SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Authentic Biblical Christianity.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Jerusalem's final desolations

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 1801


 Re: davidc - letting things be

Three times, Docs, you have asked "Why not let things be?". Twice regarding TMK's preterist view and once regarding the pre-trib rapture view. Perhaps you've been listening to Paul McCartney sermons!!

"Why not let it be?" is an interesting question, and it seems that you are suggesting that all other views of last days should be ignored and all should agree with your interpretation. The scriptures are not so simple in interpretation, especially prophesy.

You critcise the preterist view as follows:
" Many times when someone has a doctrinal premise wrong or out of kilter then they have to come up with other innovations along the line so as to make the basic premise work. So we see a innovation that says Christ came again to Jerusalem in 70 A.D"

Yet to go along with your own view, one hs to accept another "innovation"; what you call "the near far fulfillment characteristic of biblical prophecy."
Don't get me wrong, I agree with this method of prophecy interpretation, but it is an "innovation" just the same designed, as you said, "to make the basic premise work". I personally would not go along with the Preterist view. My own views of the last days have already been expressed on this forum.

But we all have to find some way to understand prophetic scripture, and this usually results in a methodical doctrinal viewpoint, strongly or loosley held.

We are all exhorted to search the scriptures and to be good Bereans, not "to let things be".

In Him

David
(END)

I don't always get posts and wording correct. I had a vague feeling I may have used the term "Why not let things be?" a bit much and maybe been a bit edgy (if so I apologize) but whatever. I didn't know McCartney was doing sermons these days but ha, maybe he can help me get a "Paperback Writer to help me edit better!

davidc: "Why not let it be?" is an interesting question, and it seems that you are suggesting that all other views of last days should be ignored and all should agree with your interpretation. The scriptures are not so simple in interpretation, especially prophesy.

doc: If that is what you came away with then it's not what I meant to imply. My, "Why not let it be?," was referring to the practice of changing basic meanings and rearranging long held views so as to make one's particular view appear valid after obvious inconsistencies in that view have been pointed out. By reply it was said that there is a "coming" of Christ that occurred in 70 A.D. and that coming doesn't nullify that there will be a another "COMING" of Christ at His second advent. I don't see where the New Testament and the Olivet Discourse makes a division between a "coming" of Christ that was to happen in 70 A.D. and a "COMING" of Christ later at His second coming. So why not just let it be? There's no reason for these type of changes.

The pre-trib rapture view strongly advocates that at the pre-trib rapture this will be Christ "coming" for His church while the second coming will be His "appearing." Never before unti llthe 1830s was this type of division seen as regards the coming of Christ. The New Testament nowhere draws a distinction between the coming of Christ and the appearing of Christ. The future coming and the appearing have always been speaking of the same thing. So why not just let things be instead of trying to come up with a innovative way to make the pre-trib scenario work?

davidc: Yet to go along with your own view, one has to accept another "innovation"; what you call "the near far fulfillment characteristic of biblical prophecy."

Don't get me wrong, I agree with this method of prophecy interpretation, but it is an "innovation" just the same designed, as you said, "to make the basic premise work". I personally would not go along with the Preterist view. My own views of the last days have already been expressed on this forum.

doc: I don't see the near far fulfillment of prophecy as an innovation. It is a long studied, widely accepted, exegetically sound and fundamental characteristic of biblical prophecy. It is part of the very nature and make up of prophecy itsaelf. It needs no extra added attractions or qualification or improvisations added to it. It speaks for itself and is its own best apologetic. It's part of the basic premise itself if you will.

The Hebrew prophets and the early church saw the Day of the Lord as occuring at the end of the tribulation. This was the accepted doctrine during all of church history. In 1937 Alexander Reese published, “The Approaching Advent of Christ.” In his book, Reese pointed out that that Paul had instructed the church to be on guard for the day of the Lord (1Thes 5:2, 6-8), as also Peter exhorts believers to be always “looking for and hasting to the coming of the day of the God” (2Pet 3:12 ASV). Reese documented how this would hardly make sense if the church has been removed from the earth seven years before a post-tribulational day of the Lord. After 1937 many of the pretribulationist leaders had to get around the inconsistency Reese pointed out so they changed the timing of the Day of the Lord from what it had always been. From 1937 onward they advocated that the Day of the Lord will really begin when the pre-trib rapture occurs and the Day of the Lord will cover the entire span of the final seven years instead of occuring at the end. The 1917 edition of the Scofield Bible openly states the Day of the Lord occurs at the end of the tribulation while the 1967 Scofield edition states that the Day of the Lord begins with the pre-trib rapture. The day of the Lord would now be seen as starting with the imminent, unsignaled, pretribulation rapture. In this way, both the rapture and the day of the Lord could be seen as coming suddenly, unexpectedly, and without preceding signs, “like a thief in the night” (1Thes 5:2; 2Pet 3:10). It seemed the perfect solution to a flawed doctrinal scenario. That is what I call a INNOVATION carried out so as to get around inconsistencies in the pre-trib view. The Day of the Lord was never seen in this way before but these presumptive innovations have been made without many even realizing the changes that had to be made to make the basic premise of the pre-trib rapture still appear valid. They should have just let things be in my opinion.

davidc: But we all have to find some way to understand prophetic scripture, and this usually results in a methodical doctrinal viewpoint, strongly or loosley held.

We are all exhorted to search the scriptures and to be good Bereans, not "to let things be".

doc: My exhortation or wording "why not let it be" was not meant in the way you took it. I have tried to show that. I would rather let sound established doctrines be as they are than resort to innovative changes and additions and the changing of basic meanings. I prefer to not go that far. After much study, the Bereans might say some of the presumptive changes seen should never have been made.


_________________
David Winter

 2014/6/18 18:55Profile
budgie
Member



Joined: 2011/2/25
Posts: 266


 Re:

My question to those regarding the belief of the the aod being fulfilled in 70 ad
jesus referred to daniel as to the aod
in daniel it clearly shows that jesus destroys the person that commits the abomination and this aligns with thessalonians and revelations
if the aod and the destruction of jerusalem was fulfilled in 70 ad then who was this antichrist and the false prophet and why has the rapture not taken place as promised and the tribulation is not yet fulfilled
when jesus came the first time he appeared to men the same as when he comes again comes again the second time
jesus does not say anywhere in scripture that he is coming before the tribulation but he does clearly say he is coming after the tribulation
loud shout loud trumpet raising us up at the last day
jesus was first to rise in the new immortal body and afterwards those of christ at his coming at his coming at his coming when he destroys tha antichrist

 2014/6/18 21:14Profile
davidc
Member



Joined: 2010/8/15
Posts: 272
France

 Re:

Thanks Docs for taking the time to reply to my post.

I was just concerned about your use of the question "why not let it be?" But you have clarified what you meant by this well.

I won't be drawn into a pre/post trib rapture discussion as this is not the subject of your thread, and anyway, most people have already made up their own minds on this subject and don't need badgering.

But please write more on Jerusalem in the end times. I find it edifying.

David


_________________
david

 2014/6/19 18:42Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 1801


 Re: Thank you davidc

Thank you for your gracious reply. I'm likely on the outs with a few people but I was just trying to take a objective look at the history of development of certain doctrines regarding the end.

Anyway, I'm of the mind that the "controversy of Zion" centering on Jerusalem is a international hot potato in the political realm and isn't going away any time soon and will only grow in intensity. Jerusalem plays a very prominent place in eschatological prophecy but has been spiritualized away by many to mean something different than Jerusaelm. Yet it doesn't mean something different. It means the city and much heartbreak remains in the future regarding the final calamity and fire it and that nation will pass through.

Of possible interest to you might be this link regarding the myth of Zion's inviolability that sees Jerusalem as a place of refuge:

http://the.mysteryofisrael.org/2014/03/26/zions-inviolability-jerusalem-as-a place-of-refuge


_________________
David Winter

 2014/6/20 4:21Profile
davidc
Member



Joined: 2010/8/15
Posts: 272
France

 Re:

The article by Reg Kelly is very enlightening and edifying. How could it not be when the man speaks so much from scripture. I especially like and agree with his understanding of antichrist, that he is a man, resurrected; this came out in another thread a few weeks ago.


I agree with you docs, that a lot of scripture is being wrongly spiritualised until its very meaning and intention is reversed. Jerusalem in scripture is Jerusalem, the city, not the church. Israel is Israel, the future inheritor of the earthly promises of Christ. The church,which is His body is inheritor in Christ of all spiritual blessings in the heavenies.

But the will and purpose of God is:

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

This is Christ's kingdom and He will reign 1000 years, and then deliver up the kingdom to his Father, the God may be all in all. Even so come Lord Jesus.


_________________
david

 2014/6/20 19:36Profile
budgie
Member



Joined: 2011/2/25
Posts: 266


 Re: we the gentiles were from a wild olive tree and we were grafted into the True Olive tree

Oh how sad that we boast as if we are better, we forget what Paul said, Do Not Boast, we who were from a wild tree were grafted into the true olive tree because some of the branches were broken off.
My question is this (what is the true Olive tree that is made up of Jew and Gentile)
Only One True Tree One True Church
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
The Church, The Tree is made up of the Believing Jew and Believing Gentile
The unbelieving Jew and unbelieving Gentile are not part of the True Tree
Yes there is Jerusalem and there is the Church that started in Jerusalem, it was all jewish at its beginning

 2014/6/24 2:32Profile









 Re: Jerusalem's final desolations

rome........romanism.......Constantine, 315 ad.

THAT was the abomination that causes desolation;


worshipping an IDOL of the Son of God?

inventing a new 'religion'....romanism, with its extra-canonical apostasties, superstitions, mary idolatry, its barbarous crusades, that impact us even today?

roman priests, who a vast number are predatory homosexual child molesters?

what more of a satanic swirl parading as religion would you want.....excepting, of course....islam.

God is love and mercy, putting up with this mess for 1700 years, Blessed be His Name!

 2014/6/24 15:50
budgie
Member



Joined: 2011/2/25
Posts: 266


 Re: it is sad when the words of Jesus are ignored

When one reads Matthew 24 and hears the words of Jesus Himself one must take notice
Mat 24:15 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:)
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Jesus himself referred to Daniel as to the Abomination and to the Tribulation.
When one does what Jesus says and reads all of the Book of Daniel one so clearly sees that there is one vision to be fulfilled, there is a man that causes the abomination and again it so clearly says that this same man that causes this desolation is destroyed by Jesus at His Coming and that Daniel will be raised from the grave at this Coming.
For those that say that all of Daniel is fulfilled and that the man that caused the Abomination has been destroyed already by Jesus when He came there is a major problem.
They have disregarded the words of Jesus.
Read all of Daniel, see the last vision to be fulfilled, see that Jesus was referring to this and see that when it is fulfilled Jesus will be ruling and reigning and the Man of Perdition will be in the lake of fire.
No where in scripture do you find that the last vision has been fulfilled.

 2014/6/28 5:40Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy