ECT Some Basic Theses of NT Eschatology

[Lazy afternoon]

Or...you don't know the 1st century!

Every thing he said there is about that generation. This is one of most inexplicable mistakes of modern people reading the Bible. He is talking to them, it is vital to them, it is set in 1st century Judaism, John's letter says the same thing, the Thess letter says he would soon come and claim to be god (which in Judaism, that's what happens when you claim to be Christ).

In the Jewish revolt of 66 there were at least 3 who claimed to be messianically anointed and to make things worse, they fought with each other about who was purest.

There is a ton of information that is completely lost these days, and the snowjob that buries it all is the futurist eschatology which started in the mid 1800s. The knowledge of the 1st century ended when that started.

You have mixed 1st century Judean things with the worldwide judgement coming, which will always be totally confusing.

Complete rubbish.

Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.


Many did not come in His Name SAYING Jesus is the Christ, and deceive.

You have no idea.

LA

 

[Interplanner]

That's because you haven't research Josephus and haven't read Pastor Peter Holford, 1805, on the events involved.

Those questions about his coming? We know they weren't about the distant future because 'this generation' is always about that decisive, current generation of 40 years from 30-70 (roughly), which is also why the warnings of Hebrews are as intense as they are, and the Thess letters, etc.

See also
Gaston NO STONE UPON ANOTHER
Kennedy Mk 13 and the 'Abomination That Desolates'
Hengel WAS JESUS A REVOLUTIONIST?
Keller THE BIBLE AS HISTORY
Zens "Nor Shall There Be Ever Again" SEARCHING TOGETHER
_____. JESUS AND THE ZEALOTS
Rhoads. ISRAEL IN REVOLUTION, 6-73 CE

 

[Interplanner]

"The OT prophets hardly ever predicted the future. They were usually telling Israel: if you do this, then this will happen. If you do that, then that will happen. There was hardly ever a distant prediction that was not overshadowed by forceful moral declarations about the country." --Rabbi Dennis Prager

 

[Danoh]

That's because you haven't research Josephus and haven't read Pastor Peter Holford, 1805, on the events involved.

Those questions about his coming? We know they weren't about the distant future because 'this generation' is always about that decisive, current generation of 40 years from 30-70 (roughly), which is also why the warnings of Hebrews are as intense as they are, and the Thess letters, etc.

See also
Gaston NO STONE UPON ANOTHER
Kennedy Mk 13 and the 'Abomination That Desolates'
Hengel WAS JESUS A REVOLUTIONIST?
Keller THE BIBLE AS HISTORY
Zens "Nor Shall There Be Ever Again" SEARCHING TOGETHER
_____. JESUS AND THE ZEALOTS
Rhoads. ISRAEL IN REVOLUTION, 6-73 CE

Lol - I'll see your obvious overreliance on your endless "books about" and raise you 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Sorry, I realize the Scripture reference made my post too long...

 

[Interplanner]

Which books are reliant on the NT as history instead of as MAD theology.

Why don't you just read the short one by Hengel and realize what good historical work is? It is basically an analysis of how many people could have possibly been involved in 'cleansing the temple' given the fact that the Antonia had X # of troups garrisoned there for response, and did not.

Why does Hengel talk about that? Because response to the zealots and their messianic madness spelled out in Mt 24A etc was what we would today call overwhelming force.

If you'd just get rid of that MAD crap, you might be able to enjoy and interact with history in and out of the NT.

 

[Danoh]

Which books are reliant on the NT as history instead of as MAD theology.

Why don't you just read the short one by Hengel and realize what good historical work is? It is basically an analysis of how many people could have possibly been involved in 'cleansing the temple' given the fact that the Antonia had X # of troups garrisoned there for response, and did not.

Why does Hengel talk about that? Because response to the zealots and their messianic madness spelled out in Mt 24A etc was what we would today call overwhelming force.

If you'd just get rid of that MAD crap, you might be able to enjoy and interact with history in and out of the NT.

What is your hang up about just opening the Bible and comparing verse with verse within its own overall scope and context?

Not within the context that history sees it play out, but within its own "things of God"?

Case in point, within my own immediate family we use certain words that even our extended family does not use in that way.

Their use, their sense, is derived from, is based on, our interaction within our own, immediate family.

Sure I could go out read up on Roman Military battle wear where I might want to know what "having you feet shod" might be a reference to.

I'm well aware Paul said that through an example from every day 1st Century life his intended readers were already familiar with, but I find I don't really need that.

That everyday, Early Basic Elementary School Reading Comprehension 101 will get me there without it. Via the simple principle "well how are these words being used, where they are in the passage, by whom, in relation to what, as to whom?" and so on.

I'm well aware that when the KJV translates 1 Cor. 13: 12 as "through a glass darkly" it is based on Early Modern English such as was used by Louis Carroll in his "Alice Through The Looking Glass."

But I am also well aware I don't really need to know that. That All I have to do is apply Basic Reading Comprehension 101.

Its why you will hardly ever find me asking the often asked on forums "what did you mean?"

It can't be I am special - we are all taught those principles in first through third or fourth grade elementary.

You think you have some advanced leg up by your much learning.

Books "about the Bible" impress you to no end.

I understand that. I've known many like you.

To you, you actually believe you are being "Bible based" and that you "know about" this, that, that other "about the Bible."

You have fooled yourself by all that.

What you know is "about" things.

Get in the Book without all that and you will know It, not "about" It.

So much so that you have yet realized, this Danoh appears well read; its in his vocabulary.

All you see is what you have blinded yourself into thinking you are seeing - "about" a thing, rather than the thing itself through its own eyes.

Ooooo - Brandon et al. Guess what? What's his name - Reza whatever, runs circles around these heroes of yours, lol.

Know what also? Big deal.

I have something you and all of them combined do not want.

I have the assurance from The Book, that all I need is The Book, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

That out of the way, how's that scripts and books business going for you? Is it working for you? Well, I hope.

 

[Interplanner]

What is your hang up about just opening the Bible and comparing verse with verse within its own overall scope and context?

Not within the context that history sees it play out, but within its own "things of God"?

Case in point, within my own immediate family we use certain words that even our extended family does not use in that way.

Their use, their sense, is derived from, is based on, our interaction within our own, immediate family.

Sure I could go out read up on Roman Military battle wear where I might want to know what "having you feet shod" might be a reference to.

I'm well aware Paul said that through an example from every day 1st Century life his intended readers were already familiar with, but I find I don't really need that.

That everyday, Early Basic Elementary School Reading Comprehension 101 will get me there without it. Via the simple principle "well how are these words being used, where they are in the passage, by whom, in relation to what, as to whom?" and so on.

I'm well aware that when the KJV translates 1 Cor. 13: 12 as "through a glass darkly" it is based on Early Modern English such as was used by Louis Carroll in his "Alice Through The Looking Glass."

But I am also well aware I don't really need to know that. That All I have to do is apply Basic Reading Comprehension 101.

Its why you will hardly ever find me asking the often asked on forums "what did you mean?"

It can't be I am special - we are all taught those principles in first through third or fourth grade elementary.

You think you have some advanced leg up by your much learning.

Books "about the Bible" impress you to no end.

I understand that. I've known many like you.

To you, you actually believe you are being "Bible based" and that you "know about" this, that, that other "about the Bible."

You have fooled yourself by all that.

What you know is "about" things.

Get in the Book without all that and you will know It, not "about" It.

So much so that you have yet realized, this Danoh appears well read; its in his vocabulary.

All you see is what you have blinded yourself into thinking you are seeing - "about" a thing, rather than the thing itself through its own eyes.

Ooooo - Brandon et al. Guess what? What's his name - Reza whatever, runs circles around these heroes of yours, lol.

Know what also? Big deal.

I have something you and all of them combined do not want.

I have the assurance from The Book, that all I need is The Book, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

That out of the way, how's that scripts and books business going for you? Is it working for you? Well, I hope.

Thanks for your opening line! That is exactly why I have the approach I do. When I learned that Luke used line structures about the 1st destruction of Jerusalem, but inserted Roman military vocabulary in ch 19, that was extremely eye-opening.

The problem with your opening line (I didn't read the predictable rest) is that "just opening the Bible" in your usage now means: the MAD Dispensationalist, "pull wobbly verses in from anywhere as long as they all align correctly with D'ism," unable to understand that 2P2P is NOT in the Bible, etc.

You also don't want to interact, so why do you?