WoF and the Gathering of Information

Tallen

Active member
In order for a future fulfillment of that verse, a temple must be standing made of the stones used for the last temple... Plain and simple...
We are the temple... the real one, not made with hands.

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Hebrews 9:11 KJV
 
Last edited:

Tallen

Active member
What I see is instead of using the OT to interpret the NT...

The Apostles interpret the OT, especially in light of the Covenant nature involved. They tell us what was meant in various predictions and metaphors. The OT contains types that are fulfilled in the NT, particularly and mostly in the person and work of Christ.
The NT tells us what is fulfilled and completed.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
I have a question for you... Since you posted this scripture. Will your new temple be made of the same stones that Jesus is referring to in this passage?
See my other post for the direct response to this.

But let's look at it this way.

John 2:18-22
So then the Jewish leaders responded, “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken.​

That last sentence is crucial. It wasn't in 70 AD that they had their sign. It was the resurrection. 70 AD was not the fulfillment of Matt 24 simply because the physical temple was destroyed. The temple had been destroyed before. It was rebuilt. But not this time. Because the Covenant focus changed. It was no longer about animal sacrifices. It was about Jesus.

So, I can go into DeMar's writings and copy words like: " The authors [Stewart & Missler] are careful to say only that another rebuilt temple is required. A third temple is required only if you’re a dispensationalist." You can believe this. I don't begrudge you. There is a lot of symbolism in the prophetic visions. But picking one or more writers and saying this is the definitive definition....pfffft. I would also bet that you did not come up with this on your own. You read. You liked. You picked. I did too, for the most part, but my views differ a bit. But if someone did not have references other than the bible, I'd say it would be easier to discover within scripture a non-preterist view than a preterist view. Just sayin'

Now, when talking about a future temple. I answered the flavor of your question (which was fairly obvious) with John 2. If we look at from the physical side: will there be a physical temple. It will be made of stone.

The Jews believe that it is necessary as a fulfillment to bring on, or to coincide with, the Messianic Age. Thus the preterist view tosses aside Jewish thought completely. I read a Preterist view somewhere that in Ezekiel(?) they are told prophetically that they need to build the Third Temple, but nothing says that they ever did (or will); I do not know if this last is "mainstream" Preterist thought.

In certain Christian circles, the desire to believe that one will be built comes from the whole idea of the abomination of desolation spoken of by Jesus. This, I guess, could be understood as the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. In my understanding, the rest of the prophetic message is not met by first century events - such as earthquakes, famine and wars.

From a dispensational viewpoint, I've read that the future sacrifice of animals was a shift to remember the cross. I don't share this view. I think the future sacrifices of animals will be according to OT commandments to the priests for the atonement of Israel's sins. There will be a time when the Jews will return to temple sacrifice - only to be interrupted yet again by the appearance of the Antichrist.

I'd like to add one more thought I noticed, but it is minor - perhaps contrived by me. But we go through the end times -- I say the tribulation -- and the return of Jesus, the Thousand Year Reign (specifically this), and the Great White Throne Judgement. We have, in the Thousand Year Reign, priests reigning with Christ (20:6). Then we have the New Jerusalem: (21:22) "Now I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God--the All-Powerful--and the Lamb are its temple." I simply find it odd that this is mentioned here, specifically here, if there were no temple through the end times and through the Thousand Year Reign. For this particular piece, arguing out of silence, I know. There is one difference though, in the Thousand Year Reign Christ is reigning on earth, Father God is in heaven; in the New Jerusalem, the Lord God and the Lamb are there -- and they are it's temple.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
We are the temple... the real one, not made with hands.

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Hebrews 9:11 KJV

I don't have a problem with that... My opposition is to the Futurist need of a Temple...
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
See my other post for the direct response to this.

But let's look at it this way.

John 2:18-22
So then the Jewish leaders responded, “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken.​

That last sentence is crucial. It wasn't in 70 AD that they had their sign. It was the resurrection. 70 AD was not the fulfillment of Matt 24 simply because the physical temple was destroyed. The temple had been destroyed before. It was rebuilt. But not this time. Because the Covenant focus changed. It was no longer about animal sacrifices. It was about Jesus.

You are trying to tie together unrelated verses...

Matthew 24:1-2
Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts and walking away, his disciples came to show him the temple buildings. 2 And he said to them, “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!”

In order for this to be a future fulfillment, a temple has to be rebuilt with the original stones. That is what the future dispensational position requires... You, yourself, are arguing for a literal future fulfillment of this passage...
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
You are trying to tie together unrelated verses...

Matthew 24:1-2
Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts and walking away, his disciples came to show him the temple buildings. 2 And he said to them, “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!”

In order for this to be a future fulfillment, a temple has to be rebuilt with the original stones. That is what the future dispensational position requires... You, yourself, are arguing for a literal future fulfillment of this passage...
Huh?

Nobody buy you are calling for the "original stones."

Point #1: Jesus is using the temple as a metaphor for his body. He will be torn apart and killed and he will rise again.

Point #2: For all the rest to usher in the end, there needs to be a temple. Was it the destruction of that current temple in 70 AD? No. Nothing else that is prophesied came true.

Where is the record of 1/3 of mankind being wiped out. The people in Jesus day knew of the Roman Empire and its extent all the way to Britain. Mankind was known to be huge back then, and scripture called for 1/3 of mankind to be wiped away.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
Huh?

Nobody buy you are calling for the "original stones."

Point #1: Jesus is using the temple as a metaphor for his body. He will be torn apart and killed and he will rise again.

Point #2: For all the rest to usher in the end, there needs to be a temple. Was it the destruction of that current temple in 70 AD? No. Nothing else that is prophesied came true.

Where is the record of 1/3 of mankind being wiped out. The people in Jesus day knew of the Roman Empire and its extent all the way to Britain. Mankind was known to be huge back then, and scripture called for 1/3 of mankind to be wiped away.

Matthew 24:1-2
Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts and walking away, his disciples came to show him the temple buildings. 2 And he said to them, “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!”

This is not about Christ... It is about the Temple in Jerusalem that will be destroyed in 70 AD... He uses the Temple as a metaphor in another passage.

Matt 26:61 “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ ”
John2:19 “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

1/3 of mankind is apocalyptic language...
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
Matthew 24:1-2
Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts and walking away, his disciples came to show him the temple buildings. 2 And he said to them, “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!”

This is not about Christ... It is about the Temple in Jerusalem that will be destroyed in 70 AD... He uses the Temple as a metaphor in another passage.
It is about the Temple in Jerusalem that will be destroyed ... in some timeframe. Certainly. But all aspects of the prophecy must come to pass to know when. They simply did not come to pass in 70 AD. Spiritualizing them to "make them fit" is disingenuous and dishonest.

Matt 26:61 “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ ”
John2:19 “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

1/3 of mankind is apocalyptic language...
Why isn't the destruction of the Temple apocalyptic language and the 1/3 of mankind literal?? Oh, that doesn't fit the Preterist viewpoint. We can show that the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD; 1/3 of humanity didn't die physically - so that must be symbolic. No! That must mean that 70 AD was NOT the fulfillment of the prophecy.

If all of the Preterist's viewpoints were symbolic it would be easier to swallow. But as is, the cherries are very, very tart. We don't like 1/3 of mankind being killed -- as scripture clearly states -- because we CAN'T FIND the dead bodies anywhere in the first century. So, ah, that's symbolic. Where are the 200 million horses that caused the death? Ahh, they are myriads, so we can get it down under 1,000. Simple.

Well, I think the tearing down of the Temple was symbolic. It is symbolically describing something from 1972. Prove me wrong. (note: everything you attempt to use to prove it, I will say is symbolic. Nixon is the antichrist -- symbolically, of course.)

On a very serious note, YP, Preterist eschatology's explanations are simply too convenient.

---

I don't know what Optimistic Amillennialism is yet. If it is different from Partial Preterism, then run to the light, YP. Run to the light.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
I'm tired. That's the best title I could come up with. :p

Signs of the End of the Age

Matthew 24:3-8
As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 4 Jesus answered them, “Watch out that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars. Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these things are the beginning of birth pains.​
9 “Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name.​

For the first question, I'm concentrating on v7. If this happened from the time of Jesus until the year 70 AD, what history do we have of nations rising up against nations who were not warring in Jesus' day--because they had to "rise up"? After Jesus' death, what kingdom is "raising up" against another kingdom? And what famines and earthquakes did we endure between the time of Jesus and the year 70 AD, things that were not normal in Jesus' day and before. To put it another way, they are ostensibly markers of the times. They're intended to be unique and unusual in order to send people in the right direction.

I'm not denying that they exist. I'm saying that I don't know and asking you to show me the data.

For those of us who don't think that all happened around 70 AD, I'd like to emphasize that this discussion isn't about proving or disproving anything, but providing information that may support it. Test any answers, but not by attempting to prove a different system. I'm not here to debate about anything; rather, I'm here to listen and ask questions, especially if the response doesn't make sense and requires clarification.

Oh, and I'm asking because there were supposedly a lot of WoF people in the first century.

I think this guy does a fairly good explanation... Take a look... I'm really done after this...

 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
I think this guy does a fairly good explanation... Take a look... I'm really done after this...

This is how cults get started. Just as bad as a Copeland video, just without the shouting.

His connection of Matt 24:14 to the words in Colossians 1:5-6 is such bad exegesis. Colossians somehow determines that Matt 24 is all over. Colossians doesn't even mention the end of the age.

So, EVERY TIME I see the word "you" I'm going to apply it to the people and churches Paul was writing to and not to any future generation, unless of course he says "you and your future generations." The ENTIRE New Testament can be thrown out.

Around the 5:50 mark he reads from Luke and says that Caesar Augustus sent out "a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered." (His version read "taxed" instead of "registered." Not important.) So, wow, "all the world" he says. "Did he tax Iceland? Did he tax Peru? Did he tax Japan?" He then goes on to explain that this meant the Roman Empire.

This is a history that specifically talks about what is happening THEN. He's using this to juxtapose with Matt 24's use of "you" to try to get it all back in the first century? Really? Such bad exegesis. In fact, so bad that it is a good example of eisegesis!!

Let's try this hermeneutic:

Romans 10:9-10
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.​
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.​

YP, I don't know why you think that you can be saved. This CLEARLY says that Paul is talking to the church of Rome, and with the "you" he is ONLY talking to the church of Rome. The people in Rome get to declare with their mouth -- but you don't YP, because you weren't there.

Acts 16:30-31
Then [the jailer] brought them outside and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”​

Don't you dare, YP, think you can "believe in the Lord Jesus and [that] you will be saved" because Paul and Silas are talking to the jailer and ONLY the jailer here -- plus his household. But not you, YP. ONLY the jailer and his household get to be saved this way.

This hermeneutic fails miserably.



Let's do one more. This is so enlightening:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore [you] go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”​

So Jesus is talking ONLY to the disciples. ONLY the disciples are commanded to go into ALL NATIONS. Go back to the video and remind yourself what "all nations" means. They were not allowed to go into Iceland, Peru and Japan, so these countries don't get the gospel. And Jesus said to the disciples that he is with them, and ONLY them, to the end of the age. After the end of the age, because of this literalism, I can only assume that they don't have Jesus any longer in any part of their life.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
This is how cults get started. Just as bad as a Copeland video, just without the shouting.

His connection of Matt 24:14 to the words in Colossians 1:5-6 is such bad exegesis. Colossians somehow determines that Matt 24 is all over. Colossians doesn't even mention the end of the age.

So, EVERY TIME I see the word "you" I'm going to apply it to the people and churches Paul was writing to and not to any future generation, unless of course he says "you and your future generations." The ENTIRE New Testament can be thrown out.

Around the 5:50 mark he reads from Luke and says that Caesar Augustus sent out "a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered." (His version read "taxed" instead of "registered." Not important.) So, wow, "all the world" he says. "Did he tax Iceland? Did he tax Peru? Did he tax Japan?" He then goes on to explain that this meant the Roman Empire.

This is a history that specifically talks about what is happening THEN. He's using this to juxtapose with Matt 24's use of "you" to try to get it all back in the first century? Really? Such bad exegesis. In fact, so bad that it is a good example of eisegesis!!

Let's try this hermeneutic:

Romans 10:9-10
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.​
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.​

YP, I don't know why you think that you can be saved. This CLEARLY says that Paul is talking to the church of Rome, and with the "you" he is ONLY talking to the church of Rome. The people in Rome get to declare with their mouth -- but you don't YP, because you weren't there.

Acts 16:30-31
Then [the jailer] brought them outside and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”​

Don't you dare, YP, think you can "believe in the Lord Jesus and [that] you will be saved" because Paul and Silas are talking to the jailer and ONLY the jailer here -- plus his household. But not you, YP. ONLY the jailer and his household get to be saved this way.

This hermeneutic fails miserably.



Let's do one more. This is so enlightening:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore [you] go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”​

So Jesus is talking ONLY to the disciples. ONLY the disciples are commanded to go into ALL NATIONS. Go back to the video and remind yourself what "all nations" means. They were not allowed to go into Iceland, Peru and Japan, so these countries don't get the gospel. And Jesus said to the disciples that he is with them, and ONLY them, to the end of the age. After the end of the age, because of this literalism, I can only assume that they don't have Jesus any longer in any part of their life.

BA, From you post.


.So Jesus is talking ONLY to the disciples. ONLY the disciples are commanded to go into ALL NATIONS. Go back to the video and remind yourself what "all nations" means. They were not allowed to go into Iceland, Peru and Japan, so these countries don't get the gospel. And Jesus said to the disciples that he is with them, and ONLY them, to the end of the age. After the end of the age, because of this literalism, I can only assume that they don't have Jesus any longer in any part of their life...


See see bolded below.


Ephesians 4:17-24 17So I tell you this, and insist on it in the LORD, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed. 20That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Isn't Jesus at the right hand of His Father? .
.
 
Top