Was the Olivet Discourse completely fulfilled in 70A.D.?

[Brother Les]

ts posted
There are only two passages that have the Greek word engus, "near" or "at hand," and they are seen in Rev. 1:3 and 22:10. We can see this from the very first words of Revelation that it is prophecy, and that when it comes, its fulfillment and appointed time, will occur in speed (en tachei). This is the proper meaning in the opening passages of Revelation, in how we are to understand the prophetic book. Not that the prophecy would occur “soon” as to the time after it was written or "revealed," but that “when” these events would occur, which would be with the opening of the seals by Jesus, they then would come to pass in quick succession.

Henry, I counted at least 30 different places in the Nt where "At Hand' is written together and they all seem to read a soon coming 'event' after what is spoken is to happen.
mat.3:2
Mat 4:17
Mat 10:7
Mat 26:18
Mat 26:46
Romans 13:11-12 If 'The night is far spent and the 'day' is at hand, your paradiym whould still make it 'night'.
2 Th 2:2 Are the Thess still waiting for the 'day'.
2Ti 4:4 is paul still getting ready to 'depart' and when he does (in the furture?) he will do it quickly?
1 Peter 4:7 Do you contend that Peter lied to them (first century) and it is still future that the 'elements' of the Mosaic Cultus will end?

ts posted
In Rev. 22:9-10, the angel tells John "seal not the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand" (engus). To "not seal" the words is to mean that John is not only to write them down but also to "reveal" the words to the churches as we see in Rev. 1:4.

Henry, you are walking on thin ice again. Daniel ( Dan. 9:24) was told to seal up the vision, but everyone read it. Why? So they would know when it was to happen. Not in Daniels generation but the '70Weeks' into the future for that future generation. we all know that that generation was in the first century. Johns vision and the command not to 'seal up', was a major indicator that the vision was for his generation. Your statement makes the Daneil command mute and Johns command with no weight as we are 2,000 yrs waiting for a futurest fulfillment.

[twospirits]

BL said,

Henry, I counted at least 30 different places in the Nt where "At Hand' is written together and they all seem to read a soon coming 'event' after what is spoken is to happen.

I know that, if you would have read more carefully, You would see I was speaking "specifically about the book of Revelation", not the entire NT in answer to Kramden's question of the word meanings he gave me to answer. See his quote below:

Kramden 327 said,

The "things which must shortly take place"......"for the time is near". Why was John told not to seal up the words "for the time is at hand" (Rev 22:10)?

Henry, you are walking on thin ice again. Daniel ( Dan. 9:24) was told to seal up the vision, but everyone read it. Why? So they would know when it was to happen. Not in Daniels generation but the '70Weeks' into the future for that future generation.

He didn't tell Daniel to seal up the "book," he told Daniel to seal up the "vision" that he was given "in" the book. Correct, not in Daniel's generation but for a future generation.

we all know that that generation was in the first century. Johns vision and the command not to 'seal up', was a major indicator that the vision was for his generation. Your statement makes the Daneil command mute and Johns command with no weight as we are 2,000 yrs waiting for a futurest fulfillment.

It is a major indicator if its misread in its meaning, certainly. No, "not all know," that Revelation was for the fulfillment of Jerusalem's destruction. Futurists see Revelation as not being that fulfillment on Jerusalem, but rather to be different events seen in the book. It does not make Daniel's command mute, neither John's statement as I explained. The key to this answer is in Revelation, and when its all put together it will be given. Its like I said, you can't take a piece here and a piece there and come to a proper understanding and conclusion. Patience is needed here.

God bless---Twospirits

[Brother Les]

Brother Les posted
we all know that that generation was in the first century. Johns vision and the command not to 'seal up', was a major indicator that the vision was for his generation. Your statement makes the Daneil command mute and Johns command with no weight as we are 2,000 yrs waiting for a futurest fulfillment.

It is a major indicator if its misread in its meaning, certainly. No, "not all know," that Revelation was for the fulfillment of Jerusalem's destruction. Futurists see Revelation as not being that fulfillment on Jerusalem, but rather to be different events seen in the book. It does not make Daniel's command mute, neither John's statement as I explained. The key to this answer is in Revelation, and when its all put together it will be given. Its like I said, you can't take a piece here and a piece there and come to a proper understanding and conclusion. Patience is needed here.

God bless---Twospirits
twospirits

Henry, you said that Jesus told John to write to the 7 churchs in the first century about the vision that Jesus is giving him and Jesus states about these visions that the time of their completion is near. Rev 22:9-10 Did Jesus lie to John that the time of what John saw was not near. This brings into question that any prophecy within the Book of Rev are real and it comes to question if John even had such a vision, if its' application was to be more than 2,000 years and beyond. Is this 'vision' to be only for 'Gentile' Christian Churches and have nothing to do with any of the bloodline of Jacob with in the context of the Mosaic Law and Temple Cultus? If the events of Rev are for in the future and the Temple Law Cultus has been gone (dead) for 2,000 years, then The Promises to "The Fathers" have not been fulfilled and all 'israel' of the OC are still dead of their Sins of Harlotry and all from 'The Cross' to Adam are still in Hell.

[twospirits]

BL said,

Rev 22:9-10 Did Jesus lie to John that the time of what John saw was not near. This brings into question that any prophecy within the Book of Rev are real and it comes to question if John even had such a vision, if its' application was to be more than 2,000 years and beyond. Is this 'vision' to be only for 'Gentile' Christian Churches and have nothing to do with any of the bloodline of Jacob with in the context of the Mosaic Law and Temple Cultus? If the events of Rev are for in the future and the Temple Law Cultus has been gone (dead) for 2,000 years, then The Promises to "The Fathers" have not been fulfilled and all 'israel' of the OC are still dead of their Sins of Harlotry and all from 'The Cross' to Adam are still in Hell.

I'll make what I posted clearer: In Rev. 22:9-10, the angel tells John "seal not the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand" (engus). To reveal it, to show it, to present it, the entire book to the churches, as we see John doing in Rev. 1:4. For as the angel stated "the time is at hand" to reveal the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Rev. 1:1) to the existing churches. This is seen in John's introduction to the existing churches that he gave the Revelation to. In Rev. 1:3, he uses the angel's words seen in Rev. 22:10: Blessed he that reads, hears and keeps the words written therein, "for the time is at hand." For the unsealing of the prophecy, not the "opening" of the seals to release the judgments or fulfillment of the prophecy. That can only be done by Jesus Christ when that time would come as is seen in chapter 5-6 of Revelation.

How do you figure and relate this prophecy of the book of Revelation to the promises given "the fathers"? The New Covenant of grace includes the promises given to the Jews through Christ and Gentiles as well. (when considering the 10 tribes as Gentiles) If they accept and receive Christ, they receive the promises. The New Covenant was fulfilled, so was the OC age judgments fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. The book of Revelation does not effect nor relate to those fulfillments as you think. That is unless I am misunderstanding what you're saying.

God bless---Twospirits

[tomret]

by twospirits
Tomret,

To save ourselves a lot of time, energy and fingers (I am a one finger typer--slooooww!!!) in going back and forth in a limited post such as this, I suggest you read my article on why I believe in a post 70 A.D. writing. It gives a rebuttal on all the scriptures and reasons that you have posted to me. Then everything will be clear to both of us on the pro's and con's of the dating of Revelation, then you (and others) can draw your own conclusions on this issue. It is a 20 page article right now, but I'm still working on it and will be finished with it within a week or two.

I have scanned pertinent parts of your article and everything is clear to one of us. The other will never get it until he accepts the truth of Jesus' statement in Mt 24:34. On page 5 of your pdf you dispute Jerusalem being Babylon saying, "But Jerusalem could not be the woman or city seen in chapter 17 because the text says that the woman, that great city, reigneth over the kings of the earth." You say Jerusalem never ruled the Roman Empire, but the verse could also mean 'leaders of the land,' Jewish authorities in the land of Judea. If the known world was intended, we must admit the Jews had great power over Romans having suckered them into being the instruments of murder of Messiah, allies in persecuting saints etc. At the bottom of p 6 you begin a lengthy hard to follow argument against "...where also their Lord was crucified" in Re 11:8 being literally Jerusalem. On p 8 you reject Re 18:24 being Jerusalem saying, " But what about the prophets to come in Christ of the New Testament?" What prophets to come after prophecy fulfilled? This must be understood in light of Mt 23:34,35; Lk 13:33. I invite readers to view twospirit's comments in context and compare to verses given in my 11:44AM on p 9 of this thread, and study as a Berean.

...On 2 Peter 3:10-12 did you forget that the Greek word given in those verses is "katakaio" or strong's "puroumenoi," which both words are to mean literally, not symbolically, to burn, to set fire, consume by fire. With the Greek word "teko" which means to melt with fervent heat, i.e. fire.

I was short on space and time. If we accept your literal definitions (consume, melt), do you not contradict your own expectation of purification? But, I believe they were to be taken literally. The Old Covenant and its attendant ceremonies, the old heaven and earth, came to a final end at the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. The resulting conflagration was certainly an intense heat, anything combustible was completely destroyed, gold and silver within the temple melted and ran into the rubble. The temple was completely demolished just as Jesus predicted. That event matched Peter's prediction AND HIS expectation in 2 Pe 3:13,14.

[Brother Les]

by tomret
On page 5 of your pdf you dispute Jerusalem being Babylon saying, "But Jerusalem could not be the woman or city seen in chapter 17 because the text says that the woman, that great city, reigneth over the kings of the earth." You say Jerusalem never ruled the Roman Empire, but the verse could also mean 'leaders of the land,' Jewish authorities in the land of Judea. If the known world was intended, we must admit the Jews had great power over Romans having suckered them into being the instruments of murder of Messiah, allies in persecuting saints etc. At the bottom of p 6 you begin a lengthy hard to follow argument against "...where also their Lord was crucified" in Re 11:8 being literally Jerusalem. On p 8 you reject Re 18:24 being Jerusalem saying, " But what about the prophets to come in Christ of the New Testament?" What prophets to come after prophecy fulfilled? This must be understood in light of Mt 23:34,35; Lk 13:33. I invite readers to view twospirit's comments in context and compare to verses given in my 11:44AM on p 9 of this thread, and study as a Berean.

Ken Gentry (Before The Fall) brings out very well about 'The Great City'. The reigning over the kings of the earth, is Covenantal Reigning. She (old Jersalem and Judea) was to be God 'body' (church) on earth and she became a Harlot with those of The earth.

The first couple of sentences of your article Henry, when you are trying to establish the knowledge of the Apostles in the NT understanding and writings is,

Jesus' Resurrection and the Teaching of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles.
Before Jesus' crucifixion, he told his disciples that the Father would send the Holy Spirit to
them in Jesus' name. And “he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14-26).

Henry, Jesus never taught about the end of The Messianic Church Age, He taught and declared the end of the Mosaic Covenant Age and the Age of Death, all the way back to Adam.the Apostles never taught nor did the Holy Spirit cause them to remember an end of the Messianic Age. For they knew that as long as the Temple stood (per Hebrews) that the Covenant of Death was in full force. It makes no sense to declare an ending of an Age (Messianic) that was just beging and the Age before it, had never ended.

[twospirits]

Tomret said,

On page 5 of your pdf you dispute Jerusalem being Babylon saying, "But Jerusalem could not be the woman or city seen in chapter 17 because the text says that the woman, that great city, reigneth over the kings of the earth." You say Jerusalem never ruled the Roman Empire, but the verse could also mean 'leaders of the land,' Jewish authorities in the land of Judea. If the known world was intended, we must admit the Jews had great power over Romans having suckered them into being the instruments of murder of Messiah, allies in persecuting saints etc. At the bottom of p 6 you begin a lengthy hard to follow argument against "...where also their Lord was crucified" in Re 11:8 being literally Jerusalem. On p 8 you reject Re 18:24 being Jerusalem saying, " But what about the prophets to come in Christ of the New Testament?" What prophets to come after prophecy fulfilled? This must be understood in light of Mt 23:34,35; Lk 13:33. I invite readers to view twospirit's comments in context and compare to verses given in my 11:44AM on p 9 of this thread, and study as a Berean.

No, the verse could not mean "leaders" of the land, nice try, the Greek word is "basileon," strong's #935, a "king." Besides there was only "one king" who ruled the inhabited world/land of the Roman Empire and he was called an Emperor. the passages reads "the woman reigns (is reigning at the prophecy's fulfillment) over the "kings" of the earth." And this does not fit Jerusalem at the time. Didn't you read the article, we were grafted in, therefore held just as responsible as the pharisees of old. Eph. 4:11-12, “And he (Christ) gave some, apostles; and some, "prophets;" and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers:” Hey, you want to reject my findings fine, you have that right. I'm just bringing forth what the scriptures and their translations reveal.

To tomret and brother Les,

The context of 2 Peter chapter 3 is talking about the world (2 Peter 3:4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13. The earth is not disinigrated, all that is upon the earth is destroyed; all earthly dominion, the earth remains and is renewed by God. Brother Les, this is how the Christian age is to end/continue into the eternal state. What I tried explaining to you. As you said "world without end."

God bless---Twospirits

[kramden327]

Kramden 327 said,

The "things which must shortly take place"......"for the time is near". Why was John told not to seal up the words "for the time is at hand" (Rev 22:10)?

First, the word translated "shortly" or "quickly" in Rev. 1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 22:7,12 and 22:20 is to be literally translated "in speed," the Greek en (in) tachei (speed). In Rev. 22:6, the word "shortly" there is not the Greek "engus" meaning near or at hand, but rather "en tachei," in speed. There are only two passages that have the Greek word engus, "near" or "at hand," and they are seen in Rev. 1:3 and 22:10. We can see this from the very first words of Revelation that it is prophecy, and that when it comes, its fulfillment and appointed time, will occur in speed (en tachei). This is the proper meaning in the opening passages of Revelation, in how we are to understand the prophetic book. Not that the prophecy would occur “soon” as to the time after it was written or "revealed," but that “when” these events would occur, which would be with the opening of the seals by Jesus, they then would come to pass in quick succession.

Thanks for explaining your view TS. I think that means we could paraphrase the angel's opening words to John this way:

"...things which will happen really, really quickly once they start.....blessed is he who heeds these words, not because they will happen soon, (I'm not giving you any indication of when they will occur), but because they will really happen quickly when they begin."

1. Why is there not a single translation that comes close to conveying that the angel's intent is to tell John of the rapidity of the events in view, not the proximity of their fulfillment to their disclosure? Again, always a terrible translation.

2. How do you reconcile this with all the other NT ref's to timing (not rapidity) like "in a little while", or "it is the last hour", or "at the door", etc. Surely you can't force those statements to mean rapid vs. imminence.

3. Almost every futurist I have heard try to show how close WE are to the end of the world uses these very same verses as timestamps as "evidence", not how fast the events will unfold once started. Maybe you are not one of those. If you are, what verses do you use to indicate signs today reflect nearness to the end?

[twospirits]

Kramden 327 said,

1. Why is there not a single translation that comes close to conveying that the angel's intent is to tell John of the rapidity of the events in view, not the proximity of their fulfillment to their disclosure? Again, always a terrible translation.

Boy, that's a great question! I ask God that question quite often when studying his word, but I never get an answer. So how can I answer you? All I know is these are His Inspired Words that he chose to give us, and it is up to us to study the "entire passages" of what we are studying in order to come to a proper understanding and conclusion. We cannot just go by a word or passage here and there, we must first take all the evidence into consideration before coming to a conclusion. And not brush aside, override, or reject all else for the sake of a passage or two that is in doubt and lacking in evidence or in an answer. The scriptural evidence should stand over the one or two passages in doubt until and unless further evidence is found that negates the evidence at hand. And this I feel is what I try to bring forth and do as I study scripture.

2. How do you reconcile this with all the other NT ref's to timing (not rapidity) like "in a little while", or "it is the last hour", or "at the door", etc. Surely you can't force those statements to mean rapid vs. imminence.

This depends on the context and the "word" used when it is used as a time reference, and what the context is speaking about. Now if we take, as the preterists do, all these time passage "wordings" (near, at hand) and apply them to the book of Revelation, there the error occurs. For when doing so they see (with good reason, having this mindset) the book of Revelation as fulfilled; i.e. Jerusalem's destruction. And it must also be said that when reading Revelation, some of the fulfilled historical events are similar to what the book reveals. So because of it's "similarity," Jerusalem's destruction, and little evidence as to its fore-gone conclusion that it "was written pre 70 A.D.;" you now have your doctrine, preterism. The book of Revelation through the years has been, and still is, the least and most poorly studied book in the Bible.

God bless---Twospirits

[tomret]

by twospirits
No, the verse could not mean "leaders" of the land, nice try, the Greek word is "basileon," strong's #935, a "king." Besides there was only "one king" who ruled the inhabited world/land of the Roman Empire and he was called an Emperor. the passages reads "the woman reigns (is reigning at the prophecy's fulfillment) over the "kings" of the earth." And this does not fit Jerusalem at the time. Didn't you read the article, we were grafted in, therefore held just as responsible as the pharisees of old. Ephe. 4-11-12, “And he (Christ) gave some, apostles; and some, "prophets;" and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers:” Hey, you want to reject my findings fine, you have that right. I'm just bringing forth what the scriptures and their translations reveal.

The reader may note here http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=935 that Strong does include 'leader' in his definitions. TS your authoritative sounding denial is deceptive. As for 'Jerusalem at the time,' readers may be interested in last 3 para. of The Ten Horns of the Beast under heading THE HARLOT CITY here http://www.worldwithoutend.info/bbc/boo ... ussell.htm .

Your claim that prophets have continued to the present directly contradicts Jesus in Lk 13:33. We clearly see who Jesus condemned in Mt 23:34,35 and the nearly identical language of v 35 and Re 18:24 is no coincidence. You reject. Great city where their Lord crucified? You reject Jerusalem.

To tomret and brother Les,
The context of 2 Peter chapter 3 is talking about the world (2 Peter 3:4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13. The earth is not disinigrated, all that is upon the earth is destroyed; all earthly dominion, the earth remains and is renewed by God. Brother Les, this is how the Christian age is to end/continue into the eternal state. What I tried explaining to you. As you said "world without end."

Not our world, their world, as evidenced by "we" (Peter and his contemporaries) looking for new heavens and earth in v 13. See also 1 Co 7:31; 10:11; 1Jn 2:17,18; Acts 2:16,17; Rom 16:20; 1 Pe 4:5,7,17; Heb 1:1,2; 10:37; James 5:7,8 for just a few of the multitude of expectations expressed throughout the NT. Those writers took their Master at His word. Nowhere does Scripture speak of an end then resumption of the NC age.

[twospirits]

tomret said,

The reader may note here http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=935 that Strong does include 'leader' in his definitions. TS your authoritative sounding denial is deceptive. As for 'Jerusalem at the time,' readers may be interested in last 3 para. of The Ten Horns of the Beast under heading THE HARLOT CITY here http://www.worldwithoutend.info/bbc/boo ... ussell.htm .

I checked out your link on Strong's #935, and it does mention "leader" among the definitions. But be that as it may, this is actually a slang use of the word we at times can use. Example, the king of Saudi Arabia, king Abdullah. Rather than say king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, I could say the "leader" of Saudi Arabia. But it doesn't change the fact that the proper use of the word is meant to mean what it means, "a king." On the link (site) you gave it shows throughout the entire New Testament that when the word "basileon" #935 is seen, it is "always" translated "king." I did not attempt to be, nor am I in any way being "deceptive" here. And I don't appreciate the accusation.
Concerning the link you gave for those on AV to see who the harlot city is, yes please let us not dare give a rebuttal to Russell's "inspired word" of who the harlot city is, least we be cursed! OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!!

Your claim that prophets have continued to the present directly contradicts Jesus in Lk 13:33.

I claim no such thing, the Inspired Word of God makes that claim and fact in Eph. 4: 11-12.

Not our world, their world, as evidenced by "we" (Peter and his contemporaries) looking for new heavens and earth in v 13. See also 1 Co 7:31; 10:11; 1Jn 2:17,18; Acts 2:16,17; Rom 16:20; 1 Pe 4:5,7,17; Heb 1:1,2; 10:37; James 5:7,8 for just a few of the multitude of expectations expressed throughout the NT. Those writers took their Master at His word. Nowhere does Scripture speak of an end then resumption of the NC age.

Oh, I see, so none of this, including the Bible has any relation whatsoever for us today, it only applied to "their world" (them), and it is now completed. Now we can go about our business and live happily everafter, with no more sorrow, pain, sickness, violence or death. Okee-dokee!

God bless---Twospirits

[Brother Les]

Oh, I see, so none of this, including the Bible has any relation whatsoever for us today, it only applied to "their world" (them), and it is now completed. Now we can go about our business and live happily everafter, with no more sorrow, pain, sickness, violence or death. Okee-dokee!

God bless---Twospirits

The only conclusion for your paradiym Henry is that Jesus/God and the First Century Apostles lied to those that received letters for the soon coming of the New Creation. Are you trying to make this into a Health & Wealth Gospel? Crying out to God as to why you have physical pain and get sick and will physically die, When the NC has come? Are you Spiritually sick, are you in Spiritual pain, are you Spiritually going to die? Then you are apart from God, He is not apart from you, it is your rejection of not to be in the Spiritual Nature that was there when God first made Adam, but you look in terms of your carnal nature. You are getting defensive with your statements because you don't believe that God kept His Promises to The Fathers of 'Israel' for her (Israels) Redemption, Salvation and she had her full Resurrection to Life eternal, 2,000 years ago. Do you worship the god of The Dead? For that is what YHWH is if His Promise to The Fathers have not already been kept. You may look at 1948 as the fulfillment of Gods 'Land Promise', but the true Beulah Land Promise came to pass in The First Century.