Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: paradoxical
I suppose I misunderstood you.

I thought that what you meant was 70 AD was a signal that the dynamics concerning the Old Covenant had changed.

Usually dispensationalists say that 1948 was the point of change.

10 posted on 05/27/2011 1:58:55 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Siena Dreaming

you understand


11 posted on 05/27/2011 2:00:52 PM PDT by paradoxical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Siena Dreaming; paradoxical
I thought that what you meant was 70 AD was a signal that the dynamics concerning the Old Covenant had changed.

Usually dispensationalists say that 1948 was the point of change.

After a generation's grace period after Christ's resurrection and ascention, A.D. 70 was the unquestionable end of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant typological cultic order. No temple to go to, no sacrifices, priesthood scattered or dead.

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. "

It's bothersome, that some Christians want it back.

17 posted on 05/28/2011 8:14:53 AM PDT by Lee N. Field (An armed society is a polite society. So keep your soi-disant "prophecy experts" off my lawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson