Pilgrimer,
Thanks for the expansive response. I probably wont be able to address everything due to time.
We already looked at the Greek of Hebrews passage, which, says the Old Covenant had ALREADY passed and was subsequently fading. You are inserting based on your assumptions that the "fading" means more than that and suggests the covenant was still in operation until 70AD. I think the wording of the text (which I already showed you the Greek here) cannot be any clearer that it was already gone and therefore was being abandoned by God's people as they heard the Gospel...(not waiting around for the destruction of the Temple).
Matthew 3:8 has nothing to do with the Temple. It's John speaking to his audience (the Pharisees) who have come to watch him baptize for repentance in preparation for the Messiah. This is puzzling you would even mention such a text.
I don't have time to go into context of Hebrews 12. I encourage you to read Hebrews 11. This context has nothing to do with 70AD and everything to do with enduring persecution for the sake of inheriting the "heavenly Jerusalem" not avoiding the destruction of earthly Jerusalem. In fact, Hebrews 13:13 validates this as it is talking about Christians being cast from Jewish social life....not a follow up of the destruction of Jewish social life as you assert.
Out of time.
Thanks for the expansive response. I probably wont be able to address everything due to time.
Were people ever reconciled by Law? I don't think so. Romans 4:1-8 makes it clear that even under the Old Covenant, it was faith that justified, not legal works. Yes, it is true that people were to express their faith in obedience to law, but the it was always justification by faith, not reconciliation through law (see also Gal. 3:11). On a side note, I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews (Hebrews 2:3). Paul was an Apostle, and the author of Hebrews seems to be someone who was converted by the message the Apostles preached.But the Law as a means of being reconciled with God has passed away. Passed away in the sense that all those things which God provided to make it possible to keep the Law have ceased to exist. That’s what I mean, and that’s what Paul meant when he said, “that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away.”
Yes, but the Jews were not the only people persecuting the Christians. I think you are really trying to smear over the second part of that verse. Revealed from heaven is the same thing. The things of heaven are often apocalupso because the angels and things of the spirit are not so much a far off destination as they are an invisible and present reality. The second coming is often referred to as an apocalypse because it is when Jesus is revealed to the world in his glory.Paul was clearly speaking to the Christians at Thessalonia who were enduring persecution and tribulation, and he was telling them that the Lord would recompense tribulation on those who were troubling them when he would be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels (revealed from heaven, not come from heaven, and angels are spirits, by the way) in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
I am sure you are well aware that apocalyptic literature was common in this era. There were many books with apocalyptic visions and symbols that spoke of the end of the world. When these audiences read apocalyptic literature, they generally understood it as end of the world/final judgment type of messages. Consider Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of such literatureThe fact that you don’t associate apocalyptic language with the judgment and destruction of the Jewish state isn’t because it’s not there, but because you automatically apply it to the 2nd coming.
To suggest that the apocalyptic literature in the Bible (although John the Baptist isn't using apocalyptic language so much as he is simply using a metaphor) would be understood to refer to a historical war is not really accurate. I'd encourage you to read some other apocalyptic works such as The Apocalypse of Moses and the Book of Enoch.apocalyptic literature, literary genre that foretells supernaturally inspired cataclysmic events that will transpire at the end of the world. A product of the Judeo-Christian tradition, apocalyptic literature is characteristically pseudonymous; it takes narrative form, employs esoteric language, expresses a pessimistic view of the present, and treats the final events as imminent.
Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. We have looked at some of the most classic texts that pretty much every major scholar in history has claimed is referring to the 2nd Coming and you have said they are all a reference to 70AD. Can you share with me a text you believe actually is referring to the 2nd coming? I am only dealing with what you have stated. I cant read your mind so I don't know what you actually believe about which texts refer to what. The only thing I know is that pretty much every major text referring to the coming of Jesus, whether in the epistles or Jesus own series of parables telling the disciples clearly to "wait and watch" for the coming of the bridegroom as 70AD language. I think this really diminishes the teaching of Jesus in many of his parables as if his primary teaching to his disciples about the importance of being ready and wise in his absence has to do with avoiding the suffering of 70AD.You tend to overstate quite often. I have never suggested that we “seek to make every claim in the NT attributable to some immediate historical event.” I have simply encouraged you to not seek to make every claim in the New Testament attributable to some distant historical event. Some apocalyptic language refers to the judgment in the last days of the Jewish state during the 1st coming of Jesus, and some apocalyptic language refers to the judgment of all nations in the days of the world at the 2nd coming of Jesus.
Yes, its so explicit that I and every major scholar in the world has missed it. I don't think you understand the definition of explicit. Can you quote a text and show some scholars who agree with you that Paul is speaking in Romans of 70AD? Moreover, all of these Christians in Thessalonica and Rome are hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem! They are already believers and the Temple is already without spiritual significance for these Christians. Why would Paul warn the Thessalonians about a rebel in Jerusalem when they live halfway across the known world? This makes absolutely no sense to me.Actually, Paul was very explicit about it, and taught more on the judgment and destruction of the Jewish state than he did on the final judgment and the end of the world. He especially wrote about it in Romans, for three straight chapters, repeatedly quoting the Old Testament and expounding on it. You have read it, I’m sure many times, but your read right over it and miss it.
Again, this is another leap. I DID NOT say that there are no texts in the Bible referring to 70AD (yes, the Luke passage is about 70AD). I said there are no texts that say 70AD was the transition point between the OT and NT (none of the texts you quote say that). I think the NT authors would scream at such an idea as it completely ignores the teaching of the Gospels, especially Matthew.Yes, there is. For example:
“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” Luke 21:20-22
It would be impossible to argue that this did not come to pass in 70 A.D.
“Lo, he taketh away the first [offerings of the law] that he may establish the second [the body of Christ]. Hebrews 10:9
Again, it would impossible to argue that the offerings of the law did not stop in 70 A.D.
“In that he saith, a new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
It is impossible to argue that the Old Covenant things did not pass away in 70 A.D.
We already looked at the Greek of Hebrews passage, which, says the Old Covenant had ALREADY passed and was subsequently fading. You are inserting based on your assumptions that the "fading" means more than that and suggests the covenant was still in operation until 70AD. I think the wording of the text (which I already showed you the Greek here) cannot be any clearer that it was already gone and therefore was being abandoned by God's people as they heard the Gospel...(not waiting around for the destruction of the Temple).
Matthew 3:8 has nothing to do with the Temple. It's John speaking to his audience (the Pharisees) who have come to watch him baptize for repentance in preparation for the Messiah. This is puzzling you would even mention such a text.
I don't have time to go into context of Hebrews 12. I encourage you to read Hebrews 11. This context has nothing to do with 70AD and everything to do with enduring persecution for the sake of inheriting the "heavenly Jerusalem" not avoiding the destruction of earthly Jerusalem. In fact, Hebrews 13:13 validates this as it is talking about Christians being cast from Jewish social life....not a follow up of the destruction of Jewish social life as you assert.
Out of time.