Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

Matthew 24

Rate this topic


Genevanpreacher
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

I disagree. Compare this section of verses - [Luke 19:39-44] 

With this - [Matthew 24:2]

 

In my opinion describing, in Matthew 24, the following way - [Matthew 24:15-21]

Sounds like the same situation to me.

   And it is the same time in each book.
 
I would like to also add, in support of this statement - [Luke 21:20-24]

 

Brother Pittman,

 

When you presented your posting last night, I did not have the time to respond thereto.  It was my intent to deliver a response some time today as time might permit.  Since that time, you have edited your posting to add the passage from Luke 21:20-24 and Brother "Covenanter" has also presented his posting wherein he also brought forward the teaching of Luke 21:20-22.  This causes a small difficulty for me.  Do I now respond as I originally intended to your posting as it was originally delivered, without a consideration of your edited addition and of Brother "Covenanter's" posting; or do I attempt to respond unto all of these as a single unit?  First, I will acknowledge that there is a form of "dove-tail" between the passages that you originally included in your posting and Luke 21:20-24 (as added by you and presented by Brother "Covenanter.")  However, I do indeed intend in this posting to present my initial thoughts of response to your posting as it originally was presented (without a consideration of Luke 21:20-24).  On the other hand, I also do intend to provide a more thorough response concerning Luke 21:20-24 and its relationship to Matthew 24:1-31.  Also in this posting I intend to make some small parenthetical references to your addition and Brother "Covenanter's" presentation of Luke 21:20-24, which I shall present in a different color scheme for the purpose of recognition.  I pray that this method of presentation will be acceptable and understandable.

__________________________________________________

 

It appears from your posting that you would see an equivalency between the following three passages -- Luke 19:39-44; Matthew 24:2; and Matthew 24:15-21.  Even so, I wish to present some thoughts concerning the teaching of these passage and concerning the relationship of these passages to one another, wherein they do and wherein they do not present a direct connection to each other.

 

Luke 19:39-44 -- "And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

 

Luke 19:41-44 presents our Lord's grief over the city of Jerusalem, as per verse 41 -- "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it."  Then in verses 42-44 our Lord delivered a pronouncement of judgement upon that city.  Throughout this pronouncement our Lord employed the third person, singular pronouns "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine" a significant number of times.  Grammatically, the antecedent for these pronouns is found in the phrase "the city" as presented in verse 41.  As such, our Lord spoke unto and concerning the city of Jerusalem as a singular, personified individual.  What about the inhabitants of the city?  These our Lord referenced in verse 44 as the children of the city within "her."  (Note: I here employed the feminine pronoun "her" since that is the gender by which we usually personify a city.  I do recognize that our Lord Jesus Christ did not directly specify a gender in His personification.)   So then, what is involved in our Lord's prophetic ("For the days shall come upon thee . . .") pronouncement of judgment upon the city of Jerusalem?

 

1.  The enemies of Jerusalem shall surround the city with a military siege, as per verse 43.

2.  The enemies of Jerusalem shall conquer the city and tear it down to the ground, as per the opening line of verse 44.

3.  The enemies of Jerusalem shall lay the inhabitants of the city down to the ground with death, as per the second line of verse 44.

4.  The enemies of Jerusalem shall so tear down the city that no two stones of the city will remain one upon the other, as per the third line of verse 44.

 

 

Matthew 24:2 -- "And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

 

In Matthew 24:1 it is recorded that one of Jesus' disciples directed His gaze upon the physical wonderment of the Temple buildings.  Verse 2 records our Lord's response.  It is worthy of note that our Lord does not at all focus upon the physical wonderment of the Temple buildings, but rather upon the coming destruction of those very Temple buildings.  Specifically, our Lord prophetically proclaims the judgment that the Temple buildings would experience such destruction that no two stones of the Temple buildings would remain one upon the other.  

 

What then are the connections and differences between Luke 19:33-44 & Matthew 24:2.  First, the difference -- Luke 19:33-44 only speaks specifically concerning the city of Jerusalem, not concerning the Temple in Jerusalem; whereas Matthew 24:2 only speaks specifically concerning the Temple in Jerusalem, not concerning the city of Jerusalem.  However, it is to be acknowledge that in speaking concerning the city of Jerusalem, the statements of Luke 19:33-44 by definition must also include the Temple in the city of Jerusalem.  On the other hand, the connection -- Both passages indicate that the coming destruction of judgment will cause no two stones to remain standing one upon the other.  As such, I am compelled to acknowledge that these two passages are indeed speaking concerning the same event of judgment upon Jerusalem and the Temple therein.  (Thus far, I believe that we would be in agreement.)

 

 

Matthew 24:15-21 -- "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

 

Throughout this passage we find one reference to the Temple in Jerusalem, through the phrase "in the holy place" as employed in verse 15.  Herein there is no reference to the destruction of that Temple, and no statement to indicate that no two stones would be remaining one upon the other.  Rather, there is a reference to some "abomination of desolation" that will "stand in the holy place" (prOBably, the Holy of Holies) within the Temple.  As such, this reference implies the necessity for the Temple itself to be standing (not destroyed) in order for this event to occur.  (Now, one might contend that the destruction of the Temple buildings will occur immediately after this event.  However, the actual statements of Matthew 24:15-21 make no direct statement concerning this.)  In addition, although Matthew 24:16-21 does instruct the inhabitants in the land of Judaea at that time to flee unto the mountains, there is no direct reference at all in this passage to the city of Jerusalem itself or to that cities destruction.  As such, a direct connection between Matthew 24:15-21 and Matthew 24:2/Luke 19:41-44 is lacking in the direct statements that they actually present.  

 

(Now, here is the point at which I must acknowledge the addition of Luke 21:20-24 into the discussion.  Indeed, I am compelled to acknowledge a direct connection between Luke 21:20-24 and Luke 19:41-44/Matthew 24:2.  Furthermore, I am compelled to acknowledge that Luke 21:5-ff stands as a parallel passage to Matthew 24:1-ff.  Thus I can understand that manner by which you have made the connection between Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 19:41-44/Matthew 24:2, that is -- through their connection to Luke 21:20-24.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thank you, Scott & Geneva, for carefully reasoned posts to explain your understanding of the passage.

 

Like Geneva, I find it strange that you do not see the temple timing destruction in the Lord's answer. If we read Mat. 23 before 24 . . .

 

Brother "Covenanter,"

 

With this posting I do not intend to deliver my response to the substance of your posting.  I do yet intend to do so; however, I will require a certain amount of time in order to present that response in the manner that I am presently considering.  On the other hand, I am making this posting in order to present a defense of my approach in my first posting and in order to present an acknowledgement of fault on my own part.  

 

First, my defense of self -- In my first posting, I was seeking first to answer the question of the original posting directly according to the context of Matthew 24.  That the direct audience for our Lord's teaching in Matthew 23 was both the multitudes (including the religious leaders of Judea) and Christ's disciples is to be acknowledges according to the Biblical record, as per Matthew 23:1.  However, that there is a change in direct the audience for our Lord's teaching from Matthew 23 to Matthew 24 should also be acknowledged according to the Biblical record, as per Matthew 24:3.  Furthermore, in my first posting I was seeking to present the focus of our Lord's answer unto the disciples' question (in Matthew 24:3) as it is recorded in Matthew 24:4-31.  That there are parallel passages to be considered in both Mark and Luke is to be acknowledged.  However, dealing with those parallel passages was the thrust of my posting.  Indeed, in the opening line of my second paragraph concerning Matthew 24:4-31, I did make the statement, "What then do we find in our Lord's answer as presented in Matthew 24:4-31.  To me, it is worthy of note that throughout this passage . . . ."

 

Second, my acknowledgement of fault -- In presenting my first posting concerning Matthew 24;1-21, I did recognize that there was a parallel passage in Mark 13; and I did take it into some small amount of consideration (since a significant amount of consideration thereto was not my primary purpose).  However, I did not at all recognize that there was a parallel passage in Luke 21.  This was a fault on my part, and I do acknowledge it as such.  In a future posting (as time will permit), I do intend to remedy this fault on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Holy is an adjective.

There can be no such thing as "Holies".

Try using the Scripture, instead of parroting men.

The Scripture calls it the "Most Holy Place".

The Scripture doesn't use the word "rapture", which in English is an abstract and not a concrete noun, so it couldn't possibly be the name of an event.
In fact, by definition, rapture is imagined.

Satan has more than one trick up his bejewelled sleeve, and extra-Biblical terms is one of them.

You've dashed your foot against a stumbling stone, and fallen into Rome's mire, Brother.

Of course, I'll be ridiculed and chided for this post, but, no matter.

The children of Light are watching,
His sheep hear His voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What is translated by the King James as "the most holy place" is the Hebrew "qodesh qodesh" (holy-holy). 

The King James adds the word "place", which is NOT in the original Hebrew.

 

The construction "Holy of Holies" is a literal translation of a Hebrew idiom which is intended to express a superlative.

Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

prophet, PastorScott answered you well in another thread. And here's mine: dont start that nonsense. It's nothing more than sowing discord. And we all know - or should - what the Bible says about that.

We all use terms that aren't in the KJB...even you. Let's not be falsely pious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What is translated by the King James as "the most holy place" is the Hebrew "qodesh qodesh" (holy-holy).
The King James adds the word "place", which is NOT in the original Hebrew.

The construction "Holy of Holies" is a literal translation of a Hebrew idiom which is intended to express a superlative.

Awesome!
Except "holies" isn't a word, in English.
Holy is an adjective, it isn't expressed as singular or plural, it is modifying a noun or pronoun that would express number.

Ex: He is holy
They are holy
Holy Place
The most Holy Place
The Holy Lands
See?

In English, the part of speech being modified carries the burden of expressing number.
The same adjective, neutral in number, modifies both singular and plural nouns/pronouns.

If correcting English causes division, it is dividing those who care about being correct from those who don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What is translated by the King James as "the most holy place" is the Hebrew "qodesh qodesh" (holy-holy). 

The King James adds the word "place", which is NOT in the original Hebrew.

 

The construction "Holy of Holies" is a literal translation of a Hebrew idiom which is intended to express a superlative.

you have to remember that the new testament was written in greek as it is written  topO that means place so go back and look in greek we will found it 

Edited by allen32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Except "holies" isn't a word, in English.

 

Just posting this to show that "holies" is a word...in English...and it's a noun.

 

Source - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holies?s=t

 

holy
[hoh-lee]  
adjective, holier, holiest.
1. specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated:
holy ground.

2. dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion:
a holy man.

3. saintly; godly; pious; devout:
a holy life.

4. having a spiritually pure quality:
a holy love.

5. entitled to worship or veneration as or as if sacred:
a holy relic.

6. religious:
holy rites.

7. inspiring fear, awe, or grave distress:
The director, when angry, is a holy terror.

 

noun, plural holies.
8. a place of worship; sacred place; sanctuary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
and to anoint the most Holy (qodesh qodesh).  Daniel 9:24
 
The 70th week of Daniel is yet to occur.  This is what is referred to as the Tribulation.  It concerns Israel and has nothing to do
with the Body of Christ.  This concerns the fulfillment of prophecy concerning Jesus' kinsmen and their destiny in Israel
during the Millennial Reign of the Messiah.
Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Hebrew word is shabuwa' which means "sevens" (used the way we use dozen).  In this case it is a "week of years".

70 "weeks of years" are determined upon "thy people and thy holy city" (Jerusalem).  This key prophecy is from vs. 24-27.

 

Jesus makes reference to this prophecy twice: Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14.  The "abomination of desolation" takes place in the Most Holy Place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Hebrew word is shabuwa' which means "sevens" (used the way we use dozen).  In this case it is a "week of years".

70 "weeks of years" are determined upon "thy people and thy holy city" (Jerusalem).  This key prophecy is from vs. 24-27.

 

Jesus makes reference to this prophecy twice: Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14.  The "abomination of desolation" takes place in the Most Holy Place.

 

An answer to post #51 please?

 

[  Just to be clear and not get too far off topic - what verse or verses say that the "70th week" is the "Tribulation"?  ] :th_popout: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

An answer to post #51 please?

 

[  Just to be clear and not get too far off topic - what verse or verses say that the "70th week" is the "Tribulation"?  ] :th_popout: 

 

It doesn't say - "the seventieth week is the Tribulation", but it does definitely indicate that it is.

 

Daniel 9:24-27
  24   Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
  25   Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks(7 weeks), and threescore and two weeks(62 weeks): the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
  26   And after threescore and two weeks(same 62 weeks as before) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
  27   And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week(1 week): and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the OBlation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

So, you have 69 weeks that have been accounted for in history. There is one week left over (verse 27) that hasn't happened yet...the 70th week. Christ referred to this very week as a future event (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Luke 21:20). The "abomination of desolation" that Christ spoke of hasn't happened yet, nor has any of the other things mentioned in Daniel 9:27. Add to that, the beginning of the prophecy (Daniel 9:24) tells several things that will happen to FULFILL the 70 weeks...so, the 70th week, and all that is indicated by it, is still future and fits in with the description of the Tribulation period.

 

Now, I understand the Preterist/Partial-Preterist view of Daniel 9:24 and the remainder of the prophecy. So, I was just giving you the answer to your question.

 

It's there...for all to see...the 70th week will be the Tribulation period. It may not use the words that you asked in your question, but it's there. 

 

I don't mean this to be rude, but I hope it might help you understand where those of us who hold to a literal interpretation of God's word are coming from. Just as you can't see (?) the 70th week being the Tribulation, we can't see the spiritualization that Preterists/Partial-Preterists interpret scripture by. Spiritualizing literal events doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

 

My view is: I serve a real, living, and literal God...who gave us a real, living, and literal word...to be followed literally.

 

But no worries here...you can to believe as you wish. I'll not argue over it...just answering your question.  :yeah:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Holy is an adjective, it isn't expressed as singular or plural, it is modifying a noun or pronoun that would express number.
 

 

Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

 

Holy is a masculine noun here. The capital H kind of gives it away.

 

קוֹדֶשׁ qodesh (ko'-desh) n-m <-- (n-m = noun-masculine)

 

I don't know how you feel about referencing Hebrew and Greek, but there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It doesn't say - "the seventieth week is the Tribulation", but it does definitely indicate that it is.

 

Daniel 9:24-27
  24   Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
  25   Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks(7 weeks), and threescore and two weeks(62 weeks): the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
  26   And after threescore and two weeks(same 62 weeks as before) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
  27   And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week(1 week): and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the OBlation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

So, you have 69 weeks that have been accounted for in history. There is one week left over (verse 27) that hasn't happened yet...the 70th week. Christ referred to this very week as a future event (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Luke 21:20). The "abomination of desolation" that Christ spoke of hasn't happened yet, nor has any of the other things mentioned in Daniel 9:27. Add to that, the beginning of the prophecy (Daniel 9:24) tells several things that will happen to FULFILL the 70 weeks...so, the 70th week, and all that is indicated by it, is still future and fits in with the description of the Tribulation period.

 

Now, I understand the Preterist/Partial-Preterist view of Daniel 9:24 and the remainder of the prophecy. So, I was just giving you the answer to your question.

 

It's there...for all to see...the 70th week will be the Tribulation period. It may not use the words that you asked in your question, but it's there. 

 

I don't mean this to be rude, but I hope it might help you understand where those of us who hold to a literal interpretation of God's word are coming from. Just as you can't see (?) the 70th week being the Tribulation, we can't see the spiritualization that Preterists/Partial-Preterists interpret scripture by. Spiritualizing literal events doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

 

My view is: I serve a real, living, and literal God...who gave us a real, living, and literal word...to be followed literally.

 

But no worries here...you can to believe as you wish. I'll not argue over it...just answering your question.  :yeah:

 

Thank you for a clear answer.  :flip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

NN:

.....

Now, I understand the Preterist/Partial-Preterist view of Daniel 9:24 and the remainder of the prophecy. So, I was just giving you the answer to your question.

 

It's there...for all to see...the 70th week will be the Tribulation period. It may not use the words that you asked in your question, but it's there. 

 

I don't mean this to be rude, but I hope it might help you understand where those of us who hold to a literal interpretation of God's word are coming from. Just as you can't see (?) the 70th week being the Tribulation, we can't see the spiritualization that Preterists/Partial-Preterists interpret scripture by. Spiritualizing literal events doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

 

My view is: I serve a real, living, and literal God...who gave us a real, living, and literal word...to be followed literally.

.....

 

 

I'm glad you "understand the Preterist/Partial-Preterist view of Daniel 9:24" BUT you OBviously don't :(

 

I don't mind being "accused" of spiritual understanding of Scripture, but your accusation is pejorative, so I need to explain.

 

I believe Scripture deals with real, literal events, spiritual things such as our relationship with God by grace, through faith, is real & literal - & spiritual. I believe that Jesus has ascended to his throne at his Father's right hand, & exercises real & literal kingdom that is spiritual. 

 

When Gabriel prophecies 70 weeks, I believe that is 490 literal years, ending about 7 years after his baptism & anointing, with two real & literal major events: Stephen, by the Holy Spirit declaring the apostate Jewish leaders to be "uncircumcised" & the Holy Spirit welcoming Gentiles - Cornelius & friends - into the church without circumcision. 

 

I further believe that when Jesus explained his prophecy of the destruction of the temple in Mat. 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21, he was talking about the real, literal destruction that literally took place within the lifetime of the generation that rejected him. 

 

Also I believe that all who are saved by grace through faith in Jesus are real & literal & spiritual children of our heavenly Father, brothers & sisters in Christ. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm glad you "understand the Preterist/Partial-Preterist view of Daniel 9:24" BUT you OBviously don't :(

 

I don't mind being "accused" of spiritual understanding of Scripture, but your accusation is pejorative, so I need to explain.

 

I believe Scripture deals with real, literal events, spiritual things such as our relationship with God by grace, through faith, is real & literal - & spiritual. I believe that Jesus has ascended to his throne at his Father's right hand, & exercises real & literal kingdom that is spiritual. 

 

When Gabriel prophecies 70 weeks, I believe that is 490 literal years, ending about 7 years after his baptism & anointing, with two real & literal major events: Stephen, by the Holy Spirit declaring the apostate Jewish leaders to be "uncircumcised" & the Holy Spirit welcoming Gentiles - Cornelius & friends - into the church without circumcision. 

 

I further believe that when Jesus explained his prophecy of the destruction of the temple in Mat. 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21, he was talking about the real, literal destruction that literally took place within the lifetime of the generation that rejected him. 

 

Also I believe that all who are saved by grace through faith in Jesus are real & literal & spiritual children of our heavenly Father, brothers & sisters in Christ. 

 

 

Ian, there was nothing pejorative in NN's comment...

 

Covenanter,

 

I apologize if my post came across wrong; it wasn't meant the way you received it.

 

Actually, the reason that I said that I understand the Preterist/Partial Preterist view of Daniel's prophecy is because of you and your explanation of it in the past. In fact, everything that you wrote in reply to me...I understand as I indicated. My only reason for saying that I understood the Preterist/Partial Preterist view was to hopefully stop an argument of opposing views before one was started. I simply wanted to answer Geneva's question without it possibly turning into an argument.

 

I do believe that I understand your view; however, if I offended you, please forgive me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Ian, there was nothing pejorative in NN's comment...

 

 

Covenanter,

 

I apologize if my post came across wrong; it wasn't meant the way you received it.

 

Actually, the reason that I said that I understand the Preterist/Partial Preterist view of Daniel's prophecy is because of you and your explanation of it in the past. In fact, everything that you wrote in reply to me...I understand as I indicated. My only reason for saying that I understood the Preterist/Partial Preterist view was to hopefully stop an argument of opposing views before one was started. I simply wanted to answer Geneva's question without it possibly turning into an argument.

 

I do believe that I understand your view; however, if I offended you, please forgive me.

 

No offence taken, your apology is unnecessary, & I should apologise for not explaining clearly. But let me explain further ...

 

In many discussions with dispensationalists, the disp claims he understands Scripture literally, whereas the opponent spiritualises or allegorises - i.e. makes up his own interpretation without Scriptural warrant. "Spiritualising" is therefore a word that ends discussion. To quote the post in question:

 

 

 we can't see the spiritualization that Preterists/Partial-Preterists interpret scripture by. Spiritualizing literal events doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

That is using "spiritualising" in a pejorative sense:

Pejorative definition:  Expressing contempt or disapproval.

 

 

We are in fact encouraged & enabled to understand Scripture spiritually, & warned against reading Scripture in a natural sense: 1 Cor. 2:9-16

 

I hope that clarifies my post. In fact, I doubt if you can find a post of mine where I have spiritualised or allegorised Scripture in a way that is without Scriptural guidance. But I do think the disp claim to literal interpretation is often questionable. e.g. the interpretation that separates week 70 from the 70 weeks by 2,000 years, but insists that 1,000 years must be literal. 

 

Feel free not to reply further, but it would be keep in mind what I have said about the approach to Scripture understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...