2 Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the Lord's house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
3 Many people shall come and say,
"Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths."
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
NKJV
If this is prophetically showing the Second Coming of Jesus Christ then it says that we will not have wars in this future period of time with an obvious decrease in weapons. Instead during the last few centuries weapons have greatly increased. And today we even have nuclear weapons. Have we had wars in the last few years and last centuries? YES!!!
Please forgive me for rambling. Occam's Razor says that-if we have competing explanations that fully explain something- we should accept the simpler explanation as correct until other evidence changes that. My chemistry professor in college said that there's a corollary to Occam's Razor that says that- if there are 2 or more competing explanations for something, and none of them FULLY explains it- then ALL of them are WRONG. (He said this in the context of explaining light. Was light a particle or a wave? Neither explanation FULLY explains light, and there's evidence AGAINST both as well as FOR both. Therefore, we still don't understand light.) I think that's sound reasoning.
Subject change....I've noted that the Bible claims in at least one place that ONE prophecy referred to TWO different events, separated by time and space. If one accepts the Bible as authoritative in this (if not, then this won't matter to you or mean anything to you). then that's what happened. Perhaps one can consider the postulate- If a prophecy seems to explain 2 different events in the future, but neither perfectly, then it may refer to BOTH, it may be a prophecy of BOTH.
Please forgive me for rambling. Occam's Razor says that-if we have competing explanations that fully explain something- we should accept the simpler explanation as correct until other evidence changes that. My chemistry professor in college said that there's a corollary to Occam's Razor that says that- if there are 2 or more competing explanations for something, and none of them FULLY explains it- then ALL of them are WRONG. (He said this in the context of explaining light. Was light a particle or a wave? Neither explanation FULLY explains light, and there's evidence AGAINST both as well as FOR both. Therefore, we still don't understand light.) I think that's sound reasoning.
Subject change....I've noted that the Bible claims in at least one place that ONE prophecy referred to TWO different events, separated by time and space. If one accepts the Bible as authoritative in this (if not, then this won't matter to you or mean anything to you). then that's what happened. Perhaps one can consider the postulate- If a prophecy seems to explain 2 different events in the future, but neither perfectly, then it may refer to BOTH, it may be a prophecy of BOTH.
WW, I don't know Jack about light, but I can offer a simple explanation about the Bible. In my opinion, people usually believe what they want about the Bible; it may or may not be right.
WW, I don't know Jack about light, but I can offer a simple explanation about the Bible. In my opinion, people usually believe what they want about the Bible; it may or may not be right.
Probably true. It's probably also true that people are naturally inclined towards thinking if they just try to be good, or do the best they can, that it will be "good enough" before a good and righteous judge at the end of life. But you know, how different do you really think that is from what Cain might have thought when he brought what he had before the Lord in Genesis 4:3?
What NON-Christian person are you referring to and what article are you using as a reference? You are ignoring one of my points and questions that I asked you. What is "WAR"? Is this someone writing about a first century war?
Mark, Josephus was the non-Christian person I was referring to. He was a Jew who was originally apart of the Zealot rebellion that broke out in 66AD and was captured by Roman forces in 67AD. Israel instigated the war on Rome and Rome returned and destroyed Jerusalem & the Temple( sanctuary). This destruction was mentioned in Daniel 9: 26:And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Btw, Daniel 9:26 is a reference to the Roman general Titus who did exactly what the verse described. That occurred in 70AD. This is NOT a future Jerusalem where the "Anti-Christ" is supposed to destroy the city & a third temple.
Josephus had no motivation to lie about the supernatural events that occurred in the skies above Jerusalem from 66-70AD that he described in his book Wars of the Jews.
Here are prophetic scriptures that show that during the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ that Life will be prolonged and health improved. It also says that people will live to be over 100 years old. There will still be death, but longer lives. In contrast to today we have cancer and other illnesses shortening people's lives.
Isa 33:24
24 No one living in Zion will say, "I am ill";
and the sins of those who dwell there will be forgiven.
NIV
The city of Zion was used figuratively in Isaiah 60:14 as the city of the Lord or the Holy One of Israel. The spiritual meaning of Zion is continued in the New Testament, where it is given the Christian meaning of God's spiritual kingdom, the city of the living God (Heb 12:22; Rev 14:1)
It was that 1st century generation Jesus was referring to in Matthew 24 when all of the events he described would take place during the time leading up to the dissolution of the temple in 70AD. When Jesus mentioned the destruction of the temple in verse 2 the disciples immediately connected that destruction with his coming and the end of the age. Matthew 24:3:
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
I can't imagine Jesus telling the disciples about the destruction of the temple which was to occur about 40 years into the future and then ignored that event in the rest of the chapter by describing the signs of his coming which would be thousands of years into the future. The destruction of the 2nd temple mentioned by Christ was what triggered the question of "when will this happen?. If Christ was describing an event that was to occur in the distant future beyond 70AD, then Christ didn't answer the disciples original question of when that destruction of the 2nd temple would take place. That means he completely ignored the original question? I don't buy it.
The signs mentioned by Christ in Matthew 24 occurred during that 40 year period leading up to the destruction of the temple and intensified when the Zealot rebellion against Rome broke out in 66AD. The first sign Christ warned the disciples would occur were the many false messiahs that would come onto the scene. “Watch out that no one deceives you.5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. Did that happen in the first century? Yep. This segment comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers. Josephus speaks of them thus: "Another body of wicked men also sprung up, cleaner in their hands, but more wicked in their intentions, who destroyed the peace of the city no less than did these murderers [the Sicarii]. For they were deceivers and deluders of the people, and, under pretense of divine illumination, were for innovations and changes, and prevailed on the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them in the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them signs of liberty" (Josephus, "B. J." ii. 13,)
Then Christ described wars and rumors of wars in verse 6. In 66 AD the Zealots stopped the daily sacrifice on behalf of Rome and the Emperor which triggered the Roman campaign to destroy Israel. The 1st Roman army divisions arrived in Jerusalem in the fall of 66AD. The Zealots had a stronger than expected defense and the Romans had to withdraw. Then in 68AD when Nero died Rome entered a period of civil war. A lot of wars and rumors of wars going on at that time.
Then Christ said there will be famines & earthquakes in various places. In his book Antiquities Josephus recorded this about Queen Helena of Adiabene(50-56AD):
Her arrival (Queen Helena of Adiabene) was very advantageous to the people of Jerusalem; for a famine oppressed them at that time, and many people died for want of money to procure food. Queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of grain, and others of them to Cyprus to bring back a cargo of dried figs. They quickly returned with the provisions, which she immediately distributed to those that need. She has thus left a most excellent memorial by the beneficence which she bestowed upon our nation. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine, he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem.
Were there also earthquakes during this time? In the writings of the first century historian Tacitus we read a description of the conditions in A.D. 51 in Rome: "This year witnessed many prodigies signs or omens... including repeated earthquakes."Josephus accounts that an earthquake in Judea was such a magnitude that "the constitution of the universe was confounded for the destruction of men." He also wrote wrote that earthquakes were "a common calamity", and indicated that God Himself had brought them about for a special purpose. Then there is the book of Acts that records "a great earthquake that shook the foundations of the prison house" (Acts 16:26). There were earthquakes in Crete, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colosse, Campania, Rome, and Judea. Paul started churches at Colosse and Hierapolis. However, these two cities, along with Laodicea, suffered a great earthquake in approximately A.D. 61.
Did earthquakes happen during the 40 year period leading up to the destruction of the temple in 70AD? Yep.
In Matthew 24:9 Christ goes on to describe the persecution that Christians would suffer before 70AD. A parallel verse is Luke 21:12:But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name.
Are there any Jews today who are going to hand Christians over to synagogues and put us in prison? NO. There are no Jews anywhere in this day & time who would even think along these lines not even in Israel. These persecutions described were occurring in the 1st century and the New Testament is filled with those accounts.
This next verse is supposed to be the preterist killer because it mentions that the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. "World" in this verse comes from the Greek oikoumené which means the inhabited (Roman) world https://biblehub.com/greek/3625.htm
In verse 15 Christ mentions the abomination of desolation. The Roman armies were always an abomination because they carried with them idolatrous images of the emperor, whom they worshiped. And those armies brought desolation because their commander Titus leveled the city and entered the holy of holies, defiling it similar to Antiochus Epiphanes in 168BC.
These events all happened between 30-70AD!!!
Yes. For the benefit of folks who may not be updated on the Preterist interpretation of the bible, here's a page from AI:
Not that I'm hanging on your answer, Oldiesman, but I suspect people would rather you post a link to a sensible webpage written by a human that explains what you want to say, rather than an ai-generated answer to the same question.
Or, you know, you could explain a bit, this being a DISCUSSION forum, which welcomes DISCUSSION. Not everyone will follow a link or watch a 1-hour video if you're not up to replying for yourself. You're not forced to answer in a form people will actually read, but I for one thought that was the point, to get them to hear what you have to say, that you think it's worth saying.
So the Preterist interpretation of the bible comes down to a horrible, horrible war between Rome and the Jews resulting in the destruction of the temple. The promised land, Canaan, was acquired through wars. The future events in Revelation are about the bloodiest war of all.
War is always the idea of humans. And like The Iliad, gods are thrown into the mix to justify them. The bible is no different. So f...ing sad.
Not that I'm hanging on your answer, Oldiesman, but I suspect people would rather you post a link to a sensible webpage written by a human that explains what you want to say, rather than an ai-generated answer to the same question.
Or, you know, you could explain a bit, this being a DISCUSSION forum, which welcomes DISCUSSION. Not everyone will follow a link or watch a 1-hour video if you're not up to replying for yourself. You're not forced to answer in a form people will actually read, but I for one thought that was the point, to get them to hear what you have to say, that you think it's worth saying.
I like use of AI as it gives us decent information including opposing sides; and time being what it is, I don't always have the time to explain everything. Also figuring that folks who don't understand something about preterism may do their own research on the topic rather than rely solely on my opinion.
The future events in Revelation are about the bloodiest war of all.
The point of Preterism that must be emphasized here (especially when we look at Dan's sermons) is there are NO future events beyond 70 A.D. that were written in the book of Revelation!
The point of Preterism that must be emphasized here (especially when we look at Dan's sermons) is there are NO future events beyond 70 A.D. that were written in the book of Revelation!
Many (if not most) Christians, however, do not believe in the preterist point of view. Will Brook's (known on GSC as OldSkool) book The Everlasting Gospel: The Little Book of Revelation Chapter 10 certainly does not. So the bloodiest war of them that is about to happen soon (according to end time "prophets") still lives in the minds of misled people. That is what I consider to be so sad.
Even if one believes in Preterism, the historical events of the massacre in 70 AD is still tied directly to God as shown by Jesus' prophesying that it would happen. My point is that all religious wars and acts of violence (past, present and future) which are considered justified because of some god's (including Yahweh's) will and purpose are plain and simply evil.
Recommended Posts
TLC
Apparently you missed the point of my post.
But, no worries. (Tends to happen more when there's an agenda involved.)
I don't care to get any deeper into it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Isaiah 2:2-4
2 Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the Lord's house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
3 Many people shall come and say,
"Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths."
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
NKJV
If this is prophetically showing the Second Coming of Jesus Christ then it says that we will not have wars in this future period of time with an obvious decrease in weapons. Instead during the last few centuries weapons have greatly increased. And today we even have nuclear weapons. Have we had wars in the last few years and last centuries? YES!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please forgive me for rambling. Occam's Razor says that-if we have competing explanations that fully explain something- we should accept the simpler explanation as correct until other evidence changes that. My chemistry professor in college said that there's a corollary to Occam's Razor that says that- if there are 2 or more competing explanations for something, and none of them FULLY explains it- then ALL of them are WRONG. (He said this in the context of explaining light. Was light a particle or a wave? Neither explanation FULLY explains light, and there's evidence AGAINST both as well as FOR both. Therefore, we still don't understand light.) I think that's sound reasoning.
Subject change....I've noted that the Bible claims in at least one place that ONE prophecy referred to TWO different events, separated by time and space. If one accepts the Bible as authoritative in this (if not, then this won't matter to you or mean anything to you). then that's what happened. Perhaps one can consider the postulate- If a prophecy seems to explain 2 different events in the future, but neither perfectly, then it may refer to BOTH, it may be a prophecy of BOTH.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
WW, I don't know Jack about light, but I can offer a simple explanation about the Bible. In my opinion, people usually believe what they want about the Bible; it may or may not be right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
end times or time ending happens to everyone
the Revelation of Jesus Christ If it's Christ in you, then where is he going to come from?
Not seeing Jesus Christ does not mean he left. Vanishing or disappearing is not the same as leaving.
Or maybe Jesus and God are "somewhere" playing cards waiting to blow up the world to save a few.
If you can see from a different viewpoint, and you can, it might look a little different with the same elements.
Instead of something happening externally, maybe internally is where it begins and ends, ends and begins.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Probably true. It's probably also true that people are naturally inclined towards thinking if they just try to be good, or do the best they can, that it will be "good enough" before a good and righteous judge at the end of life. But you know, how different do you really think that is from what Cain might have thought when he brought what he had before the Lord in Genesis 4:3?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
Mark, Josephus was the non-Christian person I was referring to. He was a Jew who was originally apart of the Zealot rebellion that broke out in 66AD and was captured by Roman forces in 67AD. Israel instigated the war on Rome and Rome returned and destroyed Jerusalem & the Temple( sanctuary). This destruction was mentioned in Daniel 9: 26: And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Btw, Daniel 9:26 is a reference to the Roman general Titus who did exactly what the verse described. That occurred in 70AD. This is NOT a future Jerusalem where the "Anti-Christ" is supposed to destroy the city & a third temple.
Josephus had no motivation to lie about the supernatural events that occurred in the skies above Jerusalem from 66-70AD that he described in his book Wars of the Jews.
here is a link to Josephus book: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm
Edited by InfoabsorptionLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Here are prophetic scriptures that show that during the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ that Life will be prolonged and health improved. It also says that people will live to be over 100 years old. There will still be death, but longer lives. In contrast to today we have cancer and other illnesses shortening people's lives.
Isa 33:24
24 No one living in Zion will say, "I am ill";
and the sins of those who dwell there will be forgiven.
NIV
The city of Zion was used figuratively in Isaiah 60:14 as the city of the Lord or the Holy One of Israel. The spiritual meaning of Zion is continued in the New Testament, where it is given the Christian meaning of God's spiritual kingdom, the city of the living God (Heb 12:22; Rev 14:1)
Isa 65:20
20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
NIV
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Wraysed2
Symbolism and metaphor; the Bible thru and thru; from the blood of Christ to Babylon of mystery new.
New Babylon is: *drumroll*: The Internet.
sry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes. For the benefit of folks who may not be updated on the Preterist interpretation of the bible, here's a page from AI:
https://www.google.com/search?q=preterist+view+of+matthew+24%3A14&sca_esv=84d59d8bbfc4078c&sxsrf=AHTn8zot19Zw3VjBClVDup_2kWqtdUOz0w%3A1738371162437&ei=WnCdZ8yuGomliLMP8Y3RyQU&ved=0ahUKEwjMw_-coaGLAxWJEmIAHfFGNFkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=preterist+view+of+matthew+24%3A14&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiH3ByZXRlcmlzdCB2aWV3IG9mIG1hdHRoZXcgMjQ6MTRIuk5QAFjWS3ACeAGQAQCYAc0BoAG3GqoBBzE3LjE1LjG4AQPIAQD4AQGYAiGgAsoawgIEECMYJ8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYkQIYigXCAgoQLhiABBhDGIoFwgIQEC4YgAQYsQMYQxiDARiKBcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGNEDGMcBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAggQABiABBixA8ICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEMYigXCAg0QABiABBixAxgUGIcCwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiGAxiKBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIEAAYogQYiQXCAgUQIRigAcICBxAhGKABGAqYAwCSBwcxNC4xOC4xoAfM1QE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Not that I'm hanging on your answer, Oldiesman, but I suspect people would rather you post a link to a sensible webpage written by a human that explains what you want to say, rather than an ai-generated answer to the same question.
Or, you know, you could explain a bit, this being a DISCUSSION forum, which welcomes DISCUSSION. Not everyone will follow a link or watch a 1-hour video if you're not up to replying for yourself. You're not forced to answer in a form people will actually read, but I for one thought that was the point, to get them to hear what you have to say, that you think it's worth saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
So the Preterist interpretation of the bible comes down to a horrible, horrible war between Rome and the Jews resulting in the destruction of the temple. The promised land, Canaan, was acquired through wars. The future events in Revelation are about the bloodiest war of all.
War is always the idea of humans. And like The Iliad, gods are thrown into the mix to justify them. The bible is no different. So f...ing sad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I like use of AI as it gives us decent information including opposing sides; and time being what it is, I don't always have the time to explain everything. Also figuring that folks who don't understand something about preterism may do their own research on the topic rather than rely solely on my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The point of Preterism that must be emphasized here (especially when we look at Dan's sermons) is there are NO future events beyond 70 A.D. that were written in the book of Revelation!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I appreciate your point. Bart Ehrman's book Armageddon: What the Bible Really Says about the End would obviously give more details about how Revelation is not about future events than he does in the podcast I watched with Dan McClellan "Ehrmageddon!" with Bart Ehrman.
Many (if not most) Christians, however, do not believe in the preterist point of view. Will Brook's (known on GSC as OldSkool) book The Everlasting Gospel: The Little Book of Revelation Chapter 10 certainly does not. So the bloodiest war of them that is about to happen soon (according to end time "prophets") still lives in the minds of misled people. That is what I consider to be so sad.
Even if one believes in Preterism, the historical events of the massacre in 70 AD is still tied directly to God as shown by Jesus' prophesying that it would happen. My point is that all religious wars and acts of violence (past, present and future) which are considered justified because of some god's (including Yahweh's) will and purpose are plain and simply evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'm not a follower of Jay Rogers per se but thought he did a good job of explaining the Preterist view:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.