WHAT????? CHURCH FATHERS WERE PRETRIB ???

[covenantee]

The nerve of those people trying to buy and sell things in His body. They got what they deserved for that.

Yeah. Too bad the gnostics haven't figured that out yet.

 

[Truth7t7]

Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into his body, and cast out all them that sold and bought in his body, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

It's perfectly Scriptural.

"Yes Perfectly Scriptural"

Was Jesus literally at the physical temple in Jerusalem below when he stated "Destroy This Temple" 100% "Yes"

"But He Spake Of The Temple Of His Body"

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

 

[covenantee]

"Yes Perfectly Scriptural"

Was Jesus literally at the physical temple in Jerusalem below when he stated "Destroy This Temple" 100% "Yes"

"But He Spake Of The Temple Of His Body"

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

So then Matthew 21:12 also speaks of the temple of His body. Jesus was literally at the physical temple in Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into his body, and cast out all them that sold and bought in his body, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

It's perfectly Scriptural.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

"Yes Perfectly Scriptural"

Was Jesus literally at the physical temple in Jerusalem below when he stated "Destroy This Temple" 100% "Yes"

"But He Spake Of The Temple Of His Body"

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

The Temple they were building was clearly wrong ! not worthy of God at all, such was foolish !
For Jesus is the true Temple !
That's why Jesus took to such as he did.

 

[Davidpt]

Daniel 7:13 “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.

I'm sure you would agree that the "One like the Son of Man" in this verse is Jesus. There's no need to resort to saying that the one like the Son of Man in Revelation 14 is not Jesus. It is referring to Jesus, but it describes the reaping symbolically. It's not as if Jesus will be literally holding a sickle when He comes while literally reaping people with a literal sickle. That would be one huge sickle if that happened literally. But, no, the sickle is symbolic. The literal way that Jesus will do the reaping is by sending His angels to do it, as we can see in other scriptures. It's just symbolically portrayed as Him putting in His sickle in Revelation 14. I wonder if rebuilder 454 takes that literally? It wouldn't surprise me.

The point in Daniel 7:13 is different since it is showing that someone like unto a human is coming before the Father. Jesus was like unto a human, yet Jesus is God.

In Revelation 14:14, the one sitting on the cloud is taking orders from angels. Since when does Christ take orders from angels rather that give orders to angels? How can Christ be above all if angels are telling Him what to do and when?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The point in Daniel 7:13 is different since it is showing that someone like unto a human is coming before the Father. Jesus was like unto a human, yet Jesus is God.

In Revelation 14:14, the one sitting on the cloud is taking orders from angels. Since when does Christ take orders from angels rather that give orders to angels? How can Christ be above all if angels are telling Him what to do and when?

So, now you have decided to try to find some other way to deny what Revelation 14:14 indicates. You saw that your argument that Jesus can't be described as one like the Son of Man doesn't hold water, so now you're trying something else to make the verse say what you want it to say.

In that verse, Jesus is not taking orders from an angel, He, as the Son of Man, is taking orders from God the Father that are being relayed to Him by the angel. Also, the verse is very symbolic, so there's no reason to take it so literally as if what is described is what will happen literally. No one is going to be literally reaped by a sickle.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"Yes Perfectly Scriptural"

Was Jesus literally at the physical temple in Jerusalem below when he stated "Destroy This Temple" 100% "Yes"

"But He Spake Of The Temple Of His Body"

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Did you not even read the post you were responding to where covenantee referenced Matthew 21:12 and showed how you must read it...

Matthew 21:12 Jesus went into his body, and cast out all them that sold and bought in his body, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

So, is this your understanding of the verse or is it talking about Jesus going into the literal physical temple to cast people out of it? He was at the physical temple when what is described in this verse took place. According to you, whenever He spoke at the physical temple about the temple, He was talking about His body. So, do you think Matthew 21:12 is talking about Jesus going into His body and casting out "all them that sold and bought in His body"?

 

[Truth7t7]

Did you not even read the post you were responding to where covenantee referenced Matthew 21:12 and showed how you must read it...

Matthew 21:12 Jesus went into his body, and cast out all them that sold and bought in his body, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

So, is this your understanding of the verse or is it talking about Jesus going into the literal physical temple to cast people out of it? He was at the physical temple when what is described in this verse took place. According to you, whenever He spoke at the physical temple about the temple, He was talking about His body. So, do you think Matthew 21:12 is talking about Jesus going into His body and casting out "all them that sold and bought in His body"?

Can't you read the post below that clearly explains that the temple to be destroyed was the Lord's body, and not a temple of stone that the Lord and Jews were standing before, read it again!

Was Jesus literally at the physical temple in Jerusalem below with the Jews when he stated "Destroy This Temple", Answer 100% "Yes"

John 2:19-22 interprets itself, Matthew 24:3 had absolutely no fulfillment in your preterist belief in 70AD Roman armies destroying Jerusalems temple "None", the temple to be destroyed was the Lords body (Symbolic)!

"But He Spake Of The Temple Of His Body"

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Can't you read the post below that clearly explains that the temple to be destroyed was the Lord's body, and not a temple of stone that the Lord and Jews were standing before, read it again!

Was Jesus literally at the physical temple in Jerusalem below with the Jews when he stated "Destroy This Temple", Answer 100% "Yes"

"But He Spake Of The Temple Of His Body"

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Once again, you were unable to answer a simple question. Until you start showing that you can answer simple questions, you are not to be taken seriously.

 

[Davidpt]

Can't you read the post below that clearly explains that the temple to be destroyed was the Lord's body, and not a temple of stone that the Lord and Jews were standing before, read it again!

Was Jesus literally at the physical temple in Jerusalem below with the Jews when he stated "Destroy This Temple", Answer 100% "Yes"

John 2:19-22 interprets itself, Matthew 24:3 had absolutely no fulfillment in your preterist belief in 70AD Roman armies destroying Jerusalems temple "None", the temple to be destroyed was the Lords body (Symbolic)!

"But He Spake Of The Temple Of His Body"

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

But where do we see anything like that early on in the Discourse where we are being informed that a brick and mortar temple is not meant, that a temple in another sense is meant? At least in John 2 this was made clear. Why you are trying to apply this to the Discourse in like manner, when the text never comes out and says a temple in another sense is meant instead, is beyond me?

It's one thing to argue that a brick and mortar temple in the first century is not meant in Matthew 24:15-21, but why argue it's not meant in Matthew 24:1-2 when no one ever says, like they did in John 2, that a temple in another sense is meant instead?

At least in Matthew 24:15-21 it is plainly obvious that a brick and mortar temple in the first century is not meant. One reason why is simple. Verse 29 is meaning immediately after great tribulation involving verse 15-26, and that verse 30 is meaning the 2nd coming. Obviously, verse 30 never happened 2000 years ago right after 70 AD.

But in Luke 21, the coming meant in verse 27, the same coming meant in Matthew 24:30, is not immediately after Luke 21:20. There is at least a 2000 year gap between those events. There is no 2000 year gap between Matthew 24:15-26 and Matthew 24:30, though. Therefore, Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15-26 are not involving the same era of time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But where do we see anything like that early on in the Discourse where we are being informed that a brick and mortar temple is not meant, that a temple in another sense is meant? At least in John 2 this was made clear. Why you are trying to apply this to the Discourse in like manner, when the text never comes out and says a temple in another sense is meant instead, is beyond me?

It's one thing to argue that a brick and mortar temple in the first century is not meant in Matthew 24:15-21, but why argue it's not meant in Matthew 24:1-2 when no one ever says, like they did in John 2, that a temple in another sense is meant instead?

Because some people see what they want to see instead of looking at the actual context.

At least in Matthew 24:15-21 it is plainly obvious that a brick and mortar temple in the first century is not meant. One reason why is simple. Verse 29 is meaning immediately after great tribulation involving verse 15-26, and that verse 30 is meaning the 2nd coming. Obviously, verse 30 never happened 2000 years ago right after 70 AD.

But in Luke 21, the coming meant in verse 27, the same coming meant in Matthew 24:30, is not immediately after Luke 21:20. There is at least a 2000 year gap between those events. There is no 2000 year gap between Matthew 24:15-26 and Matthew 24:30, though. Therefore, Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15-26 are not involving the same era of time.

Nonsense. The same 2,000 year gap between Luke 21:20-24a and Luke 21:27 is the gap between Matthew 24:15-22 and Matthew 24:30. Speaking of "plainly obvious", it is plainly obvious that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22, but you deny it, anyway.