe that's a stretch but without the premillennial dispensationalist literature I would have never had all the questions that arose. 

 

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

No, it is a near demonstrative to the "you". Wars don't have generations. Neither do earthquakes or famines. A generation is about people. The phrase "this generation" is used just over a dozen times in Matthew and Luke (they are the only two gospels containing the phrase). A few of those mentions are asserted in conditional clauses but on every single occasion the phrase is spoken in reference to the audience hearing him when he spoke those words. Modern futurists have to make Matthew 24 the exception to the rule - they have to ignore the precedent of all the other mentions in order to arrive at a "that generation" interpretation. 

Read Matthew 24's mention in a manner consistent with all other uses. 

I can't. It would too closely abut law of first mention, a fallacious proposition. The defining characteristic is context. Usage is always defined by context. Definitions are one thing, usage another, context the overarching guiding star.

It's inescapable "until all these things have happened." refers to, and iterates what came before. Context is this parable, "As soon as its branches become tender and sprout leaves, you know that summer is near.", explained as and likened to, "So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door."

So the only way we know Jesus is near is when we see, " all these things". This isn't a time stamp, it's conditional. Jesus literally cannot be near until and unless these things are occurring.

And it's not in the context of Matt 24:4-8 as it's said, "see to it that you are not alarmed. These things must happen, but the end is still to come". So whatever is said in 4-8 isn't related to the end as Jesus exhorts calm maybe even stoicism as this isn't the end. 

So when it's said, "So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near," Jesus is speaking of the end of which 4-8 is not a part as He said, "the end is still to come". Then it's everything after that to which He referred which is Matt 24:15-31 as we see the end only comes after Matt 24:9-14, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

This end that's coming is only after the gospel has been preached/published to everyone. Then the things from "all these things" is what transpires after v 14, from 15-31. 

That can only be the same 'things' referred to in v 34, which 'things' must occur in the sight of the one generation, the terminal generation, alive at the time "all these things" happen. 

So if it can be demonstrated Matt 24:15-31 has occurred in the past, since the 1st century, in full and complete, then I'm all in. If not then it's all still coming.

Whether 'you' refers to wars or people isn't relevant, imo. This is over whether the near demonstrative modifies in relation to time or conditions. Since there is no language in Matt 24:32-34 concerning time, but in stark contrast to the idea of time we see a direct statement of extant conditions, "when you see all these things," and again, "until all these things have happened", then it must be conditions and not time. 

Incidentally one of the most prominent markers of nearness to the beginning of the end in my mind is the publishing/preaching of the gospel to all nations. 

There are organizations that keep track of all the languages and if the gospel has been translated into that language or not. It's not complete according to them, but not far off. 

 

 

[Diaste]

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

No, it is not. Once the new revelation is read it is the opposite of a valid inference. 

I have already answered that question. Why am I being asked a question I have already answered, answered scores of times in this forum and spoken specifically to you more than once. All of the prophetic mentions of a temple can be understood as references to either a temple that was then standing, the temple of Herod, or the temple that is Christ and his body.* In other words, scripture, not me, provides the answer to that speculation, and it does so long before modern futurism was ever a thought to be considered. A person must actively ignore what is said in the rest of scripture to make that inference and ignoring scripture makes that inference invalid, not valid. I reiterate: in order to develop the modern futurist eschatology one must read scripture inferentially AND read it in an inferential manner that ignores what is plainly stated elsewhere AND add extra-biblical ideas. 

I don't know dude, it keeps coming up?? I'm not ignoring the truth of the true temple which is the believer. I'm not ignoring Herod's temple. But I'm also not going to ignore that all can exist and pose no threat to the truth. One doesn't cancel the other. 

There is no way I would ever believe you are of the mind that because the true temple, and the most important temple, is the body of the believer, that this necessarily removes any possibility of any other temple standing, of any stripe, in any denomination of any religion, anywhere in the world, at any given time.

There are literally hundreds in the USA alone called Temple of God.

Given this then a structure called Temple of God can and does coexist with the true Temple of God. 

So where is the man of sin going to sit to blaspheme God while asserting he is god?

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

That's not a valid inference. 

If all we had was the OT prophets then it might be a valid inference but we have more than the OT prophets. This is why I so often remind everyone we are Christians, not Jews. The whole of scripture was written for us, not them. They think otherwise but they are mistaken. There are no "Christian" scriptures and "Jewish" scriptures; there is only Jesus crucified and resurrected. All the law and the prophets and psalms testify about him and no other. He is the one to whom and about whom they witness. Paul explicitly stated those things were written for those upon whom the ands of the ages had fallen. Not a single word in the Bible stating those things were written directly for the 21st century. Not one. 

I have felt this is special pleading. I haven't said anything but that nagging feeling it is just doesn't go away. 

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

But.....

Some folks like to do what amounts to Judaizing Christianity. Why? They think it a valid inference! I suspect most do not realize that is what happens when the OT is imposed on the NT or the NT commentary on the OT is neglected or ignored. Some people, like the founders of modern futurism, develop that practice in invalid valid inferences on their own, but most in modernity do it because that's what they were taught. 

Yeah, I get that. Examples of inaccurate deduction do not mean all deduction is incorrect. In the case of 2 Thess 2:4 the inference is valid. He sits. Blasphemes. Declares. In the temple. If it's not a stone temple are you saying the temple refers to the body corporate in individual? Or Herod's?

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

I know my next request is going to take some work and for that reason may be eschewed but I recommend giving the prophetic mentions of any temple as I just asserted. In every OT and NT prophetic mention of a temple ask whether there is a temple still standing. Ask if the second temple qualifies. Ask if Christ meets the fulfillment of that temple mention. I believe you will find no inferences are needed and no appeals to 21st century temple are warranted. If 3-5 chapters of the prophecies are read per day this will take about a month. If the prophets are read in chronological order the witness of other scripture to itself becomes more apparent. 

Ah! But the other bit that must be satisfied is the man of sin sitting, blaspheming, asserting he's god, in what Paul refers to as the temple of God. So along with the excellent advice above this has to be a factor in the conclusion.

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

Lastly, valid inferences are objectively verifiable through scripture and reason. 

The belief in a future temple is not a valid inference. I am encouraged the inferential nature of the belief is acknowledged because many deny it. Only through eisegesis can that inference be viewed "valid."

Okay. Which of the premises are invalid? 

1. There is a man of sin
2. He will blaspheme God
3. He will claim to be God
4. He will sit in a temple for 2-3

• Ergo a temple must exist for the man of sin to sit in and commit atrocity.

The real questions seem to when? where? and which one?