Destruction of Temple / End of Times

[AD70]

Originally Posted by mercytruth

To think that Matthew 24, or the book of Revelation is only speaking of the era of the destruction of Jerusalem and the second Temple and of the church age, would be a grave mistake.

I disagree. There are clear time-frame references which contextualize all prophetic portions of the New Testament. What do you do with terms such as "near" and "soon" and "shortly" and "at hand" and "quickly."

And what do you do with statements such as:

"This generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled" (Mt. 24:34).

"There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Mt. 16:28), etc.

[onemangang]

Originally Posted by AD70

I disagree. There are clear time-frame references which contextualize all prophetic portions of the New Testament. What do you do with terms such as "near" and "soon" and "shortly" and "at hand" and "quickly."

And what do you do with statements such as:

"This generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled" (Mt. 24:34).

"There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Mt. 16:28), etc.

Catholics often have beliefs that encompass both/and.

What you seem to point to, is a Preterist view point.

This is within the living Tradition of the Church, if criteria is met!

As you know there are a myriad of Camps within non-catholic "End Times"

The Catholic Church doesn't have a Dogmatic stance on some of which may be a concern to you

Generally we are Amillennial, or some have said nunc-mellennial in regards to end times.

Many fall into a kind of "Partial Preterist" camp!

None will fall into a "Full Preterist" camp, being that it goes outside the Deposit of Faith!

From what I gather, you seem to be a preterist of sorts, what kind, I don't know?

Would you consider yourself a Partial Preterist, or a Full Preterist?

[AD70]

Originally Posted by onemangang

From what I gather, you seem to be a preterist of sorts, what kind, I don't know?

Would you consider yourself a Partial Preterist, or a Full Preterist?

I believe full preterism is heresy.

I am a "partial" preterist, but I consider myself a "strong" preterist.

My position is that Mt. 24 is fulfilled, and the Book of Revelation chapters 1-19 are also fulfilled. I believe we are currently in the millennium right now - chapter 20.

I consider myself Postmillennial - or Optimistic Amill.

[tqualey]

Hi, AD70

I think trying to, "...interpret Scripture by Scripture..." leads to genuine chaos and confusion. This is the same thing as say that 'Scriptue interprets itself' - equally misguided. And, the proof of that pudding is that there are 30,000+ groups, assemblies, congregations, tabernacles, and fellowships all claiming that they are guided only by Scripture - and they all contradict themselves. The contradiction is so profound - there is not yet one set of 'Common Beliefs' that Protestantism can agree upon.

When you apply one verse or chapter or book to interpret another - who else is in agreement with you? Are you using ancient sources - or what others claim to be their interpretation of ancient sources? Seriously, what you are advocating is just what Luther and Calvin were proclaiming when the revolted from the Catholic Church in the 16th Century - and Luther for one (do not know of any documentation on Calvin) was disgusted that, '...every milkmaid was interpreting Scripture...' - and not the way Luther wanted! Nothing has changed in 500 years - except the number of groups that have splintered from the previous splitering groups.

'Sola Scriptura' is a dead and baren heresy that continues to draw in members because of the lure that, "... THIS is the Word of God!...and while you do not know how to interpret it - I do!!" And, if you want to put this to the test - just look on line to the various contradictory beliefs as core to the various and competing Protestant organizations. No one can seriously claim that contracdictory interpretations - multiple chaos - are possible with God. Now, there is another spirti who specializes in chaos and confusion and contradiction. Take you pick.

God bless

Originally Posted by AD70

As you should my friend. This is the very thing I also strive to avoid. But when we interpret Scripture by Scripture, we can find a harmony that is divine rather than human.

What I have found with regards to the "end times" is that the period spoken of in the Bible as "the last days" (or "last times" or "last hour") is the period between Christ's birth and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The early church was living at the end of the Old Covenant age and the beginning of the New Covenant age. This whole period - between the birth of Christ and the destruction of the temple, must be considered as the time of Christ's First Advent.

In both the Old and New Testament, the promised destruction of Jerusalem is considered to be an aspect of the work of Christ, intimately connected to His work of redemption. His life, death, resurrection, ascension, outpouring of the Spirit, and judgment upon Jerusalem are all parts of His one work of bringing in His Kingdom and creating His new Temple (see, for example, how Daniel 9:24-27 connects the atonement with the destruction of the Temple).

[onemangang]

Originally Posted by AD70

I believe full preterism is heresy.

I am a "partial" preterist, but I consider myself a "strong" preterist.

My position is that Mt. 24 is fulfilled, and the Book of Revelation chapters 1-19 are also fulfilled. I believe we are currently in the millennium right now - chapter 20.

I consider myself Postmillennial - or Optimistic Amill.

Like I said before, Catholics often have a BOTH/AND view of things!

The Church would view Full Preterism as Heresy as well, it fundamentally is at odds with the creeds and deposit of Faith entrusted to the Church!

Though the Church has not came out with a dogmatic position of Amill, traditionally Catholic thought is Amill!


http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/24/

[mercytruth]

Originally Posted by AD70

I disagree. There are clear time-frame references which contextualize all prophetic portions of the New Testament. What do you do with terms such as "near" and "soon" and "shortly" and "at hand" and "quickly."

And what do you do with statements such as:

"This generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled" (Mt. 24:34).

"There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Mt. 16:28), etc.

One thing that I will not do is call you a heretic for believing as you do.

Matthew 24:21-22: For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved:but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.

We have not entered in to those days as of yet. They are the days that precede the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The early church fathers were divided on what proceeds after the sign of the Son of man in heaven. The Didache indicates that there will be the resurrection of the saints only at His appearing at this time:

"And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

So, this passage from the Didache seems to re-iterate the two bodily resurrections of Rev.20.

Again, we have one of today's readings directed principally to the children of Israel, but also to the saints of the church:

“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:1-2).

I mentioned the most noteworthy Gaon, Saadiah ben Yosef who interpreted this passage as saying that there would be two resurrections. The resurrection of the just, and the others. Very similar to what we find in the Didache and in Rev. 20.

As stated before, Daniel 12, The Didache, chapter 16, Matthew 24:21, Revelations 20, and even Saadiah Gaon all speak of a period of time immediately preceding the coming of the Messiah as a time of great tribulation, accompanied by an anti-christ. Not to mention the many early church fathers who believed the same.

One can argue whether there will be one or two bodily resurrections, but the times immediately preceeding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ will be unprecedented in tribulation and the universal dominion of an anti-christ.

God's peace be with you

micah

[AD70]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, AD70

I think trying to, "...interpret Scripture by Scripture..." leads to genuine chaos and confusion. And, the proof of that pudding is that there are 30,000+ groups, assemblies, congregations, tabernacles, and fellowships all claiming that they are guided only by Scripture - and they all contradict themselves. The contradiction is so profound - there is not yet one set of 'Common Beliefs' that Protestantism can agree upon.

Interesting. So you would call the 30,000 groups "Protestantism" ??

You just committed a formal logical fallacy.

How so? When the reformers split from the catholic church you say they were no longer catholic, but Protestant. But when churches split from the historic beliefs of Protestantism, you still want to call them all "Protestant."

You are illogical!

We affirm that those who depart from the historic principles of the Reformation are no longer Protestant, just as those who depart from the historic principles of catholicism are no longer catholic. This is honest and logical consistency.

Originally Posted by mercytruth

One thing that I will not do is call you a heretic for believing as you do.

Ooh, I'm so scared.

Originally Posted by mercytruth

Matthew 24:21-22: For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved:but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.

We have not entered in to those days as of yet. They are the days that precede the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If you were familiar with the word of God (and not just the word of men) you would remember that the language Jesus used in verse 21 is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe other extraordinary events of judgment and calamity as well.

These events were calamitous and were described in terms of superlatives - stating that they were the worst that had ever happened and even would ever happen.

Exodus 11:6, "And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more."

Ezekiel 5:9, "And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again, for thine abominations."

Joel 2:2, "A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it."

It is clear that the design of using hyperbolic language in all these passages is to emphasize the disastrous nature of each event. It becomes even more obvious when we realize that in the context of Ezekiel 5:9 the issue is that God is going to destroy the first Temple! Why then, does he say that this is something "of which I will never do again"?? Obviously, this event in Ezekiel was later followed by the Temple's SECOND destruction in AD70.

Also, the death of the firstborn in Egypt caused a cry which was not supposed to be paralleled in all of history. But again, Herod killed every male child under two years of age and the Scripture says, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not" (Matthew 2:18).

Obviously we are not to take these prophetic statements in an over-literal fashion. You need to understand the import of apocolyptic language. The use of hyperbole is again and again used of the prophets when pronouncing the judgment of God upon a people for their rebellion. Matthew 24 is just another example!

[tqualey]

Hi, AD70,

It really does not make any difference if you claim or deny to be scared - your comment evades the issue that was presented to you.

OK - I'm always open to ways of improving my communications. So, tell me - just what do YOU call the 30,000+ groups that are unified in their claim that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ that is found (even in your abridged Bible) in Matthew 16 - and yet can not agree amongst themselves on what Scripture means? So - considering your affirmation - those that left those who revolted in the 16th Century are no longer 'Protestants' - just what are they? Really? If 'Protestantisim' is not accurate then surely you have a term that will put these groups under one roof so that we can logically talk about them. Let me know when you come up with a name. Oh, and do be sure it is a 'logical' one.

You did come up with something that I found profoundly illogical! You state that, "If you were familiar with the word of God (and not just the word of men) you would remember that..." - these 30,000+ groups (awaiting on you to give them their 'logical name' since you did not like the term 'Protestant') that all claim to be Christian and deny that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ [this is really their only unifying attribute that all share] none of these groups recognizes a sole authority to interpret scripture. You have simply launched out in your own direction while criticizing Mercytruth for now agreeing in advance with what you are going to say! Now, not only is that illogical - it is just plain silly.

And, then you go and simply dismiss Matthew 24 (here's a link: http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/comp...ock/Matthew_24 ) as hyperbolic! Amazing We have Christ talking about the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem and moving right into End Times. Just what part of Matthew 24 have you decided is not worth believing? Honest. And, once you identify this - just how many others will agree with you from this large assembly of 30,000+ groups that all claim to follow Christ and deny that the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded on Peter as stated in Matthew 16 (w-o-o-o... you know, calling them some name would certainly be a lot easier then using this description each time I speak of them! )

That really is one of the logical problems with 'personal interpretation' - everyone comes up with their own ideas - so some really may agree with you ... and some may really disagree. Now where are we? Oh, and by the way, did you know that 2Peter 1 specifically condemns personal interpretation of prophecy. Your dismissal of Matthew 24 is curious because, either you acted in an illogical way or have simply disregarded (or re-interpreted this scripture) so that it no longer means what it says it does! This is really not the way to debate your point of view - much less desparage other posters

Tell 'ya what - work on these logical problems in your own argument after you tell me the term you will find acceptable for these 30,000+ groups ... etc...!

God bless

Originally Posted by AD70

Interesting. So you would call the 30,000 groups "Protestantism" ??

You just committed a formal logical fallacy.

How so? When the reformers split from the catholic church you say they were no longer catholic, but Protestant. But when churches split from the historic beliefs of Protestantism, you still want to call them all "Protestant."

You are illogical!

We affirm that those who depart from the historic principles of the Reformation are no longer Protestant, just as those who depart from the historic principles of catholicism are no longer catholic. This is honest and logical consistency.
Ooh, I'm so scared.
If you were familiar with the word of God (and not just the word of men) you would remember that the language Jesus used in verse 21 is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe other extraordinary events of judgment and calamity as well.

These events were calamitous and were described in terms of superlatives - stating that they were the worst that had ever happened and even would ever happen.

Obviously we are not to take these prophetic statements in an over-literal fashion. You need to understand the import of apocolyptic language. The use of hyperbole is again and again used of the prophets when pronouncing the judgment of God upon a people for their rebellion. Matthew 24 is just another example!

[tqualey]

Hi, Mercytruth,

I liked your post!

Here are just a few comments.

For AD70 to actually be a heretic, he would have had to be a Catholic first and then deny the truths of the Catholic Faith. Is this actually the case? I don't know - but trying to come up with such a label does not sound like a productive use of your time. What AD70 has been talking about is nto congruent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. At least, that is my understanding. Here is a link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm.

One of the things that Christ did not do was to leave His Church with a set of 'blue prints' on how he wanted 'His Chruch' members to be formed. There was no catechism at the time. And, you know, He did not a leave a Polycy and Procedure Manual. The actual building up of the Bodyof Christ was handled directly by the Holy Spirit. To add to this very complex reality is that Christian persecutions (primarily by the Roman Empire, but also by the Jews) were going on until the year c.315. Oh, and don't forget, the Canon of Scripture was not established until about the year 400AD

God bless

Originally Posted by mercytruth

One thing that I will not do is call you a heretic for believing as you do.

Matthew 24:21-22: For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved:but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.

We have not entered in to those days as of yet. They are the days that precede the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The early church fathers were divided on what proceeds after the sign of the Son of man in heaven. The Didache indicates that there will be the resurrection of the saints only at His appearing at this time:

"And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

So, this passage from the Didache seems to re-iterate the two bodily resurrections of Rev.20.

Again, we have one of today's readings directed principally to the children of Israel, but also to the saints of the church:

“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:1-2).

I mentioned the most noteworthy Gaon, Saadiah ben Yosef who interpreted this passage as saying that there would be two resurrections. The resurrection of the just, and the others. Very similar to what we find in the Didache and in Rev. 20.

As stated before, Daniel 12, The Didache, chapter 16, Matthew 24:21, Revelations 20, and even Saadiah Gaon all speak of a period of time immediately preceding the coming of the Messiah as a time of great tribulation, accompanied by an anti-christ. Not to mention the many early church fathers who believed the same.

One can argue whether there will be one or two bodily resurrections, but the times immediately preceeding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ will be unprecedented in tribulation and the universal dominion of an anti-christ.

God's peace be with you

micah

[AD70]

Originally Posted by tqualey

[font="Century Gothic"][size="3"][color="Navy"]So, tell me - just what do YOU call the 30,000+ groups that are unified in their claim that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ. If 'Protestantisim' is not accurate then surely you have a term that will put these groups under one roof so that we can logically talk about them. Let me know when you come up with a name. Oh, and do be sure it is a 'logical' one.

My point just proved you to be illogical. And inconsistent.

You want to call every split after the reformation - another protestant split.

So then, why don't we call every split from the catholic church - another catholic split?

You are so blindsided to your double standards and your contradictions -

I don't need to come up with a name for these groups - except for the fact that do not deserve the title Protestant. They have departed from the Reformed Faith of Jesus Christ.

They cannot even claim to be "bible churches" for they do not follow the Bible. If they did, they would not have gone out from us.

[tqualey]

Hi, AD70,

I think we have left the thread. Maybe you would like to start one of your own. After responding to your comments, I think it would be best to return to the Destruction of the Temple/End of Times thead.

While you claim I am illogical and inconsistent - you refused (unable?) to come up with the appropriate response. You claim that certain groups '...do not deserve the title Protestant...' - and where do you get the authority to tell others what they deserve?

Every split that I am aware of after Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII got into the revolt from the Catholic based themselves on two principles laid down by Luther: Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation. If you know of any Protestant denomination that does not have one or both of these principles, just let us know. Mormons and JWs and sometimes not counted in the Protestant ranks - and I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

The very nature of Sola Scriptura means that there is no recognized authority bedsides the Bible. The problem with that is it intentionally overlooks the fact that the Bible we have (I guess you have an abridged version for the OT - but, the NT has every book) comes from the actions of the Catholic Church in about 400AD to determine which books were inspired and which were not. That lasted until Luther decided that certain OT books did not support his heresy - and that was a problem he resolved by simply removing them as not authentic.

Because there is no recognized authority to determine what Scripture means, the chaos caused by private interpretation allowed for contradictory interpretations and further splintering from the man made religions of those in revolt (Luther, Calvin, etc.) Converesly, the Catholic Church has the Divine Guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ (John 16) to keep it from teaching error.

But, there really does seem to be some confusion on who the 'us' is in this sentence: If they did, they would not have gone out from us." Since you chose not to identify your religious denomination, it is hard to understand just what you mean.

Seriously, calling others illogical and then failing to correct or attempt to correct what you see as illogic does not support your position. There are thousands of Protestant denominations - all can historically be traced back to their splintering off of Catholic Chruch. Similar to looking at a tree's most distant branches and then following it back to the main trunk of the tree - so is Protestantism. Here is a link beginning with the 16th Century revolt that provides an interesting graph showing in part the splintering I am talking about. And here somewhat humorous link that proves the point: http://www.sj-r.com/features/x161262...-social-issues

God bless

Originally Posted by AD70

My point just proved you to be illogical. And inconsistent.

You want to call every split after the reformation - another protestant split.

So then, why don't we call every split from the catholic church - another catholic split?

You are so blindsided to your double standards and your contradictions -

I don't need to come up with a name for these groups - except for the fact that do not deserve the title Protestant. They have departed from the Reformed Faith of Jesus Christ.

They cannot even claim to be "bible churches" for they do not follow the Bible. If they did, they would not have gone out from us.

[Megan7]

Originally Posted by srferdave

Is this article in line with catholic teaching?

http://www.kencollins.com/jesus/jesus-37.htm

[AD70]

Originally Posted by tqualey

[font="Century Gothic"][size="3"][color="Navy"]Every split that I am aware of after Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII got into the revolt from the Catholic based themselves on two principles laid down by Luther: Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation.

A church is not protestant simply because they say that they follow the Scriptures "alone." This is only a claim. Just as you are able to identify those who say they are catholic and are not, so I am also able to identify those who say they are protestant and are not. Many will say they hold to Scripture alone, but in practice they contradict themselves and do not function accordingly. Many people (including you) think that they know what Sola Scriptura is, and do not. They are easy to spot.

Originally Posted by tqualey

[font="Century Gothic"][size="3"][color="Navy"]The very nature of Sola Scriptura means that there is no recognized authority bedsides the Bible.

Wrong again. Sola Scriptura does not mean that. It only means that there is no infallible authority apart from the Bible. Big difference.

[tqualey]

Hi, AD70,

I still do not understand how you can know that someone is or is not Protestant - while these groups claim to be Protestant. So, if 'Scripture Alone' (and the Private Interpretation that goes along with it) are not the marks of Protestantism - what are these marks that you can so clearly identify?

So, let's see if I have this straight: you said, '...there is no infallible authority apart from the Bible' and I said, "The very nature of Sola Scriptura means that there is no recognized authority bedsides the Bible". You claim that not only is there a differece between these two statements but a 'Big difference'. So, since I see no difference - please clarify this difference.

As a practical example, if a Lutheran, Methodist and Baptist (all susposedly Protestant) disagreed on the meaning of a scripture verse - they would have no outside source (outside of their interpretation of what the Bible said) to go to and get the matter resolved. Converesly, if these three people were disagreeing about the total number of yardage covered by the New Orleans Saint football team from 2000 - 2005, they could easily resolve this matter by going to an outside source that all agreed was authorative. There is no outside, authoriative source on the meaning of Scripture because such a source is not recognized by any Protestant. All this is recognized is their own interpretation of Scripture. Now, it this is incorrect, please give me a source that supports your position.

Here are three sources that support what I am telling you:

http://www.catholicbasictraining.com...setexts/1n.htm

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...ntism/sola.htm

http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

While each approaches the topic in different ways - all arrive at the same conclusion as I have given to you.

God bless

Originally Posted by AD70

A church is not protestant simply because they say that they follow the Scriptures "alone." This is only a claim. Just as you are able to identify those who say they are catholic and are not, so I am also able to identify those who say they are protestant and are not. Many will say they hold to Scripture alone, but in practice they contradict themselves and do not function accordingly. Many people (including you) think that they know what Sola Scriptura is, and do not. They are easy to spot.



Wrong again. Sola Scriptura does not mean that. It only means that there is no infallible authority apart from the Bible. Big difference.