Posted on 02/22/2014 10:53:16 AM PST by PhilipFreneau
Correct. And not once did I say those words had nothing to do with Jerusalem. You completely misread what I wrote. Adding your own words, or highlighting some of my words to change the context, will not make them my words. It make them your words.
I admit that was pretty slick how you highlighted "Rev 18" in yellow, and left out the previous words, "primarily in," and then pretended that I said "all was in Rev 18." That was slick! You might qualify for a job in the Obama administration.
>>>Then you stated the birds were feeding off the 1.1 million Jews in Jerusalem.<<<
That is what I believe to be correct. It was somewhat of a "tradition," if you will, that enemies slain on battle in those days were left on the battlefield for the birds and beasts.
>>Then you told me the Roman legions were fighting for the will of God against Jerusalem<<<
Correct.
>>>but in Revelation 19 those armies are arrayed against Christ.<<<
It doesn't say those are the same armies. You assume it is saying that. Even if it meant what you say, which is far from clear; it would most likely mean that the armies were being "bought under control of Christ," much like the 10 kings were brought under his control in Rev 17.
In Rev 17, the 10 kings, at first, made "war" with the lamb. The only way they could have done that would have been spiritual, since Christ was in heaven, and they were on the earth. Christ overcomes them (as if there was any doubt) and they become servants of Christ who destroy Jerusalem and make her desolate (I explained that as well.)
That part was easy to understand. I am still not in the clear on the last part of Rev 19, since it shifts directions so quickly. In particular, the "sword" is a spiritual one. No mention is made of the beast and false prophet, nor the kings and their armies, in any kind of battle--we can only imagine it. And suddenly the remnant pops up and is "slain" by the sword of the Lord, which is the Word of God. And then, out of the blue, are fowls feasting on their flesh. It is one strange riddle from verses 17 to 21.
There is a "remnant" mentioned in the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22; but I have yet to figure out how to tie that to Rev 19. There is also this in Hosea:
"O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away. Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth." (Hos 6:4-5 KJV)
In that passage the Lord seems to be correcting their ways with his Word.
>>>From where in chapter 18 do you derive a Roman army or any army at all is destroying Babylon (aka Jerusalem for your interpretation)?<<<
Chapter 18 is the summary, for lack of a better word. Chapter 17 is where the armies defeat Jerusalem. I posted that earlier where I tied the two chapters together. Maybe it was not clear to you.
>>>When was first century AD Jerusalem "abundance of her luxury?" What merchants wept upon the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? The bread and goat industry?<<<
You certainly don't know very much about Jerusalem of those days. It was a "hub" of business activity: a commercial center. Pliny, said it was “by far the most famous city of the ancient Orient.” Tacitus said it “was famous beyond all other works of men.” Appian called it “the great city Jerusalem” (how appropriate.) But if you look carefully at the list of "dainty and goodly" items found in her, you will find mostly temple goods and materials. It is as if the Lord was defining the city by the materials and appearences of, and within, the temple.
From what I have read so far, I believe you are trying to judge Jerusalem and the language of that day by today's standards. For example, did you know that Herod and Pilate were considered Kings by Peter and John, even though they were merely governors, or "a client king" in the case of Herod? (Acts 4:26-27.) That can only mean that the word "king" could also mean leader, or ruler. Caesar did not go by the title of king; but the Jews claimed he was (John 19:15.)
Of course you know that Paul, on multiple occasions, indicated the Gospel was preached in all the world, and in one case, "to every creature." Why do you think many Christians of today believe the gospel has to be preached in, say, Bora Bora before Matthew 24 can be fulfilled? Do they not believe Paul? Of have they spiritualized those verses, as well.
Philip
So you see two earthly armies in Revelation 19? One arrayed against Christ and one doing His Will? But the remnants of the army of the kings and beast are not bird food but the inhabitants of Jerusalem? Please point out the modifiers for each. Still quite foggy.
Here is some help with the modifiers:
Revelation 19:17-18 KJV
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.(KJV)
Ok above tells us who will be bird food. It is not the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then we have this:
Revelation 19:19-21 KJV
And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.(KJV)
So this has nothing to do with Jews and Jerusalem. The entire passage is telling us the Beast, the kings of the earth and THEIR armies are arrayed against Christ. These armies are defeated. If these armies are Roman and the beast are a series of Roman emperor beasties then they were to meet their demise and not be a victorious army as history clearly records.
Dartuser, I found your comments well thought out and stimulating. You are smarter than me. Please don't leave us.
Preterism seems a very morbid doctrine. Its focus is the judgment on the Jews and the destruction of Jersualem. It leaves the Gentile churches abandoned and falling into error since they did not understand the Scriptures and lost the core leadership of the early Church when the the Jewish believers were gathered and raptured/resurrected into heaven without telling them what was going on. There is no record of this in Church History.
Let's assume 2 Thessalonians was written in 52-54 AD. It almost sounds like Paul is talking about a Preterist who was early. Nonetheless, I don't recall Philip discussing this, but he is so prolific perhaps I missed it.
I also found interesting this article about Pella Pella: A Window on Survival
In the article “Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion,” Bargil Pixner writes “The Judeo-Christian community in Jerusalem escaped this terrible catastrophe by fleeing to Pella in Transjordan and the countryside of Gilean and Bashan in expectation of the Parousia, the second coming of Christ. When this did not occur and they realized that the time of Jesus’ return was not yet at hand, they decided to go back to Jerusalem to rebuild their sanctuary on the site of the ancient Upper Room—where the Last Supper had been held, where the apostles returned after witnessing Jesus’ ascension on the Mount of Olives and where Peter delivered his Pentecost sermon as recorded in Acts 2. It was this site on which they made their synagogue. They were free to do this because they enjoyed a certain religious freedom from the Romans (religio licita) inasmuch as they were Jews who confessed Jesus as their Messiah, and not gentile converts.”
You're like a dog with a bone, aren't you? You brought up the reference to Elijah in post 154, not me, and you tossed it into the mix because I had already disputed your wrong contention about why myself and others were wanting you to take your Dispensational arguments to a new thread. As for who said what and when, you only see your own angle and not that of others.
My ONLY disagreement was with your insistence that John the Baptist WAS a reborn Elijah the Prophet. That kind of thinking is not Christian because it would mean Elijah was reincarnated as John, the cousin of Jesus, and that doesn't happen. Though John DID do many of the things Elijah is prophesied to do, the REAL Elijah has yet to fulfill what Revelation 11 says concerning the two witnesses. John the Baptist identifies himself as the messenger of Isaiah 40:3, not as the Elijah of Malachi 3:1. Someone coming "in the spirit of" another is not the same thing as that person BEING the one to come.
I can certainly understand why you would defend such an outlandish idea seeing as you really think Elijah has already come to usher in the Messianic kingdom, which is one of the stranger aspects of Preterism - that everything that IS to happen already HAS happened. I absolutely disagree with that eschatology simply because there are things yet to occur before that great and terrible day of the Lord. It hasn't come yet, because had it already happened, we would be in the kingdom of God with the Lord Jesus Christ ruling and reigning with a rod of iron. I seriously doubt He'd have Barack Obama running things anywhere!
The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26)
I can try ...
Your assertion, and the assertion of every preterist, whether hyper or mild, is that Matt 24:34 should govern our interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. That the term 'this generation' must refer to the generation alive at the time of Christ. The passage is ...
Matt 24:34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
My assertion is that the larger context of Matt 24:34 (namely all of Matt 23 through 25) rules out 'this generation' being those alive at the time of Christ.
Recall, beginning in Matt 23 Jesus begins to pronounce the seven woes upon the scribes and Pharisees. The last one is a pronouncement and a prophecy. The Jews acknowledged that their fathers were the ones who killed the prophets and Jesus uses a collective 'you' when proclaiming that they killed Zechariah. He prophecies that they are not done killing prophets as He continues in 23:34-35
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
'whom you murdered between the temple and the altar' ... Jesus uses a collective 'you' here ... Obviously the people Jesus spoke this to, the scribes and Pharisees alive at the time, did not kill Zechariah ... Zechariah lived 500+ years before this. This is the clue that Jesus is using a collective 'you' here to mean ALL Jews (to include the ones who literally DID kill Zechariah). He is using 'you' here to mean the Jews as a race, as a people.
And then a passage that should not confuse you at all ...
36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
What is the nearest anticedent (Greek grammar rules here) to 'this generation' here in verse 36 ... It's the collective 'you' in the previous verse. Therefore 'this generation' must refer to the Jews as a race, all of them collectively, not merely the ones He was addressing at the time.
I think this position is furthered as He then addresses Jerusalem in verse 37 ... where He says that Jerusalem killed the prophets. Well a little common sense dictates that a city cannot kill people. Again, He is using a collective term (Jerusalem) to represent the Jews as a whole. Now notice He then says 'you' will not see me until you proclaim "BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD." Again, the 'you' cannot merely refer to those alive at the time of Christ because those certainly saw His brutal death. What about the proclamation? Why is this proclamation significant? Because this proclamation is Messianic! It cannot refer to the Triumphal Entry ... that already occurred in Matt 21.
My question to any preterist, whether hyper or mild, is simply this ...
In the events of AD 70, when did the Jews alive at the time (your 'this generation') proclaim Jesus to be their Messiah? Answer: They didn't ... and they haven't collectively as a nation up until this day ... we are still waiting for it.
This is why 'this generation' in Matt 23-25 cannot be restricted to the people alive during the time of Christ.
This is also why I think 'this generation' does not merely refer to the Jews alive during the time of the future tribulation period ... that is too restrictive as well (IMHO).
This generation shall not pass away until all these things take place ... the collective 'you', the nation as a whole, the race of people called Jews, will not pass away until they, as a whole, as a nation, as a people ... proclaim Jesus Christ as their Messiah and all the events predicted in Matt. 23-25 come to their fulfillment.
I am fairly confident that you at least now understand what I am saying ...
That was excellent! Great job! There is however one caveat I would bring up but will not in this thread as it would simply muddle up the present dialogue.
Christ sent the Roman Armies to defeat the Jewish Armies; not just at Jerusalem, but in other Israeli cities. The army of Josephus was defeated at or near Galilee--I don't recall the exact circumstances.
Only "tongue in cheek" did I claim the Roman Armies were the "good guys." I had explained that point earlier. I guess you missed it. God on occasion used evil people, already destined for judgement, to carry out his judgements; for example his use of Nebuchadnezzar and his armies against Jerusalem. The same with the Roman armies.
>>>But the remnants of the army of the kings and beast are not bird food but the inhabitants of Jerusalem? Please point out the modifiers for each. Still quite foggy.<<<
I believe I implied it is quite foggy to me too. One thing I am fairly certain of is, much of this is from Old Testament imagery. To take it literally is to do great violence to the scriptures.
>>>Ok above tells us who will be bird food. It is not the inhabitants of Jerusalem.<<<
That was referring to the slain inhabitants of Jerusalem, and possibly the slain from other areas of Israel, such as Galilee, who literally suffered the same fate. Moses prophecied that fate for Jerusalem, primarily; but for Israel, in general:
"And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away." (Deut 28:26)
Jeremiah targeted Jerusalem, and mentioned all key prophecies in one short passage:
"And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem [by the destruction of the temple] in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies [the Roman armies], and by the hands of them that seek their lives [their own people inside the city]: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth [that is exactly what happened]. And I will make this city desolate [that is also history], and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege [even that horrible thing happened during the siege] and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them." (Jer 19:7-9 KJV)
That was, in a nutshell, the destiny of old Jerusalem, aka, Babylon the Great.
Moses also prophesied the siege of Jerusalem, and the cannibalism that occurred inside the city during the siege, as well as the ultimate destiny of Israel, which included this passage of the Lord rejoicing over their destruction:
"And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind … " (Deut 28:63-65)
Why would the Lord rejoice over her? Maybe because of the blood of the prophets, apostles and saints that was shed by her; which is not intended, in any way, to marginalize the blood of prophet named the Lord:
"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Rev 18:20)
There is much more. I would recommend everyone study Deuteronomy 28 before making any judgements about the book of Revelation. Jeremiah 13 is another informative read.
>>>So this has nothing to do with Jews and Jerusalem. The entire passage is telling us the Beast, the kings of the earth and THEIR armies are arrayed against Christ.<<<
Who was arrayed against Christ? Nero, for forty and two months; and the Jews for the entire period after the beginning of Christ's ministry. There was no one else until much later, under Domitian: and his persecutions were mild compared to the tyrant, Nero. Yes, Nero was known as the tyrant.
The persecutions under Nero began in the latter part of '64 and ended on June 9, '68, upon his suicide. That was prophesied in this passage:
"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." (Rev 13:5)
Nero thought of himself as a god, or the God. It was risky business not to worship, or pay homage to his many images scattered throughout the empire. The extent of his authority was also mentioned as "world-wide," which in those days meant the Roman Empire:
"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." (Rev 13:7)
Redleghunter, the scriptures are heavily stacked against a futurist interpretation, and all the time references are against it. Are you sure you want to continue this "gotcha" routine? Or would you rather care to explore all possibilities? I have quite a few questions myself that I would like the answer to. This is some very puzzling stuff. Even with the help of similar old testament imagery, a good chunk of it is still a great mystery.
Philip
I don't know everything about preterism, but one thing I am fairly certain of is, they do not believe such morbid things as the world being destroyed. It takes a very morbid mind to believe that, considering all the scripture pointing in the opposite direction, beginning with John 3:17:
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17)
>>>Its focus is the judgment on the Jews and the destruction of Jersualem.<<<
That takes a lot of the heat off of us. What is morbid about that? That places all general (national) judgements in the past. Futurism is the truly morbid doctrine: from their literal interpretations of "all green grass is burnt up," to a "third part of men slain," to the "great tribulation" which they miraculously escape from!
>>>It leaves the Gentile churches abandoned and falling into error since they did not understand the Scriptures and lost the core leadership of the early Church when the the Jewish believers were gathered and raptured/resurrected into heaven without telling them what was going on.<<<
That is a truly bizarre interpretation. I certainly don't believe the first part of your very long sentence. Christ loved the church, and gave his life for it. He will never abandon the church. The church will remain on this earth, eternally.
I do believe Christ will eventually force a reconsideration of unbiblical doctrine, such as that of the RCC and futurism: and certainly that of the antichristian religions, such as Judaism and Islam.
>>>When did the man of sin sit in the Temple of God at Jerusalem declaring himself to be God?<<<
It never said he would sit in the Temple of Jerusalem. You made that up, or someone did and you plagarized. Paul very well may have been referring to either the spiritual temple (which he generally did in his epistles,) or to a pagan shrine or temple. This is the Greek:
nah-os’; from a primary nai>w (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple: — shrine, temple.
In every case where Jesus or the apostles referred to the body as the temple, that same Greek word was used. Not so for the Greek for the physical Temple at Jerusalem (hee-er-on):
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple (nah-os,) and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19)
"Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples (nah-os) made with hands; as saith the prophet," (Acts 7:48)
"If any man defile the temple (nah-os) of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple (nah-os) of God is holy, which temple (nah-os) ye are." (1 Corin 3:17)
"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple (nah-os)of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess 2:4)
Everything you wrote is speculative hogwash, and a bitter pill, to boot.
Philip
You are the one who broke loose from a chain and came after me like a rabid dog. I certainly didn't come after you. You lied about what I said, and about what others said. That is all there is too it.
[clip, clip, clip]
>>>My ONLY disagreement was with your insistence that John the Baptist WAS a reborn Elijah the Prophet.<<<
When did I insist that? I'll tell you when: NEVER! I do recall you accused me of it in your haste to prove me wrong, for whatever reason, which I am reasonably sure was due to your bias. I tried to explain that you had completely and totally misinterpreted what I said; but you would have none of it.
It is about time you admit you misquoted me, boatbums..
Boatbums, until you either admit you are wrong, or demonstrate what you are claiming is true: not with excerpts, but the with actual URL and post#('s) so we can read them; I have no alternative but to consider you as little more than a blowhard.
Philip
It is not a gotcha routine. I have pounded Revelation 19 because you have a lot more going on there than the text offers. There is absolutely no evidence to provide an interpretation that the feast of fowls are the Jews of Jerusalem and elsewhere. It IS clear from the text the armies of the kings and beast are the subject of destruction. Not Jews or Jerusalem or any other locations in Judea etc. At one point you hinted that the feast of fowls was the marriage supper!
>>>>Your assertion, and the assertion of every preterist, whether hyper or mild, is that Matt 24:34 should govern our interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. That the term 'this generation' must refer to the generation alive at the time of Christ. The passage is ...<<<
"Matt 24:34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
>>>My assertion is that the larger context of Matt 24:34 (namely all of Matt 23 through 25) rules out 'this generation' being those alive at the time of Christ.<<<
First, let's put your quote into context. The disciples ask Jesus these things about the destruction of Jerusalem, his coming, and the end of the age:
"And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (Matt 24:2-3, NKJV)
We know the destruction of Jerusalem happened in the disciple's generation, as Jesus said it would in the verse you quoted. Are we supposed to assume that Jesus was talking about two different generations: one for the destruction of Jerusalem, and another for his coming and the end of the age?
How do you explain all of these?
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23 KJV)
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mat 16:27-28 KJV)
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 KJV)
"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." (Mat 23:34-38 KJV)
"And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us." (Luke 23:27-30 KJV)
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Acts 2:40 KJV)
That is a lot of "this generation" verses to explain away."
>>>Recall, beginning in Matt 23 Jesus begins to pronounce the seven woes upon the scribes and Pharisees. The last one is a pronouncement and a prophecy. The Jews acknowledged that their fathers were the ones who killed the prophets and Jesus uses a collective 'you' when proclaiming that they killed Zechariah. He prophecies that they are not done killing prophets as He continues in 23:34-35 . . . <<<
They killed Stephen, Peter, Paul, and many others that he sent, before the punishment phase was finished around 70 A.D. I wonder why they killed Zechariah? Maybe he warned them about this:
"…they shall look upon me whom they have pierced…."(Zech 12:10)
>>>'whom you murdered between the temple and the altar' ... Jesus uses a collective 'you' here ... Obviously the people Jesus spoke this to, the scribes and Pharisees alive at the time, did not kill Zechariah ... Zechariah lived 500+ years before this. This is the clue that Jesus is using a collective 'you' here to mean ALL Jews (to include the ones who literally DID kill Zechariah). He is using 'you' here to mean the Jews as a race, as a people.<<<
The blood of Jesus's generation of Israel and Judah paid for it. That is not only what Jesus said would happen, but that is confirmed in history. I personally consider the slaughter of 1.1 million Jews in the city of Jerusalem to be enough bloodshed. And there was even more shed in the outliers. When is enough, enough?
>>And then a passage that should not confuse you at all ...<<<
"36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."
I was never confused about that verse until I heard others make futuristic claims about. Then I was only confused about how they could have dreamed up such a thing. It was not until later that I realized that a futuristic interpretation was essential to the rest of their doctrine. Without those contortions of time and tense, the doctrine crumbled like a house of cards
>>What is the nearest anticedent (Greek grammar rules here) to 'this generation' here in verse 36 ... It's the collective 'you' in the previous verse.<<<
Why was he not referring to the "collective" disciples he was actually talking to as the "collective" you? My Greek says "you" is derived "ye (yourselves.)" Sounds like you are implying Jesus was saying, "Hey, you guys, I ain't talkin' to you!"
>>>Therefore 'this generation' must refer to the Jews as a race, all of them collectively, not merely the ones He was addressing at the time.<<<
I heard it all before, and it sounds just as wrested now as all the other times.
>>>I think this position is furthered as He then addresses Jerusalem in verse 37 ... where He says that Jerusalem killed the prophets. Well a little common sense dictates that a city cannot kill people.<<<
He answered that question, before it was asked, by telling them they were exactly like their blood-thirsty fathers:
"And [Jesus] say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Mat 23:30-33 KJV)
Additionally, if you recall, Israel was also judged "collectively" as a nation in the old testament. That "tradition" carried on to the very end of the old testament and the nation of Israel in 70 A.D..
>>>"Again, He is using a collective term (Jerusalem) to represent the Jews as a whole.<<<
Like I said …
>>>Now notice He then says 'you' will not see me until you proclaim "BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD." Again, the 'you' cannot merely refer to those alive at the time of Christ because those certainly saw His brutal death. What about the proclamation? Why is this proclamation significant? Because this proclamation is Messianic! It cannot refer to the Triumphal Entry ... that already occurred in Matt 21.<<<
And frankly, you don't know what it means, nor do I, nor does Mark Hitchcock (who for some strange reason pretends that argument justifies his time and tense contortions.)
>>>My question to any preterist, whether hyper or mild, is simply this ...<<< >>>In the events of AD 70, when did the Jews alive at the time (your 'this generation') proclaim Jesus to be their Messiah? Answer: They didn't ... and they haven't collectively as a nation up until this day ... we are still waiting for it.<<<
I'm not a preterist, but I will try to answer: Why are you waiting for it? Only a remnant was saved, as prophesied; and I assure you all of that remnant proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah (count is as more than an educated guess.) The dreamed-up notion that, after Israel "rejected" Christ, the Church was created as some sort of afterthought, or Plan B, is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. I cannot imagine the mind of a person that could dream that up. It could only come from the minds of charlatans like John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Ingerson Scofield; or, more sinisterly, someone or body who was trying to undermine the Church, or keep Jews from being saved, like Satan and his lieutenants. This is all you really need to know to counteract that notion:
"…Christ… loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Eph 5:25 KJV)
But there is much more. The church, on heavenly mount Sion is referenced several times in the Old and New Testaments, with this as the likely context:
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant..." (Hebrews 12:22-24)
With that context in mind, the following passages further identify the heavenly mount Sion:
"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;” (1 Peter 2:5-9 )
"But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:31-33)
"For through him we [Jews and Gentiles] both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:18-22)
To dispel any notion that the Church was an afterthought: created only because the Jews rejected Christ; the chief cornerstone of the Holy Temple at heavenly Sion (or, Zion) was also prophesied by Isaiah, which was one of the references used earlier by Peter and Paul:
"Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." (Isaiah 28:14-18)
In Matthew 21:42 Jesus quoted David (below) who also prophesied that Jesus would become the chief cornerstone:
"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." (Psalms 118:22-23 )
And Isaiah wrote of the stumblingstone in another chapter:
"And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." (Isaiah 8:14)
Notice the “stumblingstone” serves both as a sanctuary for the just, and a snare for the wicked. Only a remnant were "just," and therefore saved.
Anyway, the prophets described the Church in the same manner as the apostles. Even Moses prophesied that the Lord would bring in the Gentiles:
"They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." (Deu 32:21 KJV)
That was about 1500 years before Christ. Further, Moses said nothing about a second chance for Israel, but rather gave this warning:
"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:22-23 KJV)
Does that sound like a "second chance" to you? Isaiah said that a root of Jesse (Christ) would not only bring in the Gentiles; but would gather together Israel and Judah from everywhere:
"And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isa 11:10-12 KJV)
Of course, as mentioned, only a remnant were saved. Christ called them his Lost Sheep, and made it clear that was his only mission while he was on earth:
"…I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mat 15:24 KJV)
It would be most difficult to read anything into that, but I would guess some will. After Jesus collected his lost sheep, or nearly all of them, the "tents of David" were raised and the Gentiles were brought in, as prophesied in Amos 9:11 and fulfilled by the conversion of Cornelius, the Gentile. That happened around Acts 10.
All that stuff about the Jews rejecting Christ as meaning anything other than "the Jews rejected Christ, as prophesied," is adding words to the Word of God, which is a no-no.
>>>This is also why I think 'this generation' does not merely refer to the Jews alive during the time of the future tribulation period ... that is too restrictive as well (IMHO) . . . I am fairly confident that you at least now understand what I am saying ...<<<
I have heard it all before. I can say that whoever came up with those contortions of Jesus' plain words would have put the imagination of Rod Serling to shame.
Philip
Yes it was. You asked for my opinion, and I gave it. So far you have not proven me wrong, in any aspect, because that is impossible. No one knows what that chapter really means. There are only opinions, including yours and mine. You do know that, but you keep pretending your interpretations are sounder than mine, or something.
>>>I have pounded Revelation 19 because you have a lot more going on there than the text offers. <<<
I know YOU have a lot more going on than the text offers.
>>>There is absolutely no evidence to provide an interpretation that the feast of fowls are the Jews of Jerusalem and elsewhere.<<<
Let's look at what we do know. We do know that the feast includes:
"…the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great."
And I know that citizens of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities were the only ones slaughtered, except for some smaller Roman forces that were overrun early-on by the Jews.
The great feast could have only been the unburied bodies of the Jews and Israelites. And since there was no one left to bury them, we are talking about over one million bodies.
And in a previous post I provided prophecy from Moses and Jeremiah that indicated an almost identical event would happen to those of Jerusalem. What kind of evidence are you looking for? Aerial photography? LOL! Just kidding.
>>>It IS clear from the text the armies of the kings and beast are the subject of destruction.<<<
Nothing is clear in Chapter 19. I do see two major-league problems with your opinion:
1. Are you are claiming they were killed by the words of the Lord's mouth? If not, how were they killed?
2. Where does it say the beast had any armies that were destroyed (physically killed;) and were does it say the king's and their armies are not Jews, and where does it say they were physically killed?
>>>Not Jews or Jerusalem or any other locations in Judea etc. <<<
Where else could it be? The two witnesses were killed in Jerusalem. The city had the blood of all the prophets on its hands (and we have been fresh out of prophets since about A.D. 70.) What are the odds of someone else fitting all those pieces of the puzzle for the beast, other than Nero? What about his forty and two months making war with the saints, which worked out almost exactly according to historical records. What about the forty and two months the Roman armies tread under foot the holy city? (Rev 11:2)
What about all the time constraints? How long is "shortly come to pass," "behold I come quickly," and "the time is at hand?"
The angel instructed Daniel to seal up the book until the time of the end. John was instructed to NOT seal his book. It doesn't add up that we would have to wait another 2000 or more years for the fulfillment of an unsealed book, especially when there are about thirty clues that the fulfillment would be within a very short time.
Moses prophesied 1500 years prior to what he called the latter days, and never--not once--considered them to be other than in the distant future.
Explain away all of these, and many, many more, and I will reconsider your claim that it was not in Judea, etc..
>>>At one point you hinted that the feast of fowls was the marriage supper!<<<
I believe it was. Look at the sequence:
"Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb." (Rev 19:9)
And who was invited? The righteous:
"And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." (Rev 19:14)
And when and where was the supper held? Only in one place and at one time:
"…Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God." (Rev 19:17)
Of course, there is nothing definitive; but only twice is marriage mentioned in the Revelation, and only twice is supper mentioned: all in Rev 19:7-17. When you let the scripture interpret the scripture, like I try to do, sometimes there is not a lot of wiggle room.
What is your interpretation of the marriage supper of the Lamb?
Philip
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,
We can know what was referred to as the Holy Place by looking again at scripture.
Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
Besides not only does the antichrist sign a peace treaty first but then the antichrist puts an end to the sacrifices then sets himself up as God in the Holy Place.
Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
They can’t tell us who it was prior to 70AD that signed a peace treaty with Israel then stopped the sacrifice and set himself up as God in the “Holy Place” aka Temple?
So the marriage supper of Christ is His faithful bride eating the flesh of dead kings and Jews. Wow and here I thought Roman Catholics were strange for their fascination with literal eating of flesh.
Seems from your own admission you have some exegesis building to do. Understand so take a knee and drink water.
CB nothing to see here. Another incomplete attempt at trying to prove other views wrong. I do give Phil my deepest respect for actually trying to present his views without comparison. First ever attempt that I know of at any site I frequent.
Phil as you stated you have some work to do. I respect the honesty. Ping us when you are complete.
>>>So the marriage supper of Christ is His faithful bride eating the flesh of dead kings and Jews. Wow and here I thought Roman Catholics were strange for their fascination with literal eating of flesh.<<<
You really do have a lot of trouble reading. Where does it say the bride is eating flesh? Where does it say the bride is eating anything? Do you consider the bride of Christ a fowl? That is even more strange that some of the Catholic stuff. LOL!
If I were you, I wouldn’t be so quick to pull that snarky trigger, next time.
Philip
>>>I do give Phil my deepest respect for actually trying to present his views without comparison.<<<
Thank you for your concern. When you learn the scriptures, and most of all, how to READ, get back with me and maybe I will squeeze in a debate or two with you.
Almost forgot the most important point: try to understand that the Bride of Christ is not a fowl of any type.
What a joke.
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.