Haven't seen those movies, or read any of those books. I'm not interested. If that's your preference, it's fine. It just doesn't interest me. To each his own, I suppose.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ECT The Jews knew about the Kingdom of God--
- Thread starter Lazy afternoon
- Start date
Haven't seen those movies, or read any of those books. I'm not interested. If that's your preference, it's fine. It just doesn't interest me. To each his own, I suppose.
I dropped D'ism which was taught at the evangelical college I attended and the seminary nearby because it failed so miserably on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews.
It is a sharp answer to what you are asking, cutting through piles of non-information. it deals with what truly matters, which is very hard to find these days.
for the record, I said 'how the NT uses Is 53-55.'
I take it, you're not interested in answering my question. Any specific reason?
IP, have you ever been wrong?
Interplanner
Well-known member
IP, have you ever been wrong?
Yes. this morning I found out Ps 89 is used 10x by the NT, and Acts 13 and Jn 12:34 are among the places, so I no idea.
An eschatology must be consistent with what Acts 13:32-39 is saying. this was a sermon that had no urgent problem to deal with: it was just Paul explaining what is going on with Israel and the Bible and Messiah. It is so far from D'ism I can hardly keep up explaining D'isms mistakes.
People can be "Book smart" yet, lack true knowledge and wisdom. The Bible is a Spiritual Book. One needs the Holy Spirit to guide us. If one doesn't have the sealing and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they're going to have a difficult time understanding what they read. I pray each time I open the Bible, that. God will give me knowledge and wisdom for what I'm about to read/study.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I take it, you're not interested in answering my question. Any specific reason?
Why try to figure out churches when what matters is how the NT uses Is 53-55? does some church someplace have control over those chapters and NT references? Study the passages, not the churches that have views about the passages. It is more efficient communication. Which you are interested in.
I just listed 5 kinds of sources that I dropped once I realized what the NT was really saying.
Yes. this morning I found out Ps 89 is used 10x by the NT, and Acts 13 and Jn 12:34 are among the places, so I no idea.
An eschatology must be consistent with what Acts 13:32-39 is saying. this was a sermon that had no urgent problem to deal with: it was just Paul explaining what is going on with Israel and the Bible and Messiah. It is so far from D'ism I can hardly keep up explaining D'isms mistakes.
Or, so you say and think?
Why try to figure out churches when what matters is how the NT uses Is 53-55? does some church someplace have control over those chapters and NT references? Study the passages, not the churches that have views about the passages. It is more efficient communication. Which you are interested in.
I just listed 5 kinds of sources that I dropped once I realized what the NT was really saying.
Are you certain you have the leading of the Holy Spirit and not just, "wishful thinking" on your part? From what you've stated, I assume you don't set foot in any churches? You mainly rely on your own theories and opinions. In essence, you're a one man church in and of yourself?
whitestone
Well-known member
I.P. ,I'm curious just exactly what you think that they are asking in Matthew 24:3 KJV ???
I.P. ,I'm curious just exactly what you think that they are asking in Matthew 24:3 KJV ???
Good question.
whitestone
Well-known member
I.P. ,I'm curious just exactly what you think that they are asking in Matthew 24:3 KJV ???
I'll reword the question in Matthew 24:3 KJV are they thinking Acts 1:6-7 KJV i.e. first coming to set up the kingdom,repel Roman rule,all and any bowing down to other nations ect. like they all believed or are they asking him about his second coming that they did not yet grasp?
Were they scratching their heads and thinking, "wait how can he be the one coming,the king Luke 19:38 KJV if now he says the stones will be thrown down,where’s the sigh of his coming?",,,
Interplanner
Well-known member
I'll reword the question in Matthew 24:3 KJV are they thinking Acts 1:6-7 KJV i.e. first coming to set up the kingdom,repel Roman rule,all and any bowing down to other nations ect. like they all believed or are they asking him about his second coming that they did not yet grasp?
Were they scratching their heads and thinking, "wait how can he be the one coming,the king Luke 19:38 KJV if now he says the stones will be thrown down,where’s the sigh of his coming?",,,
I do not think they had any idea of a 2nd coming. They were only to get that information in a few minutes. For the first time.
They all had the belief of a cataclysmic end to 'this world' though--in a limited sense about the temple/Judaism/Jerusalem, because the 490 years of Daniel were just about up. This is why Caiaphas tries to circumvent such a destruction in Jn 11 and 18. I'm not sure if he meant the Gospel event in 11:50; I think he was offering the death of Jesus to the Romans as a way of securing calm (v48). I don't say that because of the other redemptive mission meaning that John says is there in v51, 52, but because of 18:14 where it has to do with political fallout, not redemption.
But this ch 11 passage does bind clearly together the fate of Jesus and Jerusalem in that generation. And John says the remark was 'not on his own' and was a (valid) prophesy. This is why I believe that that generation was to 1, believe the Gospel after the crime of crucifying Jesus, 2, spread this message to the world, and 3, doing the work of the mission, not agitating Rome, would have saved the country from being burnt up.
whitestone
Well-known member
I do not think they had any idea of a 2nd coming. They were only to get that information in a few minutes. For the first time.
They all had the belief of a cataclysmic end to 'this world' though--in a limited sense about the temple/Judaism/Jerusalem, because the 490 years of Daniel were just about up. This is why Caiaphas tries to circumvent such a destruction in Jn 11 and 18. I'm not sure if he meant the Gospel event in 11:50; I think he was offering the death of Jesus to the Romans as a way of securing calm (v48). I don't say that because of the other redemptive mission meaning that John says is there in v51, 52, but because of 18:14 where it has to do with political fallout, not redemption.
But this ch 11 passage does bind clearly together the fate of Jesus and Jerusalem in that generation. And John says the remark was 'not on his own' and was a (valid) prophesy. This is why I believe that that generation was to 1, believe the Gospel after the crime of crucifying Jesus, 2, spread this message to the world, and 3, doing the work of the mission, not agitating Rome, would have saved the country from being burnt up.
lets clear something up Aeon verses cosmos (your using both) in Matthew 24:3 KJV they used the word "aeonos" correct? And if so then they were thinking aeon meaning one of an individual of sets of time and asking him about the one where he messiah/king rules that kingdom on earth like they believed.
To fast forward in Acts 1:6-7 KJV and Acts 3:20 KJV they still believe that in his second coming that the kingdom would be restored the exact same way they thought it was to be in Matthew 24:3 KJV ?
I'll reword the question in Matthew 24:3 KJV are they thinking Acts 1:6-7 KJV i.e. first coming to set up the kingdom,repel Roman rule,all and any bowing down to other nations ect. like they all believed or are they asking him about his second coming that they did not yet grasp?
Were they scratching their heads and thinking, "wait how can he be the one coming,the king Luke 19:38 KJV if now he says the stones will be thrown down,where’s the sigh of his coming?",,,
They were not thinking 2nd Coming.
Rather, they were seeing that from within a timing distinction between, on the one hand, His assertion that He was their Prophesied Deliverer/King, and on the other, when He would actually both deliver them from their enemies and restore their kingdom as Prophesied.
Sort of like the difference between running for office, and coming into, thus, in, that office's power, or authority, at some point after one has been elected.
Plenty of passages and their cross-references in Mark, Luke, and John, both prior to, and after their question in Matthew 24, bear this out.
The fascinating issue - His assertion that first, He must be, not elected, but rejected.
I've posted this in this manner, deliberately.
lets clear something up Aeon verses cosmos (your using both) in Matthew 24:3 KJV they used the word "aeonos" correct? And if so then they were thinking aeon meaning one of an individual of sets of time and asking him about the one where he messiah/king rules that kingdom on earth like they believed.
To fast forward in Acts 1:6-7 KJV and Acts 3:20 KJV they still believe that in his second coming that the kingdom would be restored the exact same way they thought it was to be in Matthew 24:3 KJV ?
They are still not thinking 2nd Coming.
Their "at this time" and the sense of their astonishment at His leaving them together with His answer to them, and what those two angels then say to them, bears this out.
Interplanner
Well-known member
lets clear something up Aeon verses cosmos (your using both) in Matthew 24:3 KJV they used the word "aeonos" correct? And if so then they were thinking aeon meaning one of an individual of sets of time and asking him about the one where he messiah/king rules that kingdom on earth like they believed.
To fast forward in Acts 1:6-7 KJV and Acts 3:20 KJV they still believe that in his second coming that the kingdom would be restored the exact same way they thought it was to be in Matthew 24:3 KJV ?
Yes its aionos. But is that the 'periods' (sevens/weeks) of Daniel 9? Probably.
The expression 'sign of arrival' is not necessarily asked in our sense of 2nd coming. It is as general as 'how do we know when you are an established thing?' (versus private).
So your last question may be loaded incorrectly. Don't retroactively think they thought as we thought now.
What they heard in 24:4+ was the complete decimation of the country and temple and then the complete judgement of this world. B was to be right after A. However, a delay was allowed.
The reason for the delay between the two and how the apostles thought about that is the most critical work of NT theology.
whitestone
Well-known member
They are still not thinking 2nd Coming.
Their "at this time" and the sense of their astonishment at His leaving them together with His answer to them, and what those two angels then say to them, bears this out.
To them I would think that the same way they saw him ascend,he would return Acts 1:11 KJV ,or you would think. And that’s what I see them stating in Acts 3:20 KJV as if they thought that Jesus would return like they saw him ascend if as a nation Israel would have repented(still withholding),,,(fullness of the time's(aeon)of the gentiles).
The point is that they in Acts 1-3 still perceive that Christ would return and rule a kingdom in the land just like they thought and were asking Jesus in Matthew 24:3 KJV
whitestone
Well-known member
Yes its aionos. But is that the 'periods' (sevens/weeks) of Daniel 9? Probably.
The expression 'sign of arrival' is not necessarily asked in our sense of 2nd coming. It is as general as 'how do we know when you are an established thing?' (versus private).
So your last question may be loaded incorrectly. Don't retroactively think they thought as we thought now.
What they heard in 24:4+ was the complete decimation of the country and temple and then the complete judgement of this world. B was to be right after A. However, a delay was allowed.
The reason for the delay between the two and how the apostles thought about that is the most critical work of NT theology.
lol, In Matthew 24:3 KJV I don’t think they thought "second coming" They were thinking him ruling in the land as king the same way all Jews did and were curious how all that would be fulfilled if Jerusalem was destroyed.
The same exact point then though,bare in mind in Acts 1-3 the temple and Jerusalem have not yet been destroyed, and they are saying if they would repent that he would return Acts 3:20 KJV ,,,so whether they saw Jesus in his first or second coming they still believed that he would in fact return as the king and rule over Israel and all other nations would bow to it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
lol, In Matthew 24:3 KJV I don’t think they thought "second coming" They were thinking him ruling in the land as king the same way all Jews did and were curious how all that would be fulfilled if Jerusalem was destroyed.
The same exact point then though,bare in mind in Acts 1-3 the temple and Jerusalem have not yet been destroyed, and they are saying if they would repent that he would return Acts 3:20 KJV ,,,so whether they saw Jesus in his first or second coming they still believed that he would in fact return as the king and rule over Israel and all other nations would bow to it.
yes he returns in judgement, destroys it all and makes the NHNE which has such unusual features as a cube city where God is the sun and Christ is the temple. Nothing about ruling Israel the ethne in Judea and other nations as we now have them.
That kind of millenium just clutters things up with a sort of false-start NHNE that fails (the little rebellion and destruction of 20). Christ does reign now through the preaching of his word and the Gospel. The world does bow to the new Israel--a statement made to help suffering believers in the 1st century realize they will be victors one day.
yes he returns in judgement, destroys it all and makes the NHNE which has such unusual features as a cube city where God is the sun and Christ is the temple. Nothing about ruling Israel the ethne in Judea and other nations as we now have them.
That kind of millenium just clutters things up with a sort of false-start NHNE that fails (the little rebellion and destruction of 20). Christ does reign now through the preaching of his word and the Gospel. The world does bow to the new Israel--a statement made to help suffering believers in the 1st century realize they will be victors one day.
It appears to me, you do a lot of personal theorizing and make a lot of guesses. Then, try to pass these same opinions off as "THE TRUTH!" I believe you're basically seeing things that aren't there. However, you wish they were because it would give credibility to your theories.