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

[Brother Les]

ts
the NC was brought in during the transition age (the 40 years) from 30 A.D. to 70 A.D., while the OC was fading away. The NC did not begin in 70 A.D., it began in 30 A.D.; this is very clear from scripture. Mt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20. The fulfillment came at Pentecost.

You seem to be a little hard of hearing,reading. You just said the 'transition age' (?) and understand that the OC was fading. Betrothal (Pentecost) does not bring fulfillment, marriage does of the bride and husband together. There can be no marriage of one (NC) until the OC covenant was fulfilled (70AD) Two covenants were going on at the same time, one fading and one maturing FOR THE MARRIAGE (God Tabernacles With Us, ie marriage)

ts
That's a half truth, Jesus was speaking in both terms, physical and spiritually. "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. "till ye shall say," Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt. 23:38-39). Their house physically and spiritually, as a nation and individually will lay desolate "until they acknowledge Christ as their Messiah throughout time

No 'half truth' involved. The church is and only is 'Israel' both Physically and Spiritually. within The Church are Jews/Ephraim/Gentiles/Greeks/Barbarians...all are 'Israel' under the NC

ts
I was not "straddling between 2 different covenants," you were by your answer. There is "no parenthesis," the NC was brought in during the "transition age" (the 40 years) from 30 A.D. to 70 A.D., while the OC was fading away

Then you should acknoledge that the NC Age will never end... Jesus/God Tabernacles with us

ts
so by your doctrine which states the marriage was consummated in 70 A.D., which leaves out the rest of the body from that time forward.

Would you get such a thought out of your head... (man, your slow)
THE BODY of CHRIST continues to grow forever, from marriage onward, not 'marriage' backward as you seem to be saying. Henry, The Bride of Christ is NOW married to Christ

tomret to ts
In addition to Rev. your list on pp15-16 has John, 1,2&3 John, & Jude written post AD 70. Wow! What a teaching opportunity those guys missed! Surely the utter destruction of their temple, city, and economy could have been used to persuade the surviving Jews of their error, but not a word! That would be like history making no mention of the Civil War (it was just a local thing). More scholars are turning to pre AD 70 dating; here's a link with a number of arguments: http://upontruth.com/categories/bible_d ... ament.html

I tried to read ts article, but it is all over the place. It seems to me that he is trying to convince himself of something, instead of everyone else

Twospirts has a lot to think about as he seems to be on shaky ground. John and 1,2,3 John and Jude written post AD 70? As if The Temple Holocaust never happened

[twospirits]

BL said,
Would you get such a thought out of your head... (man, your slow)
THE BODY of CHRIST continues to grow forever, from marriage onward, not 'marriage' backward as you seem to be saying. Henry, The Bride of Christ is NOW married to Christ

Sorry, you miss it: The most important aspect of the marriage motif is that when "all is ready," WHEN THE FULLNESS OF THE BODY OF CHRIST COMES IN; the bridegroom comes to take the bride to the wedding chamber to consummate the marriage IN HIS FATHER"S HOUSE,I.E. HEAVEN ( John 14:3). That certainly did not happen in 70 A.D., and if one wishes to believe that, then the bridegroom, Christ, "consummated the marriage with a torso," rather than with the "body of Christ." according to your Full Covenant doctrine. Sorry, I can't buy that.

The church at that time was in its infancy, would Christ marry and consummate a marriage with a child? Would anyone? Or rather would they wait, like Christ, till she was full grown, and prepared for her husband to take her to His Father's house, i.e. heaven, to consummate the marriage?

God bless---Twospirits

[tomret]

by twospirits
...Therefore, there is no more sin, violence, death, sorrow, and pain, for we are, since 70 A.D., living in this incredible New heaven and earth, world without end.

No offence fellas, but the Inspired Word of God does not reveal those doctrines to me. God bless---Twospirits

Yes, this is a seeming stumbling block, and an area where we are accused of 'spiritualizing' Scripture. But, may I point out, even if your futurist expectation could be right, don't hold your breath waiting for all sin and evil to end; see Re 22:14,15. As for death, we that are saved are made righteous and sin free in God's sight and have eternal life that will continue into the Heavenly realm (Re 14:13), so death is no concern.

But, for now I'd like to review. In your reply to JL you rejected that Mt 16:28 really meant some there would live till the Son of Man came in His kingdom. There are about 1 1/2 dozen crossrefs to "coming in His kingdom" that should leave no doubt He was speaking of His parousia. Indeed in the context of Mt 16:27 the only thing possibly in view is His 2nd coming. Are you letting your expectations of the kingdom cause you to reject Christ's words?

My take is that the times of Gentiles being fulfilled in Rom 11:25 is not the same as Lk 21:24. The temple and city were destroyed 3 1/2 years into the Roman/Jewish war, but the war was 7 years long. IMO Luke described the continued trampling down by the nations of the Roman coalition. Rotherham, Young's, and LITV render all 3 occurrences of ethnos in the verse 'nations.' At any rate, when considering fullness of gentiles, it should be kept in mind that God had divorced and cut off the 10 tribes of the northern kingdom Israel (Jer 3:8). Thus they were as gentiles, but God did promise a new covenant for Israel and Judah. Has it been fulfilled? See Rom 9:6-8 and Gal 3:16-29.

Finally consider who was condemned in Mt 23:35 and compare Re 18:24. And that Jesus declared in Lk 21:20-22 that the destruction of Jerusalem would be when all things written would be fulfilled. Re your comment to Les that the church was an infant, surely from Pentecost to AD70 was "of age."

Oh, the next few days will be busy for me. If I don't reply I'm not ignoring you, I'll let you know when that time comes.

[twospirits]

Tomret said,
---don't hold your breath waiting for all sin and evil to end; see Re 22:14,15. As for death, we that are saved are made righteous and sin free in God's sight and have eternal life that will continue into the Heavenly realm (Re 14:13), so death is no concern.

Agreed, death is no concern for those in Christ. But you seem to miss-read the passage of Rev. 22: 14-15. These passage and others are given from the standpoint "prior" to the fulfillment of the prophetic book. From Rev. 21:1 to 22:16, "---to testify unto you these things" ( yet to occur)---. You see them as fulfilled, whereas I do not. Earthly sin and dominion has not been destroyed as yet.

In your reply to JL you rejected that Mt 16:28 really meant some there would live till the Son of Man came in His kingdom.

No, I rejected his view on how preterists say Jesus fulfilled that. Said to be "at" the destruction of Jerusalem. Mt. 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28. There Jesus speaks of his parousia being "after" that tribulation time, which contradicts the preterist view. I personally believe that passage of Mt. 16:28 was fulfilled when those disciples living, all but Judas, saw Christ in power and glory after His resurrection (the resurrection itself shows kingdom power and glory). Appearing, disappearing, walking through walls, later ascending into heaven in glory and power. The power and Glory of the Holy Spirit coming in fire at Pentacost, etc. All this was kingdom power and glory unto salvation, not judgment and destruction as in 70 A.D.

Are you letting your expectations of the kingdom cause you to reject Christ's words?

Not at all, I try to study and exegesis the Inspired scriptures of our Lord very carefully. You know where I stand on Romans 11:25-26,that it has yet to be fulfilled.

Re your comment to Les that the church was an infant, surely from Pentecost to AD70 was "of age."

It took nearly 500 years for God to marry Israel (from Abraham to Mt. Sinai; 1447 B.C.?), and nearly another 700 years to divorce the 10 tribes of Israel (722 B.C.). And nearly another 800 years before he divorced Judah (70 A.D.). So we see the Covenant of the marriage and divorce (in order to re-marry legally again) totals to about 2000 years; hardly seen as being fulfilled in the short amount of time preterists hold to.

God bless---Twospirits

[kramden327]

Dave, You are the finest preterist I have ever engaged.

Hi DL,
Thanks for the kind words...I think. It's hard to know how far your tongue is pushed into your cheek in these forums, if it is. I'm just trying to find the truth like most everyone else here. Of course, pret's are pretty much called heretics by many.....but I'm more interested in getting to the bottom of these things than what label I am or what I'm called.
I have appreciated the sincerity of your responses to my many questions as well since you avoid the editorializing and present your view very clearly. Thanks. OK, enough of that.

Matthew 24:14 in Greek: καὶ κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν καὶ τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος.

The word in bold is from holos, from which we get "whole." It is followed by the definite article and then oikoumene. From Vines: (a) of the whole inhabited world, Mat 24:14; Luk 4:5; 21:26; Rom 10:18; Hebrews 1:6; Rev 3:10; 16:14. "All the nations" sounds pretty extensive to me. There were certainly people living outside of the Roman Empire at the time of Christ were there not? There are certainly people today who need to hear the Gospel preached to them.

That makes sense. Jesus said: "the whole inhabited world". And that's exactly what I think Paul described. There is nothing in Jesus' words in the OD that says the whole inhabited world covered a more extensive area or period of time than what Paul explained. For Matt 24:14 to remain unfulfilled, you have to make Jesus' scope (i.e. the "whole inhabited world/land") greater than Paul's scope (i.e. "every creature under heaven", "unto all the earth", "in all the world", etc.). The text just doesn't say that at all.

Why would you think the disciples or Jesus meant the end of the planet or all time rather than the original OD subject when they asked about "Your coming" and "end of the age"? The true meaning of those 2 aspects of the disciples' question in Matt 24:3 should help us get the correct interpretation.

2 key questions:
1. What "end" did the disciples immediately picture when Jesus told them "not [one] stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."? Why would they ever think it meant the end of the planet?
2. Were the disciples ever taught (by Jesus or Scripture) that His parousia ("Your coming") was a bodily return to earth from heaven as most futurists understand it to be? Were they even convinced that He was to be crucified/risen/ascended let alone "returning"? If that was not on their radar screen, they must have understood His parousia to be something else - like all the other past "coming of the Lord" events in Scripture.

Peace to you,
Dave

[Brother Les]

ts
It took nearly 500 years for God to marry Israel (from Abraham to Mt. Sinai; 1447 B.C.?),

Twospirits, for one who knows so much, why do you make such glaring errors?The OC marriage motif of betrothal did not start with Abraham to Sinai. Sinai was the begining of the betrothal motif and it was at Gilgal that 'The Children' were given the marriage covenant to go into The Land of Promise.
Deut. 5:1-10.

ts
and nearly another 700 years to divorce the 10 tribes of Israel (722 B.C.). And nearly another 800 years before he divorced Judah (70 A.D.).

YHWH was able to Divorce Ephraim for her Harlotry, but He could not Divorce Judah, for through Her, the Messiah was to come.God could not 'Divorcve' Judah in 70AD as 'She' had killed her Husband 40 years earlier. she was the daughter of a Priest and the Judgments for her harlotry could not be Divorce but only Death, either by stoning or burning. The Judgment carried out against her were both stoning and burning.

ts
So we see the Covenant of the marriage and divorce (in order to re-marry legally again) totals to about 2000 years; hardly seen as being fulfilled in the short amount of time preterists hold to.

God bless---Twospirits

As shown above, your thinking is skewed and distorts the 'Coming' eminance that the all of the NT writers proclaim.

[twospirits]

BL said,
The OC marriage motif of betrothal did not start with Abraham to Sinai. Sinai was the begining of the betrothal motif and it was at Gilgal that 'The Children' were given the marriage covenant to go into The Land of Promise.
Deut. 5:1-10.

Sorry, I thought it would be understood that I used Abraham as a "starting point" of how the 12 tribes would come to be. To the betrothal (Covenant) at Mt. Sinai, and etc. Its difficult to respond to several issues at a time, within a short space allowed, and you can't double post. So I generalized the history and times.

YHWH was able to Divorce Ephraim for her Harlotry, but He could not Divorce Judah, for through Her, the Messiah was to come.God could not 'Divorcve' Judah in 70AD as 'She' had killed her Husband 40 years earlier. she was the daughter of a Priest and the Judgments for her harlotry could not be Divorce but only Death, either by stoning or burning. The Judgment carried out against her were both stoning and burning.

I understand what you say here, I did not want to use the word "kill" so I used the word "divorce." my fault, because it caused a misunderstanding. But in clearing up my bad response, you expressed what I've been insisting on. That the destruction of Judah the harlot, i.e. the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. was just that; the judgment on the harlot, and not the marriage and consummation of the bride to Christ.

The burden of proof for you or I, is to prove your claims by scripture, as it is with me. I have given you my scriptural proof by showing a "post 70 A.D. writing of Revelation"(the article link I posted on that issue), thus I can show that the consummation of the marriage of Christ has yet to come (Rev. 19:7). According to Jewish customs, that when all is ready he comes to take his bride to his Father's house, in oder to consummate the marriage. Therefore you must prove to me "biblically," and not just "say" that this occurred in 70 A.D. as you claim. This is the only way this issue (among others) can be proven as to who is right and who is wrong. Not the "imminent coming in judgment" given us in the NC, but the Lord's coming to "take his bride to the Father's house to consummate the marriage."

God bless---Twospirits

[Brother Les]

by twospirits »

BL said,
The OC marriage motif of betrothal did not start with Abraham to Sinai. Sinai was the begining of the betrothal motif and it was at Gilgal that 'The Children' were given the marriage covenant to go into The Land of Promise.
Deut. 5:1-10.

Sorry, I thought it would be understood that I used Abraham as a "starting point" of how the 12 tribes would come to be. To the betrothal (Covenant) at Mt. Sinai, and etc. Its difficult to respond to several issues at a time, within a short space allowed, and you can't double post. So I generalized the history and times.

The Covenants are distinct and when possiable kept seperate. Yes, it is possiable for some Covenants to over lap, but the staements should be as clear as possiable and not generalized. Abraham is the Father of Jacob (who is Father Israel). But it is Sinai that God gives the Bethrothal (not yet marrriage to) of The Sinai/Mosaic Covanant. The 'consemation' or coming together as Husband and Bride of the perposed Covenant happened 40years later at Gilgal. (types and anti-types moved forward to the NC, 40years motif of one generation)

I understand what you say here, I did not want to use the word "kill" so I used the word "divorce." my fault, because it caused a misunderstanding. But in clearing up my bad response, you expressed what I've been insisting on. That the destruction of Judah the harlot, i.e. the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. was just that; the judgment on the harlot, and not the marriage and consummation of the bride to Christ.

The burden of proof for you or I, is to prove your claims by scripture, as it is with me.

As shown that the marriage of the OC took place at Gilgal (40year after Sinai) the Statement is made that the 'Reproach of Egypt is rolled off of you'. Jos.5:9
With the types-antitypes, the 'Reproach of Babylon/Jersalem/Temple cutlus as Accusor' are rolled off the virgin Bride coming into 'The Promised land' (40yr after Pentecost).

The OC Harlot Jerusalem was still contesting the she was still married to YHWH Rev.18:7 But her Husband was dead to her and that Covenant. but the Husband (Jesus/God) was only alive to the Virgin Remnent unto the NC. Again I say, no marriage, No Covenant.

that also makes you 'Land Covant' claim void, those people 'killed' their God and He has 'died' from them.

but the Lord's coming to "take his bride to the Father's house to consummate the marriage."

God's House is where He is, and He Tabernacles (Here) with His People.


ts, I see a pattern is forming with you of blantant misdirection,

[dlspence_58]

That makes sense. Jesus said: "the whole inhabited world". And that's exactly what I think Paul described. There is nothing in Jesus' words in the OD that says the whole inhabited world covered a more extensive area or period of time than what Paul explained. For Matt 24:14 to remain unfulfilled, you have to make Jesus' scope (i.e. the "whole inhabited world/land") greater than Paul's scope (i.e. "every creature under heaven", "unto all the earth", "in all the world", etc.). The text just doesn't say that at all.

I don't think Paul disagreed with Jesus in terms of scope; nor vice versa.

Why would you think the disciples or Jesus meant the end of the planet or all time rather than the original OD subject when they asked about "Your coming" and "end of the age"? The true meaning of those 2 aspects of the disciples' question in Matt 24:3 should help us get the correct interpretation.

There are 3 questions asked in Matt. 24:3. Part one is "when will these things be." Part two has 2 aspects as noted, "your coming" and "end of the age." These are answered in the chapter and some are directly related to the destruction of the Temple and some are related to the future. I think the disciples understood the foretelling of the destruction of the Temple which answers your question here:

1. What "end" did the disciples immediately picture when Jesus told them "not [one] stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."? Why would they ever think it meant the end of the planet?

2. Were the disciples ever taught (by Jesus or Scripture) that His parousia ("Your coming") was a bodily return to earth from heaven as most futurists understand it to be? Were they even convinced that He was to be crucified/risen/ascended let alone "returning"? If that was not on their radar screen, they must have understood His parousia to be something else - like all the other past "coming of the Lord" events in Scripture.

I don't think the disciples understood that Jesus was God Incarnate until after Pentecost when the Holy Spirit indwelt them, but I think that's precisely why a bodily return is what was in mind since His first coming was to take on bodily form.
I'd be interested to see some verses on other "past coming of the Lord events" and your understanding of them. Thanks.

[twospirits]

BL said,

God's House is where He is, and He Tabernacles (Here) with His People.

So you're saying God will always remain separated from us, as far as the realm of heaven and earth continues to exist. And since the world has "no end," this means according to Covenant eschatology, though we are "in Christ" we will always be separated "until death" from Christ and the Father. So what happened to Christ's promise of taking his bride (collectively, not individually) to be and live with him in his Father's house, which is IN HEAVEN; where God is? Where we shall also dwell with the Father in "his house," not He in "our house," our body through the Holy Spirit. For though in our understanding, God's realm is "spiritual," meaning "unseen." It is still a real place, where people "with bodies" live. So I must say, this doctrine of eschatology contradicts the promises of scripture in my opinion.

ts, I see a pattern is forming with you of blantant misdirection,

Show me and those reading these posts where I am using "blatant (intentional) misdirection" on issues being discussed. My posts are there for all to see and read. Each time my post was misunderstood and was told to me, I apologized for the misunderstanding and went on to explain more clearly what was being misunderstood. I never intentionally "conspired" to do any such thing. It seems strange to me, that this post follows my posting asking you to prove scripturally, like I have, the coming of Christ for his bride and the consummation of the marriage being in His Father's house. You seem to have a problem answering this issue clearly and directly using scripture as your final word; which is as it should be.

To Dispence 58,

Not to butt in but I answered those questions on posts, page 2:
Jesus prophesied to his audience that the temple would be destroyed in Luke chapter 21 while on the temple grounds. Whereas Matthew chapters 24-25 and Mark 13 both contain a discourse which occurs "later in the evening on the Mount of Olives." Because of what he had said earlier; "You shall not see me until---(23-39),---the temple shall be destroyed---(24-2). So they asked, saying, tell us, "when" shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of "thy coming," and of the end of the age?" (see post).

God bless---Twospirits

[Brother Les]

ts
I never intentionally "conspired" to do any such thing. It seems strange to me, that this post follows my posting asking you to prove scripturally, like I have, the coming of Christ for his bride and the consummation of the marriage being in His Father's house. You seem to have a problem answering this issue clearly and directly using scripture as your final word; which is as it should be.

Show me one verse in the Bible that states that Jerusalem WAS destroyed to end the Mosaic Covenant in 70AD. It is not there. You ask "when did Christ come for His Bride at the Consummation of The Betrothal period shown in Scripture? It is not there. Why should either of these 'events' be in Scripture. Remember ts, you said that John, James, Revelation were all written After 70AD. 70AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, Judea, The Temple is termed by later Jews as The Catastrophe. Why did not any of these writers insert any mention of one of the Prophetic events that is talked about in the OT? Nothing stated about 'The Castgastrophe', in The Bible as -happened-, but its' happening still has major consequences today.

You should go back and read every point that you have made (on each of these threads that you are on) and read the rebuttal statements and see with each progresstion that you shift and you shift. Not 'away' from the points made, but agreeing with most of them. and 'shifting' your statements to incorporate them (as backed up by Scripture) but never fully agreeing to them (from your paradiym view point). Now you ask for Scriptural 'proof' to an event that you and every one else knows is not there in The Bible? Why is The Marriage of Jesus/God to The Church after The betrothal period not 'in' The Bible? For the very same reason that "The Catastrophe" is not documented in The Bible. These were ALL prophecied Future Events to the writers of the NT. And all through the NT These writters clarify that these events would be seen first hand by the generation that was living when Jesus was Crucified. This puts to bed any speculation that any of the NT books were written after 70AD.

By reading the NT 'Literaly' from a 2009 perspecitive. The OC should be in full force (but dying) and the NT should be starting and growing. So by that, that there is more than one way to get to 'Heaven' than just by Jesus. by this thought, follow the OC and we will be OK in the Future Judgment. but we all know, that is not so, for The Castasrophe and The Wedding has establish that there is only one way to God The Father.

I am mostly posting for those who read these thread, not for you, for it seems to me that your not really grounded in what you believe. What will you change or leave out next?

[dlspence_58]

Not to butt in but I answered those questions on posts, page 2:

Yes, Henry, I know...and you did a much better job than me. Thanks for the dialogue.