The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am fully cognizant of the underlying debate that we are having with regard to Amillennialism. I hold that Jesus Christ will physically reign on earth for a thousand years, ruling over physical Israel and ultimately over the entire world. I maintain that Joel is focused on the gathering of his kinsmen at a time just prior to Christ's return. At that time, God will pour out his spirit on ALL FLESH, indicating all the Jews gathered at Jerusalem. Joel is focused on the final gathering.

Fulfillment of prophecy is one of the major points of debate between Amillennialism and Premillennialism.

What I have said to this point has nothing to do with that debate, so there was no need for you to make this about that. But, you did. So, here we are. There is no indication whatsoever in that prophecy that it's talking about a future gathering of all Jews in Jerusalem prior to Christ's return. You are inserting that idea into the text. Instead, what the text itself is about, according to Peter himself, is the outpouring and receiving of the Holy Spirit by those who call on the name of the Lord to be saved. That's it. There is no reason to read more into it than that.

So, it's simply talking about the ONGOING daily process that started long ago on the day of Pentecost in which people call on the name of the Lord and are saved by receiving the Holy Spirit. There is no focus on a final gathering indicated there at all. You are once again twisting scripture to fit your doctrine as you so often do.

Amil maintains that all prophecy has already been fulfilled in Christ.

All prophecy? No. What are you talking about? You seem to be confusing Amil with full preterism. They are not the same.

And so the underlying question on the table in this discussion is whether or not Joel's prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. Does Joel have more to say about our future or not?

Have I not already made it clear that I don't believe it was fulfilled in the first century? Did I not already make it clear that I believe the prophecy BEGAN to be fulfilled on that day and continues to be fulfilled as people continue to call on the name of the Lord and are saved? I believe I did. So, are you actually reading what I'm saying or just quickly skimming over it and then making assumptions based on the bits and pieces that you actually read?

Peter preached a sermon on the occasion when God had poured out his spirit on a group of disciples during the Jewish festival of Pentecost. A crowd of people heard these men speaking in other tongues, thinking them to be drunk. Peter explains that the outpouring of the spirit and speaking in tongues corresponds, in some way, to what Joel predicted.

We are discussing what Peter meant by "this is that." Some are asserting one particular understanding of the phrase while others are asserting another understanding of that phrase. On the one hand, Peter might be saying, "This event exactly corresponds to what Joel predicted"; On the other hand, Peter might be saying, "Joel predicted an outpouring of the Spirit and this is what we are seeing now."

It's as if Peter is saying, "Isn't it interesting how we seem to be experiencing what Joel predicted: a gathering at Jerusalem accompanied by an outpouring of the Holy Spirit?" And we can open our Bibles to the prophet Joel and see a resemblance between what Joel predicted and what happened to Peter and the other disciples. Did Joel predict a gathering of the people to Jerusalem? Yes. Did he predict an outpouring of the Holy Spirit at that time? Yes.

But, did Joel predict Pentecost? I would say no because although the two events are similar, they aren't exactly the same. There remain significant differences between what Joel predicted and what Peter witnessed that day.

Once again, in the future, the Jews will gather together at Jerusalem, and at that time God will pour out his spirit on them all.

I believe what you said here is utterly ludicrous. 100% nonsense. So, it is just like I had said before. Peter said "this is that" and you say "this is not that at all, but is only like that". Unbelievable. I cannot take you seriously when you butcher scripture this badly. Well, to be honest, I haven't taken you seriously ever since you revealed that you foolishly deny the deity of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are confusing "meaning" with "significance".

What in the world does that mean? Are you incapable of communicating in a straightforward way or do you just choose not to?

Paul didn't explicate the story of Abraham. The story was comprehensible to those who lived prior to Paul.

So, those who lived prior to Paul understood that God's promises to Abraham and his seed applied to Jesus Christ and those who belong to Christ who have faith like Abraham?

Rather, Paul was explaining the importance of the story of Abraham as it relates to the saving work of Jesus in contradistinction to the teaching of the Judaizers who claimed that anyone seeking to be blessed according to the Abrahamic promise needed to be circumcised just as Abraham was.

Understand. One would not understand Paul's point if one didn't already understand the story of Abraham. Paul isn't saying, "You all might think the story means one thing, but I'm here to tell you it means something entirely different." That is not what Paul is doing.

What Paul is actually doing is proving that the story of Abraham does NOT imply that a Gentile needs to convert to Judaism. And Paul is using a comprehensible story of Abraham to prove it.

What a load of nonsense. Tell me this. Do you believe that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed apply to Abraham and to his seed, Jesus Christ?

Galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

Followup question. Do you believe those promises also apply to those who belong to Christ?

Galatians 3:29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not suggesting that Peter didn't word things the way he meant or the way he should have. I am saying that Peter's words can be taken more than one way: 1) the way he meant them to be taken, 2) the way his listeners might inadvertently take his meaning.

Communicating ideas through language is challenging. The process is simple enough, we place words into sentences, and we place sentences into paragraphs. The goal is to remove all ambiguity and to focus the range of possible meanings down to one meaning. Words by themselves have a semantic range of meaning. The sentence narrows down the semantic range to only a few possible meanings. A paragraph attempts to narrow down the semantic range to a single meaning.

LOL. I don't recall asking for an English lesson, Professor.

I'm sure you have heard warnings about taking verses out of context. (Not saying that you do this.)

You may not be saying that I do this, but I believe you do this often.

The warning seeks to alert the Bible student to the inherent ambiguity in a single sentence. Outside of the paragraph, the verse can have more than one possible meaning. Those who focus on a single phrase or a single verse, inadvertently misconstrue the author's original intent.

You are boring me to death here. I hope as I continue to read you get to an actual point, otherwise I won't be able to keep reading this post.

What Peter said is "this is that", but these are just three words out of an entire paragraph. Three words are ambiguous since they contain a wide semantic range. We will inadvertently misconstrue Peter's meaning if we don't take the context into account. For this reason I say, "what Peter meant to say." What I mean is "the idea that Peter intended to convey with his words, after we have considered the immediate context and what Joel meant to say in context."

LOL. Give me a break. Clearly, when Peter said "this", he was referring to what was happening on the day of Pentecost. Agree? If not, then you have even less discernment than I thought. But, I will assume you agree. And then when he said "is that" he was talking about the prophecy from Joel 2:28-32. We know that because he said this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel after which he proceeded to quote Joel 2:28-32.

Now, I understand that we can't just assume that he was saying this is that entirely as if the day of Pentecost alone was the fulfillment of the prophecy. So, we do need some discernment in order to understand that. But, the problem I have with your view is that you believe that this (day of Pentecost events) is not part of the fulfillment of that (Joel 2:28-32) at all. Which I find to be utterly ludicrous.

The context of Joel is a gathering together of "those who fear the Lord" at Jerusalem in order to pray for the deliverance of Israel from her enemies.

That's not the context of Joel 2:28-32. The context of that passage is regarding people calling on the name of the Lord and being saved and receiving the Holy Spirit. That started happening on the day of Pentecost and has been happening every day ever since. And, it clearly doesn't relate only to Jews since we see a description later in the book of Acts of Gentiles also being saved and receiving the Holy Spirit.

At that time, when Jewish "God-fearers" gather in Jerusalem, God will pour out his spirit on all of them. Pentecost is very similar to what Joel predicted since the people gathered together in Jerusalem during a time when God poured out his spirit on the disciples. Similar but not the same thing.

LOL. Absolutely hilarious. Peter said "this is that" and you say "this is not that at all and is only similar to that". LOL. Unbelievable. I can't read any more of this or else I will vomit.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Prophecy of Joel is for ALL the world = ALL whom the FATHER will call = John 3:16

Here it is - read carefully: Acts 2:14-21

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice, and addressed the crowd: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen carefully to my words. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It is only the third hour of the day!
16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

17‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out My Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on My menservants and maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
lood and fire and billows of smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness,
and the moon to blood,
before the coming of the great and glorious Day of the Lord.
21And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord
will be saved.’

Exactly. It says EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, not just Jews. Only someone with extreme doctrinal bias can miss that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think you might see, as I do, that Joel associates this "call" and the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit with fire and billows of smoke and the sun turned to darkness ad the moon turned to blood. These events are associated with Christ's second coming, not his first coming.

Yes?

If you will, I suppose we need to distinguish between the promise of Joel, and the prediction of Joel. Yes? I certainly agree with you that the promise of Joel, i.e. calling on the name of the Lord" is true for anyone who calls on his name.

Then why are you making the prophecy to be only about the Jews? You are not making any sense.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Same thing Pre-trib believes in as far as Jesus returning at any moment. Perfect scenario for a false jesus to swoop in and fool people.

How do you know whether or not he believes that the things that are supposed to happen before His second coming have already happened or are happening? He didn't say that there is nothing that is supposed to happen before His second coming like pre-tribs typically believe. One thing that is supposed to happen before He comes is a mass falling away from the faith. Maybe he believes that is already happening? You don't know and you don't even bother to find out. You'd rather just make assumptions instead.

 

[David in NJ]

A reply of speculation and wrong beliefs, totally unsupported by any scripture.

It is just the souls of the saints, specifically the martyrs, that are in heaven, under the Altar. Rev 6:9-11
When Jesus Returns, He will bring just the souls of the GT martyrs with Him and resurrect them. Rev 20:4-5

I guess you mean Revelation 7:9, when you say 'we see the Saints in heaven'. That verse and the whole Chapter 7, describes earthly scenes.
Heaven is never mentioned there.

Not just a few Jews, but people from every tribe, race, nation and language, all the faithful Christian peoples. Revelation 5:9-10

Keraz = i AGREE = it is only the spirits/souls of the Saints that are in Heaven now.

 

[brightfame52]

I agree with this. So, this means you are an amillennialist. Are you familiar with that term?

Do you agree that Revelation 20:11 indicates that the judgment won't take place in the heavens or on earth? Not that it really matters. It will take place regardless.

Yes Im amil., Im not sure, it could be suspended in the air, but its going to occur.

 

[ewq1938]

ewg1938



Lol you late friend, antichrist began creeping back in the day during the Apostles 1 Jn 2:18

You didn't even bother to read the verse, you later than late friend.


1Jn_2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.


There were many AC's at the time but in the same verse you cited shows a future AC that had not yet come. How did you miss that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You didn't even bother to read the verse, you later than late friend.


1Jn_2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.


There were many AC's at the time but in the same verse you cited shows a future AC that had not yet come. How did you miss that?

He didn't say that antichrist had not yet come. You are interpreting that verse with extreme doctrinal bias. What John was saying there is that they had previously heard that antichrist would come, but then he clarified that it was not just one antichrist that was coming and that was proven by the fact that many antichrists had already come.

And do you stop reading at 1 John 2:18? Keep reading a little further and you will see this:

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

So, what John clarified here is that ANYONE who denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist. NEVER does John refer to an individual antichrist, but rather he made it clear that there were MANY antichrists because ANYONE who denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist.

 

[covenantee]

You didn't even bother to read the verse, you later than late friend.


1Jn_2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.


There were many AC's at the time but in the same verse you cited shows a future AC that had not yet come. How did you miss that?

They had heard that antichrist shall come. Their understanding was based not on evidence, but on hearsay.

John proceeded to demonstrate the error of that hearsay with evidence of how to recognize antichrists, of which there were already many.

And always will be.

John was not a Jesuitized dispensational futurist.

 

[David in NJ]

They had heard that antichrist shall come. Their understanding was based not on evidence, but on hearsay.

John proceeded to demonstrate the error of that hearsay with evidence of how to recognize antichrists, of which there were already many.

And always will be.

John was not a Jesuitized dispensational futurist.

John confirmed that there will arise a man who fulfills that role of the 'Antichrist'.

Jesus confirmed it.

The OT Prophet Daniel confirmed it.

The Apostle Paul confirmed it.

 

[covenantee]

John confirmed that there will arise a man who fulfills that role of the 'Antichrist'.

Jesus confirmed it.

The OT Prophet Daniel confirmed it.

The Apostle Paul confirmed it.

John confirmed that it was hearsay.

No one disagreed with him.

 

[David in NJ]

John confirmed that it was hearsay.

No one disagreed with him.

Friend, the Apostle John never said it was hearsay but confirmed what is well known by Believing Saints who know the Holy Scriptures.

Daniel 7:23-25
This is what he said: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on the earth, different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour the whole earth, trample it down, and crush it. 24And the ten horns are ten kings who will rise from this kingdom. After them another king, different from the earlier ones, will rise and subdue three kings. 25He will speak out against the Most High and oppress the saints of the Most High, intending to change the appointed times and laws; and the saints will be given into his hand for a time, and times, and half a time.

2 Thess ch2
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come. 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed. 4He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

5Do you not remember that I told you these things while I was still with you? 6And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one who now restrains it will continue until he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival.

OT Prophet Daniel
Apostle John
Apostle Paul
the LORD
all confirm that the spirit of antichrist is in the world with many people rising up as antichrists whereby this deception spreads throughout the world as the 'body' of rebellion grows into a "man of sin" with the Antichrist as it's Head.

This is called the "Mystery of Iniquity".

This "Mystery of Iniquity" began in the Garden in Genesis and is now reaching it's peak.

Another OT example/prophecy of the Antichrist is Nimrod.

 

[covenantee]

Friend, the Apostle John never said it was hearsay but confirmed what is well known by Believing Saints who know the Holy Scriptures.

Daniel 7:23-25
This is what he said: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on the earth, different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour the whole earth, trample it down, and crush it. 24And the ten horns are ten kings who will rise from this kingdom. After them another king, different from the earlier ones, will rise and subdue three kings. 25He will speak out against the Most High and oppress the saints of the Most High, intending to change the appointed times and laws; and the saints will be given into his hand for a time, and times, and half a time.

2 Thess ch2
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come. 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed. 4He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

5Do you not remember that I told you these things while I was still with you? 6And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one who now restrains it will continue until he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival.

OT Prophet Daniel
Apostle John
Apostle Paul
the LORD
all confirm that the spirit of antichrist is in the world with many people rising up as antichrists whereby this deception spreads throughout the world as the 'body' of rebellion grows into a "man of sin" with the Antichrist as it's Head.

This is called the "Mystery of Iniquity".

This "Mystery of Iniquity" began in the Garden in Genesis and is now reaching it's peak.

Another OT example/prophecy of the Antichrist is Nimrod.

Brother, the word "antichrist" does not appear in the Scriptures you cited. John is the only one to use and define the term.

The Protestant Reformers recognized the apostate Roman papacy as the fulfillment of the applicable portions of Daniel 7 and 2 Thessalonians 2. Consistent with John, they recognized it as an antichrist, not the only antichrist of all time, but the predominant antichrist of their era, against whom God had called them into spiritual battle. By God's grace and mercy, they were victorious. The single end-time antichrist was a fabrication that arose from the apostate papacy's counter-reformation attempt to defeat the Reformation. It failed.

Dispensational futurism's embrace of the papist fabrication represents a betrayal of the Reformation.

May God return His Church to the prophetic faith of the Reformers.

 

[David in NJ]

Brother, the word "antichrist" does not appear in the Scriptures you cited. John is the only one to use and define the term.

The Protestant Reformers recognized the apostate Roman papacy as the fulfillment of the applicable portions of Daniel 7 and 2 Thessalonians 2. Consistent with John, they recognized it as an antichrist, not the only antichrist of all time, but the predominant antichrist of their era, against whom God had called them into spiritual battle. By God's grace and mercy, they were victorious. The single end-time antichrist was a fabrication that arose from the apostate papacy's counter-reformation attempt to defeat the Reformation. It failed.

Dispensational futurism's embrace of the papist fabrication represents a betrayal of the Reformation.

May God return His Church to the prophetic faith of the Reformers.

Well, i fully agree with you on the apostate RCC, which in and of itself is 'antichrist'.

i am not a 'dispensationlist'

So let's look at the entirety of Scripture beginning in Genesis and forward since it is in Totality of Scripture with the Holy Spirit that we
can see the whole Picture of the "Mystery of God vs the mystery of iniquity".

Peace and thank you for your insight = i am going to bed = Good Night Brother

 

[Keraz]

Keraz = i AGREE = it is only the spirits/souls of the Saints that are in Heaven now.

Their souls are kept under the Altar, they are therefore not conscious or actually living in heaven, although God does allow them to cry out at times.
However their 'crying out', may just be metaphorical, stated for our instruction, from their, [when alive] and our desire for justice and retribution.

 

[brightfame52]

You didn't even bother to read the verse, you later than late friend.


1Jn_2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.


There were many AC's at the time but in the same verse you cited shows a future AC that had not yet come. How did you miss that?

This is 2000 yrs in the future from then Duh

 

[CadyandZoe]

I wasn't even talking about the two men on the road. This was the passage being discussed:

Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Jesus said this to all of the disciples after the two men went back to Jerusalem to report to the original 11 disciples what had happened.

Okay, but how does this support the contention that the OT is incomprehensible?

It was both. Are you even reading the text? Look at Luke 24:45. It says He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures, not so that they would believe them. They had to understand them first before they could believe them.

Okay, but doesn't this passage indicate that spiritual enlightenment is required to understand the OT? It doesn't seem to prove that the NT is required to understand the OT. Right?

Obviously someone who has had their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit has more discernment than someone who hasn't. That isn't what I'm saying since I'm not into the practice of making obvious statements that everyone already knows. What we're talking about here is whether or not they should have understood what the OT taught even without the NT and without the Holy Spirit opening their eyes. You seem to be saying that they should have been able to understand it even without the NT and without the Holy Spirit opening their eyes and giving them the proper understanding. I'm saying you're wrong about that.

Right. So far, you have shown that spiritual enlightenment is required to understand some of the OT, particularly how the OT applies to Jesus. But I question whether it shows that the NT is also required since the NT didn't exist when Jesus made his statement.

Even so, Jesus and the apostles argued from the OT scriptures, which logically implies comprehensibility. Seems to me that it takes supernatural enlightenment in order to make the connection between Jesus and what was predicted, not that it takes supernatural enlightenment to understand the OT.

I know I am not always successful but I am trying to maintain a proper distinction between the objective meaning of a text and the significance of the objective meaning.

I liken the process to giving someone directions to your house. The words have meaning and what you intend has an objective meaning. But the significance of the directions is manifest only while the reader is in transit to your location. The journey is the context from which one understands what has been said.

I think we can say the same thing about the prophets. These words also have meaning and what they intend to say also has an objective meaning. But the significance of the prophetic word is manifest only while the prophecy is coming to pass. Thus, I don't think we can say that the prophetic word is incomprehensible. What we say is that a description of what will happen is inadequate to understand WHY it happened, why it is worthy of note, and in what manner or mode the word will manifest.

In other words, spiritual enlightenment helps us correlate the prophetic word with actual events.

For instance, the prophetic word announced a coming suffering servant. It also announced a coming triumphal king. Both are comprehensible in what they say, but spiritual enlightenment allows us to see them both located in one man.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What I have said to this point has nothing to do with that debate, so there was no need for you to make this about that. But, you did. So, here we are. There is no indication whatsoever in that prophecy that it's talking about a future gathering of all Jews in Jerusalem prior to Christ's return. You are inserting that idea into the text. Instead, what the text itself is about, according to Peter himself, is the outpouring and receiving of the Holy Spirit by those who call on the name of the Lord to be saved. That's it. There is no reason to read more into it than that.

I justify my observation based on Peter's use of Joel.

So, it's simply talking about the ONGOING daily process that started long ago on the day of Pentecost in which people call on the name of the Lord and are saved by receiving the Holy Spirit. There is no focus on a final gathering indicated there at all. You are once again twisting scripture to fit your doctrine as you so often do.

Can we have a friendly conversation? I think so. Instead of concluding motives that I may or may not have, why not work through the passages together under the pretext that we both want to understand them?

I think we can both agree that God poured out His Spirit on the disciples that day, and he continues to pour out His Spirit on believers throughout history. In fact, I think we can both agree that God trained the apostles to believe that Gentiles were also being saved through the outpouring of His Spirit on Cornelius and his household.

So then, what did Peter mean when he said "this is that? (Whatever he meant I'm okay with it.) I think we can both agree, perhaps, that Peter meant to say, "This particular outpouring of the Holy Spirit is just like the outpouring spoken of in Joel." What I deny is the claim that Joel was predicting Pentecost. He wasn't. He was predicting another moment when God would pour out his Spirit. I am not convinced that Peter meant to say, "Joel predicted this day would happen."

All prophecy? No. What are you talking about? You seem to be confusing Amil with full preterism. They are not the same.

Hmm. Okay. So Amill allows that some OT prophecy remains to be fulfilled? I mean, I realize that Amil believes that the prophetic word concerning the Second coming is yet to happen. I get that. But when I argue that the prophetic word anticipates the millennial kingdom when Jesus will rule on earth, your view sounds a bit like Preterism. No?

Have I not already made it clear that I don't believe it was fulfilled in the first century? Did I not already make it clear that I believe the prophecy BEGAN to be fulfilled on that day and continues to be fulfilled as people continue to call on the name of the Lord and are saved? I believe I did. So, are you actually reading what I'm saying or just quickly skimming over it and then making assumptions based on the bits and pieces that you actually read?

I understood your point concerning the continuance of the outpouring. On that, we both agree. But I maintain that Pentecost is lacking significant elements from Joel's word that it seems unlikely that Joel was predicting Pentecost. Do you think Joel was predicting Pentecost?