the great Jewish "distress"

[marks]

This will be very convoluted to most because everything has been dismantled and put out of order. But I'm trying to put things back in order, just as God seems to have done for me. I'm not trying to be arrogant here--I'm submitting it for your consideration. Accept it if true. If not, forget it.

I maintain that if we stick with the order things are presented in these prophecies, and allow the words to speak for themselves, i.e., "Abomination" means a certain thing, and armies mean a certain thing, like that, then it stops being convoluted, and shows a narrative that fits the rest of the Bible exactly.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Preterism is a system of prophetic interpretation that prefers to see most prophecy fulfilled in the past. For example, Preterism sees much prophecy that others see as "future" already fulfilled in the ancient Roman Empire. They see the Olivet Discourse, the AoD, and sometimes even the coming of Christ as having been fulfilled in 70 AD. They also see most of the book of Revelation and the Antichrist fulfilled in the Roman Empire and in the Caesars.

Isn't this what you are promoting? Am I confused?

Much love!

 

[marks]

However, they are Church Fathers.

This is the false promotion. Call no man father. They are not the "fathers" of the church. They are men who wrote books, who's books were preserved, while others were not, for whatever reason.

They should NOT be considered representative of early church thought or understanding. The should NOT be thought of as anything like Scripture. More like "forum posts", I think.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I think most Bible scholars would disagree with you. Consult the commentators.

Up until 150 years ago or so, most of the "commentators" didn't think Israel would be back as a nation. So they look at a passage, and said, "It OBVIOUSLY can't mean that, so it must mean something else. Hmmmm. OH! I know what it means!" And they would write their commentaries.

There were a few, who were even ridiculed for it, that persisted in believing that God would still fulfill His prophecies as written, including to Israel, and we see their interpretations being justified today.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It's all bound up with the distinction between Israel and the church; by definition the church - a heavenly people - is raptured.

Yes, the rapture question, in my experience, is NEVER answered by looking at "rapture timing", it is instead understood in the identities of Israel, and the church.

Much love!

 

[farouk]

Yes, the rapture question, in my experience, is NEVER answered by looking at "rapture timing", it is instead understood in the identities of Israel, and the church.

Much love!

Some truth to what you say there....yes...

 

[marks]

No, in fact it is not. The Scripture cannot lie - Second Coming of Christ is permanently attached to the Resurrection FIRST and AFTER this is the Rapture of the His Bride/Church/His Elect.

His bride? God doesn't remarry Israel until AFTER the second coming of Christ.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Then you admit to being a false apostle by claiming that the Apostle Paul's account is refutable and in error.

Hardly!

There's a false accusation. Do you not see that?

Do you truly believe @farouk is saying Paul is mistaken?? There's a lot you say that I agree with. Do you see what I'm saying here?

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Why would you say I obviously didn't mean what I said? That's what I hear about the Bible too. That it obviously can't mean what it says, so it must mean something else.

In fact I did mean the destruction of Jerusalem preceded the birth pangs.

The destruction of Jerusalem happened in 70 AD. The birth pangs, and the AOD, are "end of age."

The destruction of Jerusalem was "pre birth pangs", the AoD is post.

Much love!

Yea, I saw that you said that, that the destruction of Jerusalem preceded the birth pangs. And I do understand that you see the birth pangs as "end of the age" material.

As such, your "birth pangs" seem to be lined up with the "birth pangs" of 1 Thes 5.

1 Thes 5.1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

I see this as a 2nd set of "birth pangs" in the NT Scriptures. I see the "birth pangs" mentioned in the Olivet Discourse as the preliminary early warning signs of impending judgment in 70 AD. But I can see you hold to a different position.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I do, and most specifically.

What does "abomination" mean, Biblically speaking? It has some very specific usage.

Much love!

Many Christians see "abomination" as applied to an abominable "thing," such as an idol. I don't see it being applied that way in the context of the Olivet Discourse. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, I see the AoD as synonymous with the Roman armies encircling Jerusalem. Pagans were considered abominable. The Roman Army was abominable because they carried paganism with them right into the vicinity of the holy city, surrounding it with pagan eagle gods on their standards. Hence, Jesus painted the picture of "eagles gathering to a corpse."

 

[Randy Kluth]

I maintain that if we stick with the order things are presented in these prophecies, and allow the words to speak for themselves, i.e., "Abomination" means a certain thing, and armies mean a certain thing, like that, then it stops being convoluted, and shows a narrative that fits the rest of the Bible exactly.

Much love!

Words mean what they mean *in context.* I agree that "abomination" most often referred to despicable things like pagan images set up in God's temple, as took place with Antiochus 4. But in context, the Olivet Discourse is speaking of a pagan Army sent by God to punish Israel and to destroy their temple--not just to commit sacrilege by placing an idol there!

So we look at things differently, but both are, I believe, biblical and true to the meaning of the word.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Isn't this what you are promoting? Am I confused?

Much love!

Yes, you're confused. I am *not* promoting Partial Preterism! Never have!

As I've had to explain numerous times, Partial Preterism is a system in which most all biblical prophecy is relegated to the past. Nearly all of the Olivet Discourse, as well as nearly all of the book of Revelation, are relegated to things fulfilled during the time of the ancient Roman Empire. I don't do that. Contrary to Preterism, I believe most of the book of Revelation will be fulfilled in the future, in the endtimes. There will be a literal Antichrist presiding over 10 European nations.

I also believe the Olivet Discourse was not completely fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, like Preterists do--at least I think that's what they do! I believe the fall of Jerusalem was just the start of an age-long Jewish punishment we call the Jewish Diaspora.

No, I'm definitely not a Preterist. In fact, most of the Church Fathers believed, as I do. I get much validation and precedent from them, although some of their beliefs are a little convoluted because of the times in which they lived. But they were not Preterists in the true sense of the word--not close. And Preterism didn't even exist yet at that time!

There is a big difference between simple prophetic interpretation of things that have already been fulfilled in history and Preterism as a systematic theology that sees virtually *everything* fulfilled in the past or in the 1st few centuries of the Church! We all believe that some biblical prophecies were fulfilled in the past. Believing that does not make me sympathetic to Partial Preterism!

The Church Fathers believed that the Olivet Discourse was focused upon the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which also, for them, was the fulfillment of Daniel's 70th Week. This is also what I believe, that Christ completed the 70th Week, which was to be followed by the fall of Jerusalem in his generation. I hope this helps?

 

[David in NJ]

Hardly!

There's a false accusation. Do you not see that?

Do you truly believe @farouk is saying Paul is mistaken?? There's a lot you say that I agree with. Do you see what I'm saying here?

Much love![/QUOTE

Help me out here because maybe i missed something - i will go back and read it again - can you detail your assesment.

 

[David in NJ]

Hardly!

There's a false accusation. Do you not see that?

Do you truly believe @farouk is saying Paul is mistaken?? There's a lot you say that I agree with. Do you see what I'm saying here?

Much love!

Here is the false statement that farouk said which violates the command = (adding to or taking away from God's Word).
"I think your dogmatism does not take into account that there is nothing in Scripture that must occur before the church is raptured..."

This is FALSE and to say such a thing is either misunderstanding, lack of including all scripture on the subject or willful rejection of scripture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is the false promotion. Call no man father. They are not the "fathers" of the church. They are men who wrote books, who's books were preserved, while others were not, for whatever reason.

They should NOT be considered representative of early church thought or understanding. The should NOT be thought of as anything like Scripture. More like "forum posts", I think.

Much love!

That is *not* what Jesus meant when he told us not to call people "fathers!" ;) It's just a name--not a source of worship. It's not idolatry--no more so than calling your kid's instructors "teachers" is engaging in idol worship!

We are to give "double honor" to ministers of the Word of God. But you do them dishonor. We don't have to accept everything they say. But having read them I see much value in their testimonies. You should read them too, though it's a little difficult. It's old material, but is still relevant for our day. They laid the groundwork for Trinitarian doctrine, for the doctrine of Salvation, etc. They exposed a lot of heresies designed by Satan to divert Christians away from truth and power from God.

Since they were closer, in time, to Jesus and to the Apostles, they sometimes have a better understanding of the NT Scriptures. We don't have to agree with everything they say. But they gave a responsible witness, and we shouldn't insult them for that! Otherwise, why not just trash everything you've said on this forum? Would it be a sin for me to call you a "brother?" Do names really affect you so badly?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Up until 150 years ago or so, most of the "commentators" didn't think Israel would be back as a nation. So they look at a passage, and said, "It OBVIOUSLY can't mean that, so it must mean something else. Hmmmm. OH! I know what it means!" And they would write their commentaries.

There were a few, who were even ridiculed for it, that persisted in believing that God would still fulfill His prophecies as written, including to Israel, and we see their interpretations being justified today.

Much love!

That's true. That's why I take into consideration the time, the themes, and the circumstances in which various theologies were promoted. I do not, however, throw the baby out with the bath water!

For example, most of Christian history the Church was Amillennial. I'm not Amillennial, but Premillennial. I nevertheless accept many principles in theology that the Amillennial Church held to, understanding that they lived in a time when Israel was out of the picture, and the Gentile Church was the main focus in God's program.

I accept the Reformed Churc's focus on Justification by faith in Christ alone. And I accept the eschatology that sees Antichrist as future, beyond the ancient Roman Empire.

In fact, most systems I can benefit from, precisely because they are Christians. Their errors are to be forgiven because of the circumstances they live in and due to the lack of insight they may have due to their particular influences. "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

For example, I can accept much that John Darby taught because he was a good Christian and a good theologian. However, I reject his Pretribulationism. I see that as a product of his times, when Premillennialism was on the rise, and when Israel seemed to be still somewhat separated, in thought, from the Gentile Church. And so, he created Dispensationalism, separating Israel from the Church in an illicit way, as I see it.

I still accept Darby's modern focus on Israel, and think that has done a lot of good in straightening things out for our understanding of Bible Prophecy. But his false view of a Pretrib Church still needs to be fixed, as I see it.

 

[marks]

Many Christians see "abomination" as applied to an abominable "thing," such as an idol. I don't see it being applied that way in the context of the Olivet Discourse.

I'm not talking about what Christians see, I talking about Biblical usage.

For instance . . . Moses told Pharoah that they had to go out of the land so that the Egyptians wouldn't stone them for sacrificing "the abomination of Egypt", the deified cow.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Words mean what they mean *in context.* I agree that "abomination" most often referred to despicable things like pagan images set up in God's temple, as took place with Antiochus 4.

It means first a sickening smell. Imagine the worst gagging nauseating odor. That's an abomination. And it is used to describe idolatrous things, like idols themselves, or the cows the Egyptians worshiped. Homosexuality is an abomination because marriage between husband and wife is intended to show our relationships between me and my Creator.

Like that.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Yes, you're confused. I am *not* promoting Partial Preterism! Never have!

I've come to understand "partial preterism" to be a moving target.

But what I was wanting to confirm was that you understand portions of the Olivette Discourse to have been fulfilled in 70 AD, this is correct? To my understanding this is correctly called partial preterism.

Much love!

 

[marks]

You said that @farouk claimed Paul was in error. But wasn't it really that he disagreed with you over a meaning?

Much love!