Christ's Olivet Discourse: Signs of the End

Theology
121

I often get that, “your views”, when that phrase I find is most often used by those who desire to insert some of the basket of fragments that Jesus warned us about. If I quote a Scripture directly, and stay strictly within that written Scripture with an explanation, then how is that ‘my view’? What’s going on with that confusion? If all God’s written Word is for is just so the number of people in the world who read it can have their ‘own’ view of what it says, then how could Christ’s Kingdom stand?

But I thank our Heavenly Father that He did not just leave it up to man with how to rightly interpret His written Word, for He always provides two or more Bible witnesses of a matter in His Word to confirm it. And that’s what I mean by being studied in God’s Word. It has nothing to do with men’s systems of education; it’s about covering the two or more Scripture witnesses of a matter so the RIGHT interpretation becomes anchored in the believer’s mind by The Holy Spirit. And once one has done that, why should they suddenly discard it just so they can hear new things, like those in Athens which Apostle Paul met which lived each day just to hear new things?

I hope you do look further into it, along with those same prophecies in other Books, like Isaiah and Ezekiel.

1 Like
122

@Fish153, I wasn’t attacking you at all; I was asking an honest question about the impression I got about your response. Thank you for answering my post.

I assume that you also believe the promises of the Bible that say that Jesus is coming again.

In regard to Jesus’ puzzling statement that some who are standing there will live until the coming of his kingdom, I have found that there are five interpretations of his meaning. The one I like the best is his coming in the formation of his church. Some of the disciples like the Apostle John live until churches are formed, largely through Paul. After all, believers are willing citizens of Jesus’ kingdom.

123

Bruce—

Just to clarify—my post had to do with preterists who claim Jesus has already returned and prophecy has been fulfilled. They use the verses at the end of Matthew 16 to infer that when Jesus said “there are some standing here who will not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom” that everyone in that crowd died soon after, so they claim Jesus must have been saying his return would be VERY SOON and that it occurred in AD 70.

I, on the other hand, believe that Jesus saying “some standing here…” is referring to Peter, John and James–and in the very next chapter (17) Jesus takes them up into the Holy Mount and is transfigured before them. Peter and the others also hear the voice of the Father speaking from Heaven. Peter in 2 Peter says that at the Transfiguration he was an EYEWITNESS to the power and coming of the Lord Jesus and his majesty. Peter saw a future event—Moses and Elijah were also standing with Jesus and will be the two witnesses on earth at the very end of time when Jesus comes back.

So, I was in no way saying Jesus would not return and I completely believe in the Bible promises of Jesus’ return. Again, my argument was solely made to contest preterist interpretation which borders on heresy. Yes—Jesus will physically return to the earth in the near future. I believe that with all my heart.

124

Don’t you know John is still walking around? After all, they did try to boil him, but nothing happened. (Smile) I wonder where he actually lives? I do think I would have to agree with you on this. The most direct scriptural answer to what Jesus meant is found in the very next verse. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, immediately after Jesus says these words, the narrative jumps forward six days (or “about eight days” in Luke):

“And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.” Matthew 17:1-2

Peter, James, and John were taken up the mountain and literally saw a snapshot of Jesus manifested in His full, glorified, kingly majesty, flanked by Moses and Elijah. They quite literally “saw the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom” without dying first.

Peter himself confirms this interpretation later in his own writings, explicitly linking the Transfiguration to seeing Christ’s kingly power.

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory…” 2 Peter 1:16-17

Interestingly, also beyond the Transfiguration, theologians point to two other major events within that generation’s lifetime that fulfilled Jesus’ words:

The pouring out of the Holy Spirit established the Church, the spiritual manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth, with power, which Peter, John, and most of the disciples lived to see.

Also, in biblical prophecy, a “coming of the Lord” often refers to a historical judgment on a nation Isaiah 19:1. Jesus predicted the literal end of the Old Covenant age and the destruction of the Temple. John and several other apostles survived to see this dramatic shift, which solidified the reality of the New Covenant Kingdom.

As for John? He is in Italy enjoying some pasta as we speak. (smile) I know, I know, I’m in a mood.
Peter

2 Likes
125

But that does not change the fact that great city has been used in the word to describe other countries regardless what denomination is using it. To me, to dismiss that as “doctrines of men” is not tenable. They say what they say. How that means something or another could be argued. But you have your preferences.

126

That’s 700 years later. Micheal Heiser, a major proponent of the Enochian view heavily vouches for the strong legitimacy of the Septuagint – even though he never addressed their differences with his view. Just because men used the Septuagint to allegorize does not mean the text are at fault. Its what they saw in there.

127

You say I assume too much about you. lol. Perhaps. But yeah, I’m not saying that the word is supposed to mean different things to different people. The word itself in Roman’s 14 is I believe a reflection to a degree of those in different stages of growth may see different ways of looking at certain passages. So this looks like something Jesus is aware of and enforces. Not that there should be multiple view points. But that where there is or may be, that we consider one another.

I don’t subscribe to there being different ways of looking at the word. But the danger i see in reformed camps and fundamentalism, as examples, is that they are too dogmatic for their own good. We won’t see eye to eye. Blessings.

128

I have preferences because God’s Word as written is the origin of those preferences. In Rev.11 we are shown Jerusalem in a false worship state, and the “great city” term is there associated with where Jesus was crucified. So it doesn’t take an anvil to hit me on the head to understand Christ is pointing to Jerusalem there.

1 Like
129

The Septuagint is a translation, and that is what we should see it as. If it were equal to the actual Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts with the Massorah then everyone would be using it for their Old Testament translations into English. So the reason why that ain’t happening is because it is not as accurate as the Hebrew OT manuscripts that contain the Massorah of the Hebrew scribes.

1 Like
130

Even though I understand what you are trying to say, I still disagree. Lord Jesus revealed that the time of His future coming will be after… the tribulation (per Matt.24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27). But wasn’t it you and I that had that conversation about that because you instead believe Jesus comes to rapture the Church prior… to the tribulation? How then is that not… evidence of God’s written Word interpreted differently by different people, because a pre-trib rapture certainly does not agree with those who believe Jesus taught a post-trib rapture?

1 Like
131

That is a great question. And kind of closer to home to my point, i believe. Let’s look at it from two perspectives. The clear one from scripture. And the issue you bring up about rapture timing.

REGARDING ROMAN’S 14

From whatever else we may see about this passage, we do see Christ’s interest in believers that may hold to certain days being holy or not eating meat sacrificed to idols. The focus here was on the love and understanding of the brethren over and above what is actually most accurate about the scriptures.

I understand the concern with that today is that we should not fellowship with heresy. And that is true. But i see it far more common (like yourself) to draw lines in the sand all over the place about what this or that means. In ways in which sees others as wrong, mistaken, or deceived. It may not be so much a looking down at others as much as it might be a feeling of how accurate we are. And RIGHT THERE, that is the disease of our age.

Perhaps you feel that by being a person who can have strong convictions to be a virtue. And in ways it is. But we live in a day and age where the “common” is “we are right, you are wrong.” And to me, answering Romans 14 with how we don’t need to consider that side of God’s word = “common.” Your virtue is common rather than holy by the omission of rather deeper considering Romans 14 instead of doing the very same “common” thing with it. To make it not very important. While what is important is why others see differently and should not. In all honesty brother, on the real, this is a rather shallow response, is it not?

THE RAPTURE

So yes there will be different views on a number of things in scripture that would be having varying takes on ways of looking at scripture. I sent you a post (post 88) I don’t believe you responded to with the language of “from one end of the heavens to the other,” as an example of why Matt 24:31 is far more a candidate for the Jews being collected AS GIVING REAL WORLD MEANING TO Matthew 13:24-30 the wheat and tares parable. I think there is room to disagree there especially with so much of the bible not supporting your position. In my estimation.

So where there are differences like that I don’t really see a widespread Christianity that tries to help one another work through differences as much as more like a wordly heels dug into the sand stubborn way of kind of looking down on one another for not knowing better because we feel we must be right. Every cult in the world brother would agree with your approach about seeing the bible only one way. I am not saying we should see it more than one way. I am saying that consideration towards the ways others might see scripture is at least a good ground for practicing that word stated principle of thinking others as more important than ourselves. Where holding so titghly toward our view in placing the others down (like we be inspired) is much closer to cults and the world. Just sayin…not the best company brother.

Blessings.

132

Pointing to Jerusalem there. But you imagine that must carryover to 17 and 18.

133

I just think referring to a much later period of documents is not the greatest argument though.

Here are the principal Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts containing the Masorah:

Manuscript Approximate Date Contains Masorah? Notes
Cairo Codex of the Prophets c. AD 895 Yes One of the oldest dated Masoretic manuscripts. Attributed to the Ben Asher family tradition.
Aleppo Codex c. AD 930 Yes Considered by many scholars the finest Ben Asher Masoretic manuscript. Portions are missing today.
Leningrad Codex (B19A) AD 1008/1009 Yes The oldest complete Hebrew Bible with full Masorah. Basis for many modern Hebrew Bibles (e.g., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia).
Damascus Pentateuch 10th century Yes Contains Masoretic notes.
Sassoon 1053 c. AD 900 Yes One of the earliest nearly complete Hebrew Bibles.
British Library Or. 4445 9th–10th century Yes Early Pentateuch with Masoretic tradition.

Earlier Hebrew manuscripts

The Dead Sea Scrolls (c. 250 BC–AD 70) do not contain the Masorah.

They preserve biblical texts but lack:

  • Masoretic vowel points
  • Accent marks
  • Masoretic marginal notes
  • The detailed scribal counting system

Nevertheless, many Dead Sea Scrolls agree remarkably closely with what later became the Masoretic Text.

When was the Masorah developed?

The Masoretic tradition was developed primarily by Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes between about AD 600 and 1000.

134

So… you think those Romans 14 passages ‘cancel’ the timing Jesus showed directly for His future coming as written in Matthew 24 and Mark 13? And what about all the prophetic warnings in The New Testament about the coming Antichrist at the end of this world prior to Jesus’ coming? Romans 14 strikes all that away too, and the believer can just believe whatever they want??@%$&! That is confusion brother, and it is your flesh speaking.

1 Like
135

It does carry into Revelation 17 & 18, and even into Revelation 21, but the last “great city” example applies to the New Jerusalem that comes down to earth from God.

136

The British Bible scholars Wescott and Hort that ‘created’ their own new Greek NT translation used that same ploy that the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus Greek texts are older, so they must be more accurate’ ASSUMPTION to fool other Bible scholars on the Bible revision committee of the 1880s.
Older does not mean the best.

137

I have not found such a post.

And I strongly… disagree with your position on what Jesus pointed to with the difference in from where the saints are gathered from, between the Matthew 24 version and the Mark 13 version. They agree perfectly… with what Apostle Paul taught about where the saints are gathered per 1 Thessalonians 4. It reveals that Apostle Paul actually got the 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 detail from Lord Jesus.

So trying… to apply either example to Jews only is just another one of the doctrines of men inserted by Satan’s host.

138

The New Testament does not condemn all disagreement. In fact, Paul expected it. In 1 Corinthians 11:19 he writes, “There must be factions among you,” using the verb δεῖ (dei, “it is necessary”), because such disagreements reveal those who are genuine. Likewise, Acts 15 records a sharp disagreement (παροξυσμός, paroxysmos) between Paul and Barnabas, yet neither man’s orthodoxy was called into question.

What Scripture consistently warns against is a dogmatic, quarrelsome, and divisive spirit. Paul tells Timothy not to quarrel about words (λογομαχεῖν, logomachein; 2 Tim. 2:14) and to avoid foolish controversies (ζητήσεις μωράς, zētēseis mōras), because they produce strife (2 Tim. 2:23). Instead, “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome” (μάχεσθαι, machesthai), but kind, patient, and able to teach (2 Tim. 2:24).

There is a world of difference between disagreeing over the interpretation of a text while seeking the truth together, and being dogmatic in a way that refuses correction or needlessly divides the body.

The former can sharpen the church, as “iron sharpens iron” (Prov. 27:17), while the latter is precisely what the apostles warn us to avoid. We are called to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3), and at the same time “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Those are not contradictory commands, but complementary ones.

Sound advice @DavyP

J.

139

Apostle Paul REBUKED those brethren that were in error in the Scriptures. So did Lord Jesus rebuke the scribes and Pharisees who were SUPPOSED to know God’s Word, but instead INSERTED their OWN traditions of men instead.

Thus anyone, and I do mean anyone, who tries to claim they go against the false interpretations of the doctrines of men are just stirring up strife, are actually the ones PROMOTING STRIFE among the brethren, because their false doctrines of men are designed to DECEIVE brethren in Christ, and lead them astray.

And as far as I’m concerned, Lord Jesus can break out His whip upon those money changers all He wants when He returns. The whip is probably too good for those.

140

No the flesh does not consider the perspectives of other believers because of how right we think we are in what we think we see. But for your to struggle with Romans 14 in respect to eschatological view differences suggests you can’t see the value of Romans 14. It must just apply to meat or something. Like the pharisees levin is bread right?

What I am saying is I am willing to look at another 14. Zech 14 to consider your argument. I don’t expect for your views to sway me…since you still can’t conceive of how to me making the great city Jerusalem aligns her with being destroyed in the 7th vail. But i will give it an honest try. But there is absolutely no way you could consider being in error about rapture timing. What is interesting about the argument you give (Christ’s return after the AC) is kinda mirror image to His first coming – if the rapture is pretrib.

Why? Because Isiah 9 tells us a child is born. Then tells us about the ruling time of Christ. Almost as in the same breath. Yet there seems to be at least 2k years in between. So why cannot this simply be the potential also of His return? At first a glimpse in the clouds receiving the church. Then later dealing with the world and Israel.

Even there at the end it ALSO seems like two parts. So you are kind of surrounded by this prophetic mirror effect. Because when Christ returns what the world gets first is the sign of the Son of Man. This is where Isreal mourns. And days later He comes in the clouds with His saints. So EVEN THEN there are two appearings.

So we have child/ruler AND church rapture/physical return AND Son of Man Sign/Physical coming with saints. Surrounded. I tell ya.