We are the caretakers of the universe

PH: "So there are two ways to look at this, from the preterist position or from a post/amillennial position. I could argue with you that it was all fulfilled, but I still need to investigate the amillennial viewpoint before I stick my neck out in defense of full-fledged preterism."

This is the kind of thing that makes me want to bang my head against a wall. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nor do I care.

This book is supposed to be the "word of God," right? So why is all of this analysis on top of micro-analysis necessary?? He couldn't write it plainly and clearly? If he can't make it clear, then how can he expect you poor mortals and cringing sinners to understand it? And how come there's no revised edition? Where's he been this last two+ millennia?

ME: What about the gathering of the elect (Matt 24:, where two people are working in a field, and one is "taken"? (Matt 24:40-41)

PH: “What about it?”

What about it?? Do you think it happened???

ME: He says that "all these things" will happen.

PH: ”And they did.”

Bull.

ME: He doesn't divide it into destruction of temple = God's kingdom on Earth, everything else = judgement day, end of Earth. It's all rolled up together.

PH: ”Who was Jesus talking about in Matthew 23 and in reference to what?”

To “the multitudes” and his disciples (indirectly to the “scribes and Pharisees”) about the “end times” and his return.

ME: That is a "plain" reading. You are hoop-jumping - because it didn't happen!

PH: ”No you are. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Some 19th century liberal theologian, centuries removed?”

PH: “… it does make Matthew 24 make sense up to vs.36 and I could contend for the whole chapter, as in regards to the destruction of the Temple and city.”

Well that would be just dandy, Peter, except that it’s not just about the destruction of the temple and the city, it’s about the destruction of everything! It’s about death and destruction of all of the people except the “elect.” It’s about people suddenly disappearing while going about their daily lives – of being lifted into the sky as God called his elect. It’s about stars “falling” (as though such a thing were possible), and the moon no longer giving its light (as though it had any to give – or is the sun being extinguished?)

PH: “It is not something that you would be willing to accept Pam. You are going to fight it tooth and claw, since admitting to the possibility would throw your system of philosophy into a tailspin.”

I don’t have a “ system of philosophy,” Peter. I just have a working BS detection system.

ME: Did it ever occur to you that the gospels might have been written after the destruction of the temple…?

PH: “No, there is too much evidence to the contrary such as the language these writers used was common to the early first century, these writers or most of them suffered to the point of death, declaring what - a lie? They had witnessed the risen Lord and where willing to die for this. The early church confirms these writings, the prophesies in the OT pointed to the time of the Messiah, and for Daniel to predict this centuries before - come on.

The writers suffered to the point of death??? No one knows who the writers of the gospels even were! And it’s quite easy to make predictions after the fact. None of this was written until after the events “predicted.”

ME: What about all the rest, though? All the terrible death and destruction that would nearly kill everyone, except it would stop in time to save the "elect"? (Matt 24:22)

PH: “Who were the elect that Jesus refers to Pam???”

Well, gee, Peter, why don’t you tell me? You’re the one who believes all this nonsense. A cursory inquiry on the ‘net doesn’t do anything to solve the puzzle. Some say the elect are the people of the nation of Israel, some say the members of “the church” (presumably the Catholic one), and one (John MacArthur) says this:

In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.

His ideas of goodness, love, wisdom and justice are certainly different from mine.

when this times out, go here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/mathew_n_schmalz/2010/06/catholic_views_of_animals.html

peter,
you say the apocalypse happened?!?! i say that's baloney - the world's still here the stars haven't fallen, the moon still "gives it's light". jesus hasn't returned.

you say i've done nothing to offer a counter argument?!?! that's baloney too. my argument is simple: read the "olivet discourses". it didn't happen. there's no talk in there about a "two fold" fulfillment. that's just stuff you're making up.

i don't know what the !$$%!#$ you're talking about with "liberal theology" being "adament" in denying it ever happened". [you said "denying it never", but i think you mean "denying it ever happened", right?]

that's just more baloney/obfuscation: i'm don't give a hoot about liberal theology. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. you can excrete (and exegete, if you wish) whatever verses you like, but the fact is the apocalypse that jesus promised to his disciples DID NOT HAPPEN.

see all those verses i referenced? many are from revelation. revelation says "soon", and "the time is near", "i am coming quickly" and so forth. when do you contend revelation was written? i think almost everyone concedes it was written after the destruction of the temple, right? do you?

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "peter,
i think it's pretty well established that first century christians expected the apocalypse to happen to them."

I agree with you Walter. I contend that it did with the destruction of the Temple and city. I have contended that the final judgment is still to come, but that God did judge the Jews. Many of these prophesies were fulfilled in the first century.

Me to Pam: "That is a "plain" reading. You are hoop-jumping - because it didn't happen!"

Relate the quote to the context it was used in Walter. Plus liberal theology is so adamant in denying it never happened. The Resurrection never happened. The virgin birth never happened. The Bible is not the word of God. Liberal theology argues that the prophesies were written after the fact of the destruction of the Temple? This is all 19th century carp.

WALTER: ?!?! huh? we are not basing anything on any 19th-century theologian. we're just holding jesus accountable for what he said. we're taking him at his (supposed) word."

Then do you agree that He was talking about a time of judgment on the Jews in which the destruction of the Temple and city would usher in the new age of God's kingdom, in grace, and destroy the OT system of sacrifice and worship, so that those who worship Him will now do so in spirit and in truth?

And when you take Him at His word and look at history what do you find? You find that the Jews were judged for their sins, that their Temple and city was destroyed as Jesus said it would be.

Let's get into the verses.

Do you want me to go through the exegesis of the Scriptures you've supplied, one by one, to see what the connection is? I've already provided some key Scriptural passages as to why these things were just as Jesus said they would be and the rational behind it. You have done nothing to offer a counter argument.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "peter,
i think it's pretty well established that first century christians expected the apocalypse to happen to them."

I agree with you Walter. I contend that it did with the destruction of the Temple and city. I have contended that the final judgment is still to come, but that God did judge the Jews. Many of these prophesies were fulfilled in the first century.

Me to Pam: "That is a "plain" reading. You are hoop-jumping - because it didn't happen!"

Relate the quote to the context it was used in Walter. Plus liberal theology is so adamant in denying it never happened. The Resurrection never happened. The virgin birth never happened. The Bible is not the word of God. Liberal theology argues that the prophesies were written after the fact of the destruction of the Temple? This is all 19th century carp.

WALTER: ?!?! huh? we are not basing anything on any 19th-century theologian. we're just holding jesus accountable for what he said. we're taking him at his (supposed) word."

Then do you agree that He was talking about a time of judgment on the Jews in which the destruction of the Temple and city would usher in the new age of God's kingdom, in grace, and destroy the OT system of sacrifice and worship, so that those who worship Him will now do so in spirit and in truth?

And when you take Him at His word and look at history what do you find? You find that the Jews were judged for their sins, that their Temple and city was destroyed as Jesus said it would be.

Let's get into the verse.

Do you want me to go through the exegesis of the Scriptures you've supplied, one by one, to see what the connection is? I've already provided some key Scriptural passages as to why these things were just as Jesus said they would be and the rational behind it. You have done nothing to offer a counter argument.

* Peter to those who had received the faith: But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. (2Pet.3:13)
* Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,... (2Pet.3:14)

* John to those who believed in the name of the Son of God: ...the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining. (1Jn.2:8)
* And the world is passing away... (1Jn.2:17)
* Children, it is the last hour...from this we know that it is the last hour. (1Jn.2:18)
* We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. (1Jn.3:2)
* ...we may have confidence in the day of judgment...(1Jn.4:17

* The revelation of Jesus Christ communicated through John to His bond-servants: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place... (Rv.1:1)
* ...for the time is near. (Rv.1:3)
* ... He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him...(Rv.1:7)
* I am coming quickly...(Rv.3:11)
* Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth. (Rv.3:10
* ...things which must shortly take place. (Rv.22:6)
* ...I am coming quickly. (Rv.22:7)
* ...Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. (Rv.22:10)
* Behold, I am coming quickly...(Rv.22:12)
* Yes, I am coming quickly. (Rv.22:20)
**************************

so anyway, sorry about all that. those are verses somebody ( http://lynnish.tripod.com/index.html ) compiled to show why early christians expected ALL these things to happen to THEM.

* To the Hebrews: God...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son... (Heb.1:1,2)
* For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end; (Heb.3:14)
* But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb.8:13)
* For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;... (Heb.9:24)
* ...you see the day drawing near. (Heb.10:25)
* For yet in a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay. (Heb.10:37)

* James to the twelve tribes who were dispersed abroad: Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. (James 5:7)
* ...the coming of the Lord is at hand. ...the Judge is standing right at the door. (James 5:7-9)
* ..the Judge is standing right at the door. (James 5:9)

* Peter to those who resided as aliens: ...according to His great mercy has caused us...who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1Pet.1:3,5)
* ...you...may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1Pet.1:6,7)
* ...grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1Pet.1:13)
* He...has appeared in these last times for the sake of you... (1Pet.1:20)
* Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1Pet.2:12)
* ...but they shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. (1Pet.4:5)
* The end of all things is at hand...(1Pet.4:7)
* For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God... (1Pet.4:17)
* Therefore I ... a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, (1Pet.5:1)
* And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (1Pet.5:4)

* Paul to the church of God at Corinth: ...you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1Cor.1:7,8)
* ...the time has been shortened. (1Cor.7:29)
* ...the form of this world is passing away. (1Cor.7:31)
* Now these things ... were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages has come. (1Cor.10:11)
* ...we shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed... (1Cor.15:51)
* ...I hope you will understand until the end...(2Cor.1:3)

* Paul , Timothy and bond-servants of Christ, to all the saints who were in Philippi: ...so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ... (Phil.1:10)
* ...we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ... (Phil.3:20
* The Lord is near. (Phil.4:5)

* Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians: ...we are of the day...(1Thes.5:8)
* Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1Thes.5:23)
* Faithful is He who calls you and He also will bring it to pass. (1Thes.5:24)
* ...Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, our gathering together to Him...(2Thes.2:1,2)

* Paul to Timothy: I charge you ... that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ... (1Tim.6:13,14)
* ...I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. (2Tim1:12)
* ...The Lord may grant to him (Onesiphorus) to find mercy from the Lord on that day..(2Tim.1:18)
* If we endure, we shall also reign with Him... (2Tim.2:12)
* I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: (2Tim.4:1)
* ...in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing. (2Tim.4:8)

* Paul to Titus: For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (Titus 2:11-14)

* Jesus to His disciples: ...until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. (Mt.5:18)

* Jesus to His twelve apostles: ...you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes. (Mt.10:23)

* Jesus to His disciples: ...there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Mt.16:27,28)

* Jesus to His disciples: ...this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Mt.24:34, See Lk.21:32)

* Jesus to the high priest: ...hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Mt.26:64)

* Jesus to His disciples and the crowd: ...there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power. (Mk.9:1)

* Jesus to the disciples: ...there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. (Lk.9:27)

* Jesus to His disciples and the crowd: ...there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power. (Mk.9:1)

* Jesus to His disciples: ...there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. (Lk.9:27)

* Jesus to Nathaniel: ...you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. (Jn.1:51)

* Jesus to Peter: If I want him (John) to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me! (Jn.21:22,23)

* Paul to all who were beloved of God in Rome: ...it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. (Ro.13:11,12)

peter,
i think it's pretty well established that first century christians expected the apocalypse to happen to them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/jesusjohnbaptist.html

and with good reason. not only from the "olivet discourse", but other scripture:

1thess4:
15 According to the Lord's word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

note: "we who are still alive". he does not say "yet to be born people in the future".
***************

PAM: "That is a "plain" reading. You are hoop-jumping - because it didn't happen!"

PETER: No you are. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Some 19th century liberal theologian, centuries removed?

WALTER: ?!?! huh? we are not basing anything on any 19th-century theologian. we're just holding jesus accountable for what he said. we're taking him at his (supposed) word.

Hi Pam,

PAM: "Peter, you're latching on to the destruction of the temple as if that makes the whole chapter make sense. It doesn't."

It makes the whole NT make sense. Read it through with this in mind.

And it does make Matthew 24 make sense up to vs.36 and I could contend for the whole chapter, as in regards to the destruction of the Temple and city.

It is not something that you would be willing to accept Pam. You are going to fight it tooth and claw, since admitting to the possibility would throw your system of philosophy into a tailspin.

PAM: "Did it ever occur to you that the gospels might have been written after the destruction of the temple, and included Jesus's "prediction" to give credence to his other predictions? ("See here, you heathens, the first sign has come to pass.")"

No, there is too much evidence to the contrary such as the language these writers used was common to the early first century, these writers or most of them suffered to the point of death, declaring what - a lie? They had witnessed the risen Lord and where willing to die for this. The early church confirms these writings, the prophesies in the OT pointed to the time of the Messiah, and for Daniel to predict this centuries before - come on.

PAM: "What about all the rest, though? All the terrible death and destruction that would nearly kill everyone, except it would stop in time to save the "elect"? (Matt 24:22)"

Who were the elect that Jesus refers to Pam???

I can give you references by Josephus and other secular writers that point to this time as being a time of 'Jacob's trouble,' a time of great persecution for the Jews and mass numbers dying before the Fall of Jerusalem at the hand of the Romans, such as Nero, who was also referred to as 'the Beast.'

PAM:"What about the gathering of the elect (Matt 24:, where two people are working in a field, and one is "taken"? (Matt 24:40-41)"

What about it?

PAM: "He says that "all these things" will happen."

And they did.

PAM: "He doesn't divide it into destruction of temple = God's kingdom on Earth, everything else = judgement day, end of Earth. It's all rolled up together.

Who was Jesus talking about in Matthew 23 and in reference to what?

PAM: "That is a "plain" reading. You are hoop-jumping - because it didn't happen!"

No you are. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Some 19th century liberal theologian, centuries removed?

PS. My sister phoned yesterday afternoon to tell me she is arriving in town from England today so I might be indisposed of for a few days.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "just after saying, "heaven and earth will pass away", jesus says,

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

WALTER: "to me, this plainly says that "the coming of the son of man" is not some kind of limited judgment of local jews - its going to be the end of the world, like the flood was for people living then."

Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology suggests a two fold coming. My mind has still to be made up, but this view holds promise.

"But Jesus, by His kingdom of heaven parables in Matthew 13, revealed that the kingdom of God, which was from the perspective of the OT a complex but 'undivided unit,' would unfold itself in two stages. The second stage - the consummating phase - of the kingdom of God, Jesus taught, would indeed come as Daniel had prophesied, manifesting itself with the coming of the Son of Man in great power and glory (Matthew 25:31-46). But before it came in power, Jesus taught by these 'mystery' parables, the kingdom had first come in grace, also in His own person (see Matt. 13:37), coming gradually, coming largely in the internal, invisible sphere of the spiritual life, and tolerating imperfections in its subjects and even resistance from the world system and the kingdom of Satan."

Part 2

So there are two ways to look at this, from the preterist position or from a post/amillennial position. I could argue with you that it was all fulfilled, but I still need to investigate the amillennial viewpoint before I stick my neck out in defense of full-fledged preterism. Right now I take the partial preterist position on Scripture. Since chapter and verse were introduced to the Scriptures at a later date it is hard to know if there is this alleged break in Scripture, but it certainly appears to be so. I'll save my comment for later.

The point is that in Matthew 23 Jesus is talking about judgment to that generation of Jews (Matthew 23:32, 35-36). And from 24:1-35 at least, and possibly to the previously mention demarcation (25:46), the signs/predictions about the destruction of the Temple, warnings of false messiahs, wars and rumors of wars, the preaching of the kingdom/the gospel,the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds (figurative language) can all be seen to have happened by the Fall of Jerusalem and the events leading up to it.

No where in the NT are we given the indication that these writers had witnessed the Fall. But we are given indication that the end of the age and the time text passages speak of something that is about to happen quickly/soon/shortly. The time is at hand, it is near.

The phrase "when YOU see all these things" indicates that He is speaking to the disciples and people of THAT generation and that all these thing will be fulfilled that He mentions.

Daniel speaks of four kingdoms or empires that would arise and come to pass before God sets up the final and eternal kingdom, the one that Jesus said was in their midst.

Satan is finally crushed, he will not prevail over the church, the body of believers on earth, for Jesus has won our freedom. We worship Him, as with the Father, in spirit and in truth. We recognize the sovereign Lord.

omg! thor is upset with jesus:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061500172.html

peter, please ignore this post. it's intended for pam and i surely don't want to add another issue (daniel) to your plate.

pam, you said
"Did it ever occur to you that the gospels might have been written after the destruction of the temple, and included Jesus's "prediction" to give credence to his other predictions? ("See here, you heathens, the first sign has come to pass.")"

of course that's what actually happened - it was written after the temple's destruction. nonetheless, for the sake of discussion, i'm granting that it was written before the destruction so we don't get all hung up on that.

it reminds me of those "prophesies" in daniel (i can't cite them right now, but they're in there) where they're going along being really specific and concrete with the predictions, and lo and behold they came true!

but then the prophesies get all vague and mysterious and symbolic and we have to guess about how to interpret them and whether they've been fulfilled and so forth.

this shift might seem strange to a believer (or it might not bother them at all), but to any rational person it gives a really big clue about when the daniel "prophesies" were actually written.

Peter, you're latching on to the destruction of the temple as if that makes the whole chapter make sense. It doesn't.

Did it ever occur to you that the gospels might have been written after the destruction of the temple, and included Jesus's "prediction" to give credence to his other predictions? ("See here, you heathens, the first sign has come to pass.")

What about all the rest, though? All the terrible death and destruction that would nearly kill everyone, except it would stop in time to save the "elect"? (Matt 24:22)

What about the gathering of the elect (Matt 24:, where two people are working in a field, and one is "taken"? (Matt 24:40-41)

He says that "all these things" will happen. He doesn't divide it into destruction of temple = God's kingdom on Earth, everything else = judgement day, end of Earth. It's all rolled up together.

That is a "plain" reading. You are hoop-jumping - because it didn't happen!

peter,
thanks for bringing up mt24:36 and the subsequent verses. i think those clarify things nicely:

just after saying, "heaven and earth will pass away", jesus says,

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

to me, this plainly says that "the coming of the son of man" is not some kind of limited judgment of local jews - its going to be the end of the world, like the flood was for people living then.

pot-AY-to/po-TAH-to, false prophesy/olivet discourse....

wow...you guys and your fancy names...

ok, in the "olivet discourse", jesus promised his return, on clouds with trumpets etc... you are saying that already happened - it's just that almost nobody noticed it....

please don't give a 7-part answer. i think your answer is "yes" - that he's returned for some kind of preliminary judgemet, right? and that now, 2000 years later we're still waiting for the final judgement when "heaven and earth will pass away..."

it's my contention that your 7-part apology for the olivet discourse belies a plain reading of matthew 24.

***********

don't you think the existence of varves makes god a prankster? certainly a plain reading of varves indicates they took millions of years to be deposited.

Hi Walter, Pam,

Okay, you win, on the footprints I mean. As for brushing off the Olivet Dicourse, is this the best you can do Walter?

WALTER:"hahahaha, no, that's ok, peter. no need to go further into jesus' false prophesies...."

As I said before, it is amazing to the degree Jesus got it right, amazing that is for someone who does not believe He is God (but to those who do, we know that He knows all things and all things are working according to His will).

The question that I still have to work out is the break between Matthew 24:1-35 and 36- Matthew 26:46 and what it means.

But as for the kingdom coming Jesus said,

"Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, 'The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst." (Luke 17:20-21)

And again,

"Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" (John 3:3, 5)

Or,

"But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship in spirit and truth; or such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers." John 4:23)

Remember in Matthew 23 Jesus pronounces seven prophetic woes to the teachers of the law. Judgment is about to come on the Jewish nation for its sins, not only for not recognizing the Messiah, but for all the sins the nation had heaped up. (Matthew 23:32, 35-36).

As for the gospel being proclaimed to the whole [then known, to the Jews at least] world at that time, Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology, p .1001, 1002, lists four references,

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.' And they declared: 'We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues.!" (Acts 2:5, 11)

"Your faith is being reported all over the world." (Romans 1:8)

"consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did. 'Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Romans 10:17-18)

"All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing....This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven." (Colossians 1:6, 23)

So we see in the time of the apostles, after the crucifixion, before the destruction of the Temple, the proclamation of the gospel that Jesus talked about in Matthew 24:14 being fulfilled. It has gone out to the whole world that they knew of.

To be continued. I need sleep after working all night!

Yeah, that second one looks real, too, doesn't it?

No problem with the size of the people compared to the dirt road and the vegetation. LOL!

nephilim?

pam, they could be this guy's footprints.
http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20041001_en.html

or this guy's
http://kedarsoman.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/image004.jpg

Oh, please, Peter. This is stuff that has been long since debunked. Go out and step in some mud barefooted and see if your footprint looks anything like the Burdick print. It is so far off anatomically! The man who carved it was no artist.

Not, of course, to mention the size...

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm

...and then there's "malachite man" - ha!

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm

pardon me, "paluxy"...

seems like even people on "your side of the fence" don't put much stock into the prints. they're listed among the "arguments we think creationists shouldn't use" by creation ministries international.

http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use (see about halfway down)

also, flood geologist john morris doesn't "use paluxy" anymore....

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255

uh....i can't believe i'm saying this, but i AGREE with morris: those aren't human footprints.

off topic, but...
BPs response to another spill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM

peter, that thing's an hour long... can you point me to a time within that? what tracks are these? pauxley? other?

PS. I'm working this weekend again so things are going to slow down here again. Sorry.

I know this guy gets a bad wrap from your side of the fence, but what do you make of the footprints?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttIkGHYHijI&feature=related

Hi Walter,

WALTER:"hahahaha, no, that's ok, peter. no need to go further into jesus' false prophesies...."

They are not false Walter. That is something that you cannot prove and don't apparently understand.

Just think, Jesus tells of the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish sacrificial system 40 years before the event. It all pivots around the sacrificial system. The Book of Hebrews starts out with these words,

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these LAST DAYS He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe." Hebrews 1:1-2

I'm just curious to find out on what you think He means by the 'last days?'

What I find interesting about the letter to the Hebrews is it contrasts the two sacrifices and shows Christ's superiority in every way. It talks about two covenants, the one in place and about to become obsolete and the better one.

This term 'last days' along with the terms 'time of the end,' 'end of the age,' 'latter days' are curious words, do you not think? These words are found in both testaments/covenants. Do you care to comment because there is a lot of depth behind this phraseology?

WALTER: "but i truly appreciate your earnestness. you totally remind me of the crazy (but incredibly nice) people i go to church with... and maybe we can go into this another time."

Sure, I understand you are out of your comfort zone here and don't want to get into the texts and exegete them. It takes a lot of work. (2 Timothy 2:15)

WALTER: "varves? or do we save that for later, after you've read a mainstream geology textbook or similar?"

I'll confess my ignorance for now and do some reading on the subject, except to make this comment for now. They assume that the layering is constant and can be calculated on present conditions of observation and INFERENCES FROM THE PAST, SINCE NO ONE WAS THERE when these lakes formed.

hahahaha, no, that's ok, peter. no need to go further into jesus' false prophesies.... but i truly appreciate your earnestness. you totally remind me of the crazy (but incredibly nice) people i go to church with... and maybe we can go into this another time.

varves? or do we save that for later, after you've read a mainstream geology textbook or similar?

Hi Walter,

If you want to break the verses down further we can do that? We can also take other passages of Scripture to compare with Matthew 24.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "oh my gosh, peter...weird. it's like we're reading different texts... bible gateway has this great feature where i just copied all those verses you listed and was able to look them mostly up...(it limited me to 25 verses, but i got the jist.)"

It seems like you missed what I was saying completely.

WALTER: "i don't see one single verse that tells me anything but that jesus is coming back SOON - in YOUR lifetime."

That is just the point. Who was Jesus speaking to in these verses when He used the words YOU or YOUR? The disciples, this generation. Who does the 'you' refer to? If you were taking a course in English literature who would be the subject from the context that Jesus is addressing as 'you?'

In the context when would that generation be? Look at the time text reference and tell me how you get 2000 years later out of it???? In other words, who was Jesus talking to and in what time frame?

Is that any easier to understand Walter?

As I suggested, read Matthew 23 and 24 together in one sitting. Look what Jesus has to say in 23:36 and then again in 24:34. Do you not think that he is talking about judgment on Israel for rejecting their Messiah and for heaping up their transgressions? Notice 24:15 in which He speaks of the 'Abomination of Desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet' (Daniel 9:27; 1131; 12:11). Go back to Daniel and read the prophesies. They speak about the time of the end, just as Jesus does in Matthew 24:3. They speak of the destruction of Jerusalem, just as Jesus does. They speak of the judgment of Daniels people and their time of great distress and trouble - i.e. the Jews. If you can't see how it all ties in then you have plugged both your ears and blocked your eyes, because you are not hearing what is being said.

WALTER: "jesus told anybody who would listen that he was coming back for them. he warned: you won't know when, blah blah blah, but it will ALL happen to YOU - not your descendants, not 2000 years hence."

That is what I have been explaining to you. I have been trying to explain that the Dispensational view does not do the Bible justice. That is the view that sees this all taking place in the distant future, distant that is from the time frame that Jesus is speaking to them of at least.

What I'm trying to point out is that these things have already happened, just like you have said above. I'm trying to explain that the significance of the destruction of the Temple signified the end of the age. I'm trying to tell you that His kingdom was set up 2000 years ago. Do you want more text proof?

WALTER: "unbelievable... your convoluted answer is not a plain reading...hahaha."

It is plain where the language is plain, not figurative. When He speaks to the disciples and then says 'you' (the disciples) it is recorded in other parts of the NT what they experienced. The time passages speak of something that was to take place very soon, within their lifetimes.

PART 2

WALTER: "gee whiz...i don't care if he comes in a cloud or whatever, but he was supposed to have been here by now.... it was the temple AND tribulation AND his return etc....it was ALL supposed to happen SOON...sheesh"

It did. History tells us that the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD which ended the Jewish OT system of sacrifice and worship. It ushered in the New Covenant, the eternal covenant and along with it the kingdom.

Do you not find it strange that not one book in the NT mentions the destruction of the Temple as having already happened? Something so significant to the Jews, that their whole life centered around is not mentioned once by the NT authors. This is a good, the best indication, that it had not happened until after all the books of the NT were written. Can you not fathom that?

WALTER: "btw...wars, famine etc...puleeze... great predictions... that's like saying, "there will be sunrises." if anything it refers to the immediate aftermath - in fact the repercussions of the destruction of the temple - not 2000 yrs later...)"

Repercussions before and immediately after the destruction of the Temple yes. How do you get 2000 years later from what I have written to you???????????????????

My whole point all along has been that these prophesies have already been fulfilled.

Remember that during the reign of the fourth kingdom (see Daniel) is when the kingdom of the Lord was established. Wars were fought from one end of this fourth kingdom to the other. At Seleucia alone Josephus records the death of over 50,000 Jews. This was a time of Jewish revolt.

Secular historians record famines, as do the NT authors. Many false prophets are recorded, such as Simon the sorcerer to name just one. Earthquakes are mentioned, as is the persecution of the disciples and early Christians. These things were the birth pangs spoken of by Matthew's gospel.

PART 3

WALTER: "i'm not sure where you're going with this pre-post-anti-a-etc...-
millennialist/dispensationalist stuff."

I'm pointing out to you that the way most Christians look at Bible prophesy has been influenced by a movement that began in the 1800's and made popular by Israel becoming a nation again. What I'm saying is that it does not do justice to the texts in correctly interpreting them. The gap they insert in Daniel 9:26-27 is something I and many others see as having been made up.

WALTER: "i think hal lindsey is crazy just like you do. but all that all that crap (eschtaology?) is only necessary because jesus didn't come back LIKE HE WAS SUPPOSED to....hahaha"

How was He SUPPOSED to Walter?

WALTER: "you asked, "Does the destruction of the Temple signify the end of the Old Covenant???? Can you answer that honestly? Is the destruction of the temple and city a judgment on the Jews or on everyone? Can you answer that honestly?"

WALTER: "uh...no, i really can't. doesn't make sense. if you're saying jesus' not being back by now is explained by that daniel verse, and something in revelation...well...then...ok... i'll give you about a 5.3 for your interpretive gymnastics... ;-)"

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that He did come back, that His kingdom is established, that He came back not for the final judgment of all people, but in judgment of the Jews, what the passage in Matthew 24 is all about. And there is lots more that I can add to this, but I'm off to bed.

oh my gosh, peter...weird. it's like we're reading different texts... bible gateway has this great feature where i just copied all those verses you listed and was able to look them mostly up...(it limited me to 25 verses, but i got the jist.)

i don't see one single verse that tells me anything but that jesus is coming back SOON - in YOUR lifetime. jesus told anybody who would listen that he was coming back for them. he warned: you won't know when, blah blah blah, but it will ALL happen to YOU - not your descendants, not 2000 years hence.

unbelievable... your convoluted answer is not a plain reading...hahaha.

you ask, "Concerning 'coming on the clouds' the question remains, Is it a figure of speech or is it to be taken literally? Take as plain it can be rendered that way, yes. What was 'coming in the clouds' in reference to? Can you answer that? Is it in reference to the final judgment or to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the end of this way of life?"

gee whiz...i don't care if he comes in a cloud or whatever, but he was supposed to have been here by now.... it was the temple AND tribulation AND his return etc....it was ALL supposed to happen SOON...sheesh

(btw...wars, famine etc...puleeze... great predictions... that's like saying, "there will be sunrises." if anything it refers to the immediate aftermath - in fact the repercussions of the destruction of the temple - not 2000 yrs later...)

i'm not sure where you're going with this pre-post-anti-a-etc...-
millennialist/dispensationalist stuff. i think hal lindsey is crazy just like you do. but all that all that crap (eschtaology?) is only necessary because jesus didn't come back LIKE HE WAS SUPPOSED to....hahaha

you asked, "Does the destruction of the Temple signify the end of the Old Covenant???? Can you answer that honestly? Is the destruction of the temple and city a judgment on the Jews or on everyone? Can you answer that honestly?"

uh...no, i really can't. doesn't make sense. if you're saying jesus' not being back by now is explained by that daniel verse, and something in revelation...well...then...ok... i'll give you about a 5.3 for your interpretive gymnastics... ;-)

**************
anyhow...i think we got sidetracked on that.

aren't those green river VARVES weird? you know, we can see varves being made TODAY. there's nothing mysterious about how they're formed. it's basic geology. there are swiss(?) lakes with making new varves on top of thousands and thousands of delicate less new ones going right back through the flood! these new ones aren't compressed into rock yet - that takes tens to hundreds of thousands of years. weird, huh? and yet millions upon millions at green river?

Hi Walter and Pam,

In beginning,

PAM: "There are also the predictive tests, although not carried out scientifically. Jesus supposedly said that the “end times” would occur in the lifetimes of those he was speaking to – but they didn’t."

PETER: "Yes they did."

Who was Jesus speaking to?

Let's clear up something right away in this discussion. I recognize a difference between the completion of all things or the final judgment and what is called the 'end times' as spoken of by Jesus and the prophets.

As I explained in an earlier post, this is something I was working out before we got into the discussion on evolution. I was going to investigate more thoroughly the two distinct perspectives between Amillennialism and Preterism. So far I am more thoroughly grounded in the preterist position. In one of these two positions I see the truth lies, for it certainly does not lie in Dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism came on the scene in the 1800's. A gap was read into the prophesy of Daniel 9:26-27. If you like we can discuss this further, or you can read about why the gap hypothesis does not make sense here,

http://assets.americanvision.org/mediafiles/daniel-11-and-12-seventy-weeks-of-years.pdf

Some pastors, including mine, put a division between Matthew 24:1-36 and 37-51. I don't know if I agree with this. As I have said, I need to hear more on the post and Amillennial positions before making up my mind. But I'm willing to discuss the passages of Scriptures themselves from the preterist standpoint.

PART 1

WALTER: "huh?!?!? i know you're calling the destruction of the temple the fulfillment of jesus' end time ravings, but that's not what he (supposedly) said."

Well Walter, from the records we have in Matthew 23, 24 or Mark 13, I think you should read the accounts through in one sitting. Remember, the different gospels were written to appeal to different audience groups. The gospel of Matthew was more specifically for the Jew, hence all the quotes of prophesy from the Torah, the OT Scriptures. Chapter and verse were put in place long after the gospels were written, but chapter 23 and 24 in Matthew are connected.

Read through the Scriptures carefully when trying to understand what 'end' Jesus has in mind. Notice all the passages in the NT about the "New Covenant" that Jesus establishes with His sacrifice, with the giving of His blood. If you want I can compile a list of verses for you, or maybe just the two references will suffice?

"But He [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if the first covenant [i.e. testament] had been faultless, there would have been no occassion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, 'Behold, days are coming, says the LORD, when I will effect a New Covenant with the house of Israel and the House of Judah....' When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." Hebrews 8:6-8 cf, Jer. 31:31.

Notice the language 'is ready' signifying that it had not yet happened. This means the sacrificial system of the OT was still in effect, for the Temple still stood.

PART 2

Then Hebrews 9 goes on to discuss the first covenant regulations and compare them to the second. When you understand the distinctions you get a clearer picture of what Christ accomplished with His sacrifice when He said, "It is finished." The work the Father had given Him to accomplish had been completed and the end of the Jewish system of sacrifice and worship would soon be done away with, Israel would be judged, and a better covenant would be established forever - the eternal covenant.

"In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 1 Cor. 11:25.

That is the greatness of the Scriptures. These things that had been prophesied were fulfilled in Jesus and the end of the Jewish sacrificial system and Temple age of worship would shortly come to be. Most, if not each of the writers of the New Testament/New Covenant were aware that the time was short before the end of the age which happened with the destruction of Jerusalem, for the references that are given are abundant to this fulfillment in Jesus and with the destruction of the Temple. Each of the books of the NT can be argued for as being complete before the fall of Jerusalem, as Ken Gentry points out on his writing on the book of Revelation.

These Jews writing were all aware that something catastrophic was about to happen soon. Please see the list of Scriptures below if you are interested in confirming this last statement that I took from 'Last Days Madness' by Gary Demar, p38-39.

Matthew 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 26:64; John 21:21-22; Romans 13:11, 12; 16:20; 1 Corinthians 7:29, 31; 10:11 [especially]; 2 Thess. 2:6,7; Phil. 4:5; Hebrews 9:26 [especially]; 10:25, 37; James 5:8,9; 1 Peter 1:20 [esp.]; 4:7 [esp.]; 5:4; 1 John 2:18 [esp.]; Rev. 1:1; 3:10,11; 11:14; 17:8; 22:6,7; 22:10 [with Daniel 12:4 which is imperative to understanding when the seals would be concealed until]; 22:12;cf. Matt 16:27; 22:20.

Is it not obvious to you that these events are speaking of the generation that existed at the time of Jesus' coming????????????????????????????????
It is straight forward language.

PART 3

WALTER: "i'm sure the destruction of the temple was a horrific event for local jews and maybe even for jesus fans, but come on..."

It signified the end of the age of Temple worship and brought in the promised kingdom age as spoken of by the prophet Daniel. Israel was punished for her disobedience and not recognizing her Messiah when He came.

"He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:11:12)

You see, unless you are born of the Spirit of God you cannot see or enter into the kingdom, for it is by a new spiritual birth, the Spirit of Jesus, the Spirit of God, that you enter the kingdom (see John 3:3-8 or 1 Corinthians 2:10-16. You would do well to read these verses before you argue about what the Bible does and does not say. I don't want you to make your argument from ignorance.

Talking to the Hebrew Christians, Hebrews 12:28, the author speaks in the past events in reference to the kingdom, as in other passages of Scripture. In other words the kingdom was a present reality to these early Christians. Can you not see that the kingdom which was spoken of by Daniel as the everlasting kingdom is already established spiritually? It is in the hearts of believers. His rule and His reign is in our lives at present, as was the King's rule and reign during the times of the apostles and early church! The culmination of the kingdom and the passing of the first age was accomplished by the sacrifice of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple. Can you not see that? Do you not hear??? (Rev. 22:17,18)

He reigns!!!!!

Like I said before, the first thing you should do is go back to the passage on the destruction of the Temple and make reference as to what the passage is referring to by the words 'end of this age.' What age is being referenced???

What do other plain Scriptures reveal on this end?

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, IN THESE LAST DAYS has spoken to us in His Son..." Hebrews 1:1-2a)

"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.'" (1 Corinthians 10:11)

"The END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." (1 Peter 4:7

The list goes on, but since Jesus came to His own and the OT records their continual rebellion. God was about to establish the New Covenant spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah, for one (Jer. 31:31-34).

PART 4

WALTER: "jesus promised the destruction of the temple AND his second coming, on a cloud, with trumpets(!), to collect the faithful (and condemn the unfaithful pregnant mothers...). he promised ALL these things to people standing right in front of him."

Concerning 'coming on the clouds' the question remains, Is it a figure of speech or is it to be taken literally? Take as plain it can be rendered that way, yes. What was 'coming in the clouds' in reference to? Can you answer that? Is it in reference to the final judgment or to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the end of this way of life?

Remember the dead in Christ were raised first, then those alive "and remain shall e caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thess. 4:17)

Remember the SIGN in Matthew 24:30 points to not taking this verse literally, but as figurative. It is imagery. God showed Himself to Israel by the physical cloud in taking them out of captivity in Egypt. They were led by the cloud by day, and the fire by night, although they did not ever saw Him. It is a symbol of God's presents, authority and judgment, for instance, see Psalm 97:2 or Ps. 104:3-4 or Isaiah 19:1 or Nahum 1:3 or Exodus 13:21.

In Daniels vision in 7:13-14 coming 'with the clouds' is in association of the Son of Man [Jesus] receiving the kingdom.

These same words 'with/on the clouds of heaven' used in Daniel is used in Matthew 26:64 or Mark 14:62 to denote power and authority. Look it up if you want to argue and discuss it.

Just as in Daniel 7:14,

"And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and men of every language [see Rev. 5:9] might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed [see Matthew 16:18].

We, as Christians, recognize Christ as the King and that His kingdom is present within us, as it was in the time that the book of Matthew was written. You can't serve two masters for your allegiance is either to one or the other, as Jesus made clear to the Jews of His day, especially the Scribes and Pharisees who mocked and insulted Him.

WALTER: "now, earlier, you said you're not a "literalist", but that you subscribe to a "plain reading" of the bible. but, only using the most convoluted of hermeneutics can you construe jesus as not promising his return to those who saw the destruction of the temple."

I don't deny His return, I just don't see His final judgment as having taken place. The generation of JEWS that Jesus said would not pass away until all these things happened (i.e. wars, rumors of wars, antichrists, famines and earthquakes, etc) I see as being fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

PART 5

WALTER: "let's go to mark 13, the earliest and plainest of the gospels. AFTER discussing the destruction of the temple, jesus talks about his second coming:

26"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

28"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

WALTER: "so, what part of "all these things" and "this generation" are you reading plainly?"

I think from verse 1-4 that all of these things is in reference to the Temple. That is what is pretty clear to me. It is clear that the context is talking about these things,

"And Jesus said to him, 'Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down.'...Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the SIGN when ALL THESE THINGS are going to be fulfilled." Vs 2,4.

The context that follows is in relation to the Temple being destroyed. It is plain to me that when Jesus refers to them as 'you' He is not speaking of things two millennia in the future, but to the disciples and Jews of this age and this generation. He tells them to be on their guard (vs9), that 'they' will be arrested, in which later books of the NT show that they were, as per Acts. Acts tells of famines, trials, hardships, as do the other NT books, but nothing of the destruction of the Temple. You would think that something as significant as the Jewish worship and sacrificial system, mentioned throughout both the OT and NT would have its destruction mentioned if it had already happened???????

PART 6

Josephus tells of wars and rumors of wars as does other literature of the times. The mention of the Abomination that causes desolation is spoken of in history just before Jerusalem fell. We know that the Romans put to death great numbers of Jews when Jerusalem fell. These things are plain. The church was persecuted by the Romans for forty years after Jesus' death.

What isn't as plain is figurative language such as the lesson of the fig tree or the coming on the clouds. These things are not literal, as other passages that are more clear help us understand that tie in with these passages.

What was this time of great tribulation spoken of in judgment of? Is it a tribulation in judgment of Israel's apostasy? Matthew, primarily written to the Jews, speaks of it more fully. Daniel 9:12; 12:1 speaks of a time of Jacob's (i.e. Israel's) trouble. Revelation 12 speaks in figurative language, but of who? You have to ask yourself if these passages are connected? Is Scripture the revealer of Scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit?

Does the destruction of the Temple signify the end of the Old Covenant???? Can you answer that honestly? Is the destruction of the temple and city a judgment on the Jews or on everyone? Can you answer that honestly?

Does the figurative illustration concerning the 'fig tree' speak of the nation of Israel as Hal Lindsey would suggest, or is it a lesson concerning the nearness of times?

"And He told them a parable: 'Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourself that summer is now near. Even so you, too, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near: Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.'" (Luke 21:29-31)

What things? The coming of the kingdom?

Is that not easy enough to understand the figurative language of this parable? Does Jesus not explain it to us? The kingdom of God, the kingdom that supplants the fourth kingdom spoken of by Daniel is near with these signs of the times, when Jerusalem falls.

Part 7

WALTER: "that link you gave (reasons to take genesis as history) pretends to address this. discussing mt24, hilariously it begins "Let’s be honest with the text. Matthew 24:34 requires...." and then goes on to ignore the "all these things" and "this generation" parts...."

The point of that passage was to draw your attention to figurative as opposed to literal or literalist language in part. The other link I gave you concerns the coming of the kingdom and what that means. I could give you other links that discuss in more detail the signs from a preterist viewpoint. I'm not ready to discuss the Amillennialist viewpoint yet.

WALTER: "now, i'm willing to "cut the bible some slack" on certain occasions. like when it says, "the sun rises" and "ends of the earth" and so forth. those statements are entirely different from jesus' clear, plain promise to return for his first-century listeners in their lifetimes."

As I have said repeatedly, He did. Don't get the final judgment confused with the judgment on Israel.

pam,
pretty gosh darn amazing, too, that the varves display "cyclicities" matching earth's orbital, i.e., "milankovitch", cycles as well as the 11-yr sunspot cycle. seems like that would have taken god a lot of work to do that - but that's probably just because of MY limited imagination.... it was probably pretty easy for him....

pam,
good point about the fish distribution. the main thing about varves, besides their sheer numbers, is the extremely CALM conditions required to deposit them.

these varves are made of teeny teeny tiny little bits of pollen and other micron-sized particles. they stay suspended in all but the most calm water. without god actively pushing (or pulling?) these particles to the bottom, they'd sink very very very slowly - i.e. WAY too slowly to have had all these layers formed in a one-year flood....

Peter,
On the page about the Green River Formations, please note that each lake bed has it's own associated fossils and mineral characteristics. If all of the fossils were deposited by the "flood," why would certain fish be found only in particular lake beds, and not scattered around generally? Why minerals? None of the dead fish would have washed out of the shallow lake basins when all of this flooding and churning was going on?

Hoop-jumping video - LOL!

peter,
if you're serious about learning the "secular" view... read a geology textbook. it's really, really fascinating. i've read price, whitcomb, morris, morris, gish, austin et. al. you should read a standard mainstream geology textbook. or maybe there's something more accessible? (pam? suggestions?) plate tectonics is to geology what evolution is to biology. explains volcanoes, earthquakes, matching fossils on africa & south america, mid atlantic ridge etc, etc, etc.....

interesting in any one person has only actually personally witnessed a few feet of continental drift...or a few volcanic eruptions (that's like microevolution). but everything sure lines up to look like it's been going on for...well...thousands of millions of years...(macroevolution)

and why did god "plant" 6,000,000 layers "annual" layers in the green river shales? (varves)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

pam, you said,
"major hoop-jumping"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzf6E8TYsXU&feature=related

you know, pam, another "prediction", if you will, the bible made is in genesis 1: the creation story.

at the time, circa 1000-500 bc, there was really no evidence either way. and that's probably they way the priests who wrote genesis liked it. surely they assumed no one would ever be able to figure out when/how the earth/universe were created. as science and scientific methods developed, judeochrislamic scientists would have been all too happy to confirm the biblical description - in fact many did. but, that's not what they've found.

and, of course, another prediction is in genesis 6-8: the flood. the authors may not have meant it as a prediction, and as with the creation story, they surely they never imagined people being able to "check up" on it. but with modern scientific methods it would be so easy to find evidence for a world wide flood 4,500 years ago...

I'm with Walter on this one. There's no way that you can read the bible "plainly" and reach any other conclusion.

It requires major hoop-jumping to think that this prophecy has already been fulfilled.

PAM: "There are also the predictive tests, although not carried out scientifically. Jesus supposedly said that the “end times” would occur in the lifetimes of those he was speaking to – but they didn’t."

PETER: "Yes they did."
.....................

huh?!?!? i know you're calling the destruction of the temple the fulfillment of jesus' end time ravings, but that's not what he (supposedly) said.

i'm sure the destruction of the temple was a horrific event for local jews and maybe even for jesus fans, but come on...

jesus promised the destruction of the temple AND his second coming, on a cloud, with trumpets(!), to collect the faithful (and condemn the unfaithful pregnant mothers...). he promised ALL these things to people standing right in front of him.

now, earlier, you said you're not a "literalist", but that you subscribe to a "plain reading" of the bible. but, only using the most convoluted of hermeneutics can you construe jesus as not promising his return to those who saw the destruction of the temple.

let's go to mark 13, the earliest and plainest of the gospels. AFTER discussing the destruction of the temple, jesus talks about his second coming:

26"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

28"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

so, what part of "all these things" and "this generation" are you reading plainly?

that link you gave (reasons to take genesis as history) pretends to address this. discussing mt24, hilariously it begins "Let’s be honest with the text. Matthew 24:34 requires...." and then goes on to ignore the "all these things" and "this generation" parts....

now, i'm willing to "cut the bible some slack" on certain occasions. like when it says, "the sun rises" and "ends of the earth" and so forth. those statements are entirely different from jesus' clear, plain promise to return for his first-century listeners in their lifetimes.

Along the same lines, here is something for both you and Walter,

http://americanvision.org/698/reasons-take-genesis-as-history/

It clears up what was spoken of in Daniel about sealing up the scroll until the time of the end (Daniel 12:9) and the opening of the scroll in Revelation 5:2-7 and all the references to the time is near and at hand (Rev. 1:3; 20:20-21).

One of the keys to understanding the 'end times' and 'this generation' spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24 is the understanding of what is being referred to, the end of which age and which generation? Is it the sacrificial system that the Jews had practiced for all those years coming to an end because Jesus had fulfilled it? That sacrificial system coming to an end happened with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. The Book of Hebrews explains why this system was just a shadow of what was to come, the reality being Jesus. And when Jesus said the kingdom is near, it is at hand what did He mean? Gary Demar makes this plain in the five articles on the kingdom. Spiritually, the Christian is seated with Christ in the heavenly realms now (Ephesians 1:19-23; 2:6). The Christian recognizes the Lord and King because of God's grace and mercy to him. The Christian recognizes the One who has all authority and power, the One who is Lord of all, the One who has the right to judge, the One who is perfect and yet humbled Himself for the sake of those who would believe in order that they might have life to the fullest.

PAM: "I have asked you in the past to give me a testable, falsifiable, supernatural hypothesis. You haven’t done it, nor has anyone else."

The Bible as the Word of God.

PAM: "To the extent that religious tenets can be tested, they have been. Remember the study concerning prayer and hospital patients? It was a large study commissioned by the Templeton Foundation, and found that prayer had no effect either way on those who didn’t know whether they were being prayed for or not (some were, some weren’t), and had a slight negative effect on those who knew people were praying for them."

I've heard of studies done that reflect the opposite. I'll try and dig up some for you.

PAM: "There are also the predictive tests, although not carried out scientifically. Jesus supposedly said that the “end times” would occur in the lifetimes of those he was speaking to – but they didn’t."

Yes they did.

PAM: "And religious “prophets” of nearly every Christian sect have been predicting the end for every generation since."

But God's word gives clear revelation on what He means. Scripture interprets Scripture. What happened was the Dispensationalist view that started in the 1800's in the Brethren movement became the dominant view.

Dispensationalism is not biblical. Before I got into this evolutionary debate with you and Walter I was working out the Preterist and Ammillennial views of eschatology. It is in here that the truth lies.

Please scroll down and read the article 'Cut the Bible some slack.'

http://americanvision.org/?s=cut+the+bible+some+slack&searchsubmit=Search

I don't think you understand the different views very well if at all, or how they originated. It is not what the majority of Christians think but actually what the Bible teaches that matters, and the job is to rightly discern the Word of God. You have pointed out the flaws in all this predictive carp, and I agree in regard to Dispensationalilsm. May I suggest you read the five part series on the kingdom to understand matters from a biblical viewpoint.

Here is the link,

http://americanvision.org/1718/kingdom-has-come/

I'm hoping it will clear up some of your misconceptions.

Hi Pam,

PAM: "Peter, you have been nothing if not prolific."

Touché, but you are not doing badly yourself! It is going to take some time to reply.

PAM: "PH (quoting Phil Johnson, with his own interpolations in brackets):
“On the one hand, modernists say that science is impartial fact-finding [as Pam has pointed out in her latest posts], the objective and unprejudiced weighing of evidence. Science in this sense relies on careful observations, calculations, and above all, repeated experiments [This kind of science doesn't sound like evolutionary science to me where conclusions are formed on commonality and similarity in different kinds are traced back to a common ancestry as one of its assumptions (and that common ancestry is not God]. That kind of objective science is what makes technology possible, and where it can be employed it is indeed the most reliable way of determining the facts."

PAM: "Regardless of the FACTS??? And just what might those “facts” be?"

That macro-evolution is not testable. Jerry Coyne states over and over again that "natural selection posed a number of problems for biology as well...because, as he [Darwin] proposed, selection was extremely slow, altering populations over thousands or millions of years, it would be hard to observe it acting during a single human lifetime." p. 116, Why Evolution is True.'

So what Jerry does is take countless examples of changes within a kind as proof that given enough time these changes happen to form new kinds. Such examples as the honey bee or hornet or beach mouse coat color, or the number of different changes that happen in a bird population such as the finch. This is the proof of natural selection causing macro-evolution?

"Fortunately, thanks to the labors of field and labratory biologists, we now have evidence - lots of it. Natural selection, we find, is everywhere, scrutinizing individuals, culling the unfit and promoting the genes of the fitter. It can create intricate adaptions, sometimes in surprisingly little time." p.116

This does not prove change of kinds. Looking at the evidence just proves the ability to adapt to environments within the kinds, to the boundaries that the kind was designed to reach, but no further. Those are the facts. The rest is interpretive philosophy.

PAM: "Science seeking a “naturalistic” explanation has nothing to do with “naturalistic philosophy,” it is simply the only way there is to do science."

But, and a big but, there is a limit to what is testable and verifiable by experiments and observation. As Jerry said, change of kinds is hard to observe because it happens over thousands and millions of years. That is why his examples are all of change within a kind. The rest is a drawn inference. So how do you observe change of kind? You don't, you make inferences from the data.

Hi Pam,

Your strong suit is the evolutionary worldview in which you are quite comfortable, but I noticed philosophically you seem not to understand or recognize that macro-evolution is a philosophy.

R.C. Sproul's webcast at the moment is tracing 'the consequences of ideas' in shaping worldviews and culture by men that are the gatekeepers of society because of their influence to human thought. I'm sorry I did not catch it earlier, and I am hoping that if you tune in each week he will continue tracing what the Enlightenment brought to the way of the world in general in how they see things now and why it just cannot make ultimate sense of anything outside the Christian worldview.

Below is the link to a lecture that dabbles in empiricism, the very thing that supposedly is used to verify the material of which supposedly everything has its origin in. But the very ideas or concepts of empiricism are abstract/non-physical/immaterial.

How does this happen in a world that has come about by purely natural/material means? Why is there such uniformity in our human thought processes in that we are able to use logic and agree that it is necessary to make sense of anything, this something that is again non-tangible and immaterial? If all we are is matter in motion then how do you make sense of things that are not material in nature?

If no thought process governs our universe then why do things/matter have intent, information, order and uniformity instead of just randomness where the chance of anything is as likely or unlikely as anything else? (ie. it just happens with no rhyme or reason, for rhyme and reason have mind, personality and being behind it.)

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/locke/

Hi Pam,

ME: "I'd agree to read something of your choice (not too complicated please), if you would agree to read a few from the opposite end of the spectrum from my choice."

PAM: "Sure, that's fair. I consider the first book a "gimme," because I've already read a good bit on your side of the fence, including the bible itself."

Read but you have missed the experience of knowing the Savior, a knowledge that surpasses understanding (Philippians 3:8; 4:7 and especially 1 Corinthians 8:1-3).

PAM: "But if you read two more, so will I."

You have a deal Pam.

PAM: "These days, I mostly listen to books, downloaded to iPod from Audible.com"

We have something in common then. I download podcasts and listen to them at bedtime or during a workout.

PAM: "(I also buy hardcopy to refer to if it's anything other than light fiction), so if you can find something for me on their site, that would be a plus. Their collections are pretty extensive."

I'll see what they have.

PS. I'll start replying to your e-mails tomorrow.

That is one of the disappointments of Obama so far. He got bogged down in pushing his health-care bill to the detriment of so much else, including new and renewable energy. The world needs to be less dependent on oil.

It is a wonder, in this technical age in which we live in and with all the resources available (both intellectual and scientific), why haven't we been able to put together a more failsafe plan for such emergencies? Hopefully some good will come of this.

our old thread:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/pamela_k_taylor/2010/05/abortion_and_islamic_thought.html