Special place in hell (for preterists)

[Darfius]

Digging in the archives here...

I hope I will be pardoned for not reading every page of this thread before I post something. I'd just like to address the original challenge by Darfius in the OP...about the four "angels" bound at the Euphrates, and the "third of men" who died in this particular "second woe" judgment (which was the same as the sixth angel's trumpet judgment).

In the first place, let me say that I agree with Darfius' first comments about the "sons of God" who "left their first estate" to marry human women and thus produce an unclean, hybrid angel / human progeny in the days before Noah's flood. But, setting that whole discussion aside, the particular "angels" in Revelation 9:14-15 were NOT celestial creatures. The word for "angels" in Greek simply means "messenger" - whether human or divine messengers. It just depends on the scripture context as to which one is intended. And in this Revelation 9 context, these were HUMAN messengers that were first "bound at the Euphrates", and then "loosed" at a very specific hour, day, month, and year to slay the third part of men

Out of the 186 instances of "aggelos" in the Greek New Testament, all but five instances are translated as angel or angels, including every instance of the word in Revelation except perhaps if your special pleading here can be vindicated. And of the five instances where the word is translated messenger, two of them still clearly reference angelic beings. That you are suggesting that the word does not at the very least heavily infer a supernatural being is disingenuous at best. It also remains to be seen why an angel would be commanded to free human beings who were never bound and who it turns out "freed" themselves by sawing open city gates. As usual, the preterist interpretation is not only arbitrary and redundant, but makes even the words God Himself speaks nonsensical.

The entire account of this sixth trumpet judgment (the second woe) is prophesied in great detail, starting in Revelation 9:13 and finishing up finally in Revelation 11:14. It is a fascinating story about a particular period that Josephus (without realizing the connection) already covered in his Wars accounts (Wars 4.4-5). Many specific numbers Josephus mentioned are an exact match with the Revelation sixth-trumpet prophecy, which had predicted the whole story beforehand. This story involved the Idumean troops which were tricked into invading Jerusalem a year or so after the Jewish war with the Romans had begun in AD 66.

So when is John supposed to have authored Revelation by your account?

At that time, there were THREE factions then present in Jerusalem that were contending with one another for supremacy. Put a red flag beside these 3 numbers. #1, the moderate priesthood faction led by Ananas, son of Annas, a former high priest who wanted to retain stability to preserve a functioning temple system. #2, Eleazar and his radical Zealot followers, and #3, the conniving rebel leader John of Gischala, who played both of the other sides against each other in order to advance his own position. Hoping to get rid of his rival Ananas, John instigated the whole Idumean invasion when he caused a rumor to be sent to the Idumeans that Ananas was planning to surrender the city to the Romans. Believing this lie, the war-mongering Idumeans immediately got together an army of *20,000 horsemen* - "TWO myriads of myriads" as the Greek has it in Rev. 9:16 (NOT the mistaken 200 MILLION amount that is so frequently mistranslated, since one "myriad" is only ten thousand).

Aside from the extreme unlikelihood that you know better than the vast majority of scholarly translators, the literal Greek is 'two ten thousand ten thousand", which is an awkward way to say 20,000, the second ten thousand being redundant were that the case. But like much of Revelation, John is making an allusion to past Scripture to strengthen the effect of what he is saying:

Scripture Verse: Daniel 7:10

A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.

© Copyright Original Source

These 20,000 Idumean horsemen were led by no less and no more than FOUR commanders (Josephus lists these four by name). These were the "four angels" or "four messengers" of Rev. 9:14-15. When these 20,000 Idumean horsemen and their four commanders arrived at Jerusalem's main gates, they found that Ananus the former high priest had barred the gates against admitting them. In other words, they were "bound" at the entrance of the city. Just how does the River Euphrates come into this picture? Because Jerusalem, "that great city" in Revelation, was symbolically called "Babylon the Great", and ancient Babylon's entrance had its barred gates submerged in the middle of the River Euphrates which flowed into the city, virtually dividing it in two on either side. To be "bound at the Euphrates" meant that symbolically, the four Idumean commanders were denied entrance at the main gates of "Babylon the Great" (Jerusalem).

Again, why couldn't John merely say "the four leaders of the Idumeans at Jerusalem" if that were what he meant? This is not even a case of hiding his true intent from the Romans as I've heard preterists plead before, since you claim John is discussing an attack on Jews by Jews. Even your arbitrary symbolic interpretation is twice removed, since John doesn't say the aggelos are bound "at that great city", but rather at the Euphrates, which we must then believe to really refer to Babylon which really refers to Jerusalem, a claim which you don't even bother to provide evidence for.

This restriction enraged the Idumeans, who were not appeased even when Joshua (another moderate, former high priest) pleaded with them from over the wall to return to reason, telling the Idumeans that they had been duped into believing a lie. That night a "prodigious storm" broke out at Jerusalem, with "the bellowings of an earthquake" Josephus said (which was the "great earthquake" at Jerusalem that Revelation 11:13 predicted). Under cover of the noise generated by the storm, the Zealot faction opposed to the moderate high priest Ananas' party managed to saw open the bars of Jerusalem's gates and "loosed" the four commanders and the Idumean army of 20,000 through those gates into the city, to attack Ananus and those under his command. This was very similar to the one-night takedown of ancient Babylon by Cyrus, whose army broke into ancient Babylon that night of Belshazzar's feast by going under the River Euphrates' barred gates. Cyrus had diverted the flow of the Euphratese into other channels, and thus lowered the water level enough so that his army could go underneath the submerged Euphrates gates, thus taking down the empire of the Chaldeans in a single night.

Did this "great earthquake" destroy a tenth of the city and kill 7,000 people? And in what way did an angel loose the four angels/messengers if they sawed open the gate themselves? That is convoluted at best and hardly worthy to be called a "revelation of Jesus Christ".

By the next morning, Josephus wrote that between the earthquake and the Idumean and Zealot attack, there were 8,000 men that were dead, including the murder of both former high priests, Ananus and Joshua (the "two witnesses"). This 8,000 number seems to be on target with Rev. 11:13, which says "there were slain of men 7,000" in that same hour as the storm. This number of casualties in the sixth trumpet judgment is the equivalent of "the third part of men" who were slain by the two myriads of horsemen in Rev. 9:15 This was NOT a third part of men in the entire globe, because this prophecy was describing an event that would take place in Jerusalem alone - "where Christ was crucified" (Rev. 11:8).

The verse says the men died as a direct result of the earthquake, not "between the earthquake and the Idumean and Zealot attack." God doesn't speak in ballpark figures. Revelation 9 opens with an event clearly global in scope: an angel releasing other supernatural beings from the Abyss (how about that, an angel releasing bound supernatural agents right before the disputed passage where an angel releases bound supernatural agents). These supernatural agents are told not to harm "the grass of the earth...except for those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads."

And in what possible way could two "moderate" Jewish priests be the two witnesses of Jesus Christ?

With the death of the two former high priests, that entire moderate THIRD faction of Ananas' men in the city was destroyed. Those two high priests who had labored so hard to preserve the status quo in Jerusalem against the rebellious Zealots had their dead bodies stripped naked and left unburied in the streets of Jerusalem by their enemies (as Rev. 11:9 predicted). Their enemies stood on the dead bodies of these two "by way of jest", Josephus said, and scolded their carcases for being the cause of the attack on the city. Revelation 11:10 said that those dwelling on the earth (tes ges - the land of Israel) would rejoice at the death of the two witnesses who had tormented them. This the Zealots did, once the moderate high priesthood party had been eliminated. After that, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were left defenseless against the unrestrained hands of the other two warring factions, who preyed on them equally from then on.

A bit of a long story, but with a mixture of BOTH literal and symbolic included. And anyone who is fearfully anticipating this event in our future needs to relax. The angel's sixth trumpet judgment has been fulfilled to the letter looooong ago.

The truth emerges. This winding, unbelievable, unbiblical narrative is about soothing the fears of those who rightfully fear God's coming judgment on the world, not deciphering truth through the lens of Scripture.

[3 Resurrections]

Digging in the archives here...

I hope I will be pardoned for not reading every page of this thread before I post something. I'd just like to address the original challenge by Darfius in the OP...about the four "angels" bound at the Euphrates, and the "third of men" who died in this particular "second woe" judgment (which was the same as the sixth angel's trumpet judgment).

In the first place, let me say that I agree with Darfius' first comments about the "sons of God" who "left their first estate" to marry human women and thus produce an unclean, hybrid angel / human progeny in the days before Noah's flood. But, setting that whole discussion aside, the particular "angels" in Revelation 9:14-15 were NOT celestial creatures. The word for "angels" in Greek simply means "messenger" - whether human or divine messengers. It just depends on the scripture context as to which one is intended. And in this Revelation 9 context, these were HUMAN messengers that were first "bound at the Euphrates", and then "loosed" at a very specific hour, day, month, and year to slay the third part of men.

The entire account of this sixth trumpet judgment (the second woe) is prophesied in great detail, starting in Revelation 9:13 and finishing up finally in Revelation 11:14. It is a fascinating story about a particular period that Josephus (without realizing the connection) already covered in his Wars accounts (Wars 4.4-5). Many specific numbers Josephus mentioned are an exact match with the Revelation sixth-trumpet prophecy, which had predicted the whole story beforehand. This story involved the Idumean troops which were tricked into invading Jerusalem a year or so after the Jewish war with the Romans had begun in AD 66.

At that time, there were THREE factions then present in Jerusalem that were contending with one another for supremacy. Put a red flag beside these 3 numbers. #1, the moderate priesthood faction led by Ananas, son of Annas, a former high priest who wanted to retain stability to preserve a functioning temple system. #2, Eleazar and his radical Zealot followers, and #3, the conniving rebel leader John of Gischala, who played both of the other sides against each other in order to advance his own position. Hoping to get rid of his rival Ananas, John instigated the whole Idumean invasion when he caused a rumor to be sent to the Idumeans that Ananas was planning to surrender the city to the Romans. Believing this lie, the war-mongering Idumeans immediately got together an army of *20,000 horsemen* - "TWO myriads of myriads" as the Greek has it in Rev. 9:16 (NOT the mistaken 200 MILLION amount that is so frequently mistranslated, since one "myriad" is only ten thousand).

These 20,000 Idumean horsemen were led by no less and no more than FOUR commanders (Josephus lists these four by name). These were the "four angels" or "four messengers" of Rev. 9:14-15. When these 20,000 Idumean horsemen and their four commanders arrived at Jerusalem's main gates, they found that Ananus the former high priest had barred the gates against admitting them. In other words, they were "bound" at the entrance of the city. Just how does the River Euphrates come into this picture? Because Jerusalem, "that great city" in Revelation, was symbolically called "Babylon the Great", and ancient Babylon's entrance had its barred gates submerged in the middle of the River Euphrates which flowed into the city, virtually dividing it in two on either side. To be "bound at the Euphrates" meant that symbolically, the four Idumean commanders were denied entrance at the main gates of "Babylon the Great" (Jerusalem).

This restriction enraged the Idumeans, who were not appeased even when Joshua (another moderate, former high priest) pleaded with them from over the wall to return to reason, telling the Idumeans that they had been duped into believing a lie. That night a "prodigious storm" broke out at Jerusalem, with "the bellowings of an earthquake" Josephus said (which was the "great earthquake" at Jerusalem that Revelation 11:13 predicted). Under cover of the noise generated by the storm, the Zealot faction opposed to the moderate high priest Ananas' party managed to saw open the bars of Jerusalem's gates and "loosed" the four commanders and the Idumean army of 20,000 through those gates into the city, to attack Ananus and those under his command. This was very similar to the one-night takedown of ancient Babylon by Cyrus, whose army broke into ancient Babylon that night of Belshazzar's feast by going under the River Euphrates' barred gates. Cyrus had diverted the flow of the Euphratese into other channels, and thus lowered the water level enough so that his army could go underneath the submerged Euphrates gates, thus taking down the empire of the Chaldeans in a single night.

By the next morning, Josephus wrote that between the earthquake and the Idumean and Zealot attack, there were 8,000 men that were dead, including the murder of both former high priests, Ananus and Joshua (the "two witnesses"). This 8,000 number seems to be on target with Rev. 11:13, which says "there were slain of men 7,000" in that same hour as the storm. This number of casualties in the sixth trumpet judgment is the equivalent of "the third part of men" who were slain by the two myriads of horsemen in Rev. 9:15 This was NOT a third part of men in the entire globe, because this prophecy was describing an event that would take place in Jerusalem alone - "where Christ was crucified" (Rev. 11:8).

With the death of the two former high priests, that entire moderate THIRD faction of Ananas' men in the city was destroyed. Those two high priests who had labored so hard to preserve the status quo in Jerusalem against the rebellious Zealots had their dead bodies stripped naked and left unburied in the streets of Jerusalem by their enemies (as Rev. 11:9 predicted). Their enemies stood on the dead bodies of these two "by way of jest", Josephus said, and scolded their carcases for being the cause of the attack on the city. Revelation 11:10 said that those dwelling on the earth (tes ges - the land of Israel) would rejoice at the death of the two witnesses who had tormented them. This the Zealots did, once the moderate high priesthood party had been eliminated. After that, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were left defenseless against the unrestrained hands of the other two warring factions, who preyed on them equally from then on.

A bit of a long story, but with a mixture of BOTH literal and symbolic included. And anyone who is fearfully anticipating this event in our future needs to relax. The angel's sixth trumpet judgment has been fulfilled to the letter looooong ago.

[eschaton]

To that extent, the human authors of Scripture are no different from any other human author - complications arise when one tries to discover what God, the Primary Author of all Scripture, meant.

I think the idea that the literal sense has something to do with author intent was brought in by some of the Reformers who disliked traditional allegorical interpretation. It is part of some modern theological theories. It implies that the author couldn't use a metaphor to express himself. Or else any metaphor the author uses has to be considered literal. If metaphor is literal, then all writing is literal and there really isn't such a thing as a metaphor. Some of the later Reformers said that symbolic writing was "double literal."

If we have to understand metaphor as literal because that is what the author intended, then Nicodemus was right about re-entering his mother's womb (John 3:4). I prefer the biblical explanation that wisdom is expressed in parable and simile.

Proverbs 1:5-7 (ESV)
5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning,
and the one who understands obtain guidance,
6 to understand a proverb and a saying,
the words of the wise and their riddles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allego...n_of_the_Bible

[Darfius]

To that extent

You had to read between the lines to understand that "OP" said my caricature. I know reading between the lines is difficult for you preterists. Your eyes fall off the page to a blackboard nearby where you start scribbling weird stuff and patting yourselves on the back.

I agree with everything else you said. Do you agree that when John said "the whole world" would worship the beast, he meant the whole world? Or even the whole Roman empire? Haha. Lecturing me when you don't have a friggin clue.

[Rushing Jaws]

Sounds legit to me, sean, how about you? "I'm not sure what the truth is on this, but I'm sure someone more concerned with the truth than me has covered it." *handwave flourish at the end*



"I know Revelation is highly symbolic because I know it is. Besides, if we take it literally, that would make John a crazy religious freak and us for believing him. Sure, I love Christ. Whatever."



"I don't believe what I believe because I hunger and thirst for righteousness. I follow the traditions of my fathers. I believe what I believe because when I spent what little time I have spent looking into the most important matters in this world or the next through half-opened eyes, meh, good enough. Ttyl, it's hard to change my toddler's diaper, hold my phone and defend the claims I somehow had time to make in the previous posts before this one."

To that extent

[eschaton]

old man

I've never claimed to be a "literalist", only a "plain textualist". Rather than say exactly how the death and corruption which has infected this world would be cleansed, God said "flee away". I understand you're upset over the ease with which I bat aside your Gnosticism under the guise of "spirituality", but only valid arguments concern me and this isn't one.

And "what the Sanhedrin knew or not" and "whether Paul really meant this or that" is called context. That matters to those of us who want to know what God meant and don't merely wish to assign our own meaning to the text.

The fact that you still cite Philo as authoritative when he rejected Jesus Christ says all that needs to be said about you.



This is as Gnostic as it gets. God made matter and called it "very good". Refute that, if you dare. The nature God talks about is the difference between sin and life.

Premillienialism is founded on literalism. That's what you call plain textualism. When I Google plain textualist I get info about the constitution and legal terms. I didn't get anything about the Bible, although if I go 20 pages deep maybe I would find something. Plain textualist seems to be something you pull off the top of your head like the Bible interpretations you give. Every point I've made I'ved proved from scripture and then given extra-biblical sources as well. What you call context I've given scripture to refute, such as 1 Cor 2:8.

You're lack of knowledge is overwhelming. The Jews didn't preserve Philo's writings. The Christian church did. There is historical testimony that Philo became a Christian, although many scholars doubt that he ever heard of Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

God created the seen and the unseen, the heaven and the earth and called it good. The spiritual man looks for those things that are not seen. The old plain textualist looks at things temporal. The old man is under the Law.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Darfius]

You're supposed to be the literalist, not me. Heaven and earth fleeing away don't sound like returning to a garden like condition. That's why the literalism that the pre-mill is founded on doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds more subjective than allegory founded on philosophical principles. You show your subjectivity by making declarations about what the scriptures mean without any resort to the literalism you claim. I'm talking about what the Sanhedrin knew or not, and Paul really meant this and that. It sounds more subjective than Dee Dee Warren's Olivet commentary. I see more eisegesis than exegesis from a self-proclaimed literalist. I see no plain text understanding in what you say. Pre-mills have set themselves up as masters over scripture to declare that it means whatever they say it means. That's the reason there have been so many false date-setting and prophecies over the last few hundred years. Philo says men with such an attitude were as evil as those before the flood.

I've never claimed to be a "literalist", only a "plain textualist". Rather than say exactly how the death and corruption which has infected this world would be cleansed, God said "flee away". I understand you're upset over the ease with which I bat aside your Gnosticism under the guise of "spirituality", but only valid arguments concern me and this isn't one.

And "what the Sanhedrin knew or not" and "whether Paul really meant this or that" is called context. That matters to those of us who want to know what God meant and don't merely wish to assign our own meaning to the text.

The fact that you still cite Philo as authoritative when he rejected Jesus Christ says all that needs to be said about you.

The nature I am talking about is the old and the new man that Paul is talking about. Its the difference between materialism and spirituality.

This is as Gnostic as it gets. God made matter and called it "very good". Refute that, if you dare. The nature God talks about is the difference between sin and life.

[eschaton]

If heaven and earth are renewed to their pre-fall conditions, that would mean the old heaven and earth had "fled away." Meanwhile God's in the same spot like a bawss.



I believe the Sanhedrin were educated scholars familiar with Essene doctrine. I also believe the Essenes, if indeed they were responsible for the Dead Sea scrolls, preserved documents reflecting widespread Jewish beliefs of the Second Temple period.



Paul was clearly referring primarily to the devil, who believed he was defeating Jesus by killing Him.



A stumbling block because being crucified was the opposite of a sign which bestowed glory. Crucifixion bestowed humiliation. To the proud and warlike Jews, following a crucified Messiah would have required them to overcome a lot of that pride. Most were not willing. To the Greeks, the idea of God dying was absurd. Also, Jesus said we must become like children and the Greeks prided themselves on being "wiser" than everyone else. In both cases, pride was a (usually) insurmountable obstacle.

Similarly, your pride at having found the super-secret-decoder-ring to the Scriptures prevents you from grasping the meaning of the plain text.



"Nature" sure as heck doesn't include Justin Martyr. I am aware the writers of the New Testament employed Philonic Logos imagery to describe Jesus and were obviously familiar with his writing, but just as obviously they did not agree with him on certain things, namely and most importantly that Jesus was the Christ. Ironically, the man you are holding up as a paragon of "spiritual interpretation" missed the boat on the whole Jesus is the Messiah thing.



Would you please cite it here? I don't intend to go hunting for it.

You're supposed to be the literalist, not me. Heaven and earth fleeing away don't sound like returning to a garden like condition. That's why the literalism that the pre-mill is founded on doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds more subjective than allegory founded on philosophical principles. You show your subjectivity by making declarations about what the scriptures mean without any resort to the literalism you claim. I'm talking about what the Sanhedrin knew or not, and Paul really meant this and that. It sounds more subjective than Dee Dee Warren's Olivet commentary. I see more eisegesis than exegesis from a self-proclaimed literalist. I see no plain text understanding in what you say. Pre-mills have set themselves up as masters over scripture to declare that it means whatever they say it means. That's the reason there have been so many false date-setting and prophecies over the last few hundred years. Philo says men with such an attitude were as evil as those before the flood.

The nature I am talking about is the old and the new man that Paul is talking about. Its the difference between materialism and spirituality.

[Darfius]

My point is that He was standing in the millennial temple. If He was standing in a spot forever, and the whole heaven and earth flee away, does God flee away too? If there is a new heaven and earth is there a new God too. I'm saying it makes no sense.

If heaven and earth are renewed to their pre-fall conditions, that would mean the old heaven and earth had "fled away." Meanwhile God's in the same spot like a bawss.

I don't believe the Sanhedrin was an Essene.

I believe the Sanhedrin were educated scholars familiar with Essene doctrine. I also believe the Essenes, if indeed they were responsible for the Dead Sea scrolls, preserved documents reflecting widespread Jewish beliefs of the Second Temple period.

1 Cor 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Paul was clearly referring primarily to the devil, who believed he was defeating Jesus by killing Him.

1 Cor 1:20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

A stumbling block because being crucified was the opposite of a sign which bestowed glory. Crucifixion bestowed humiliation. To the proud and warlike Jews, following a crucified Messiah would have required them to overcome a lot of that pride. Most were not willing. To the Greeks, the idea of God dying was absurd. Also, Jesus said we must become like children and the Greeks prided themselves on being "wiser" than everyone else. In both cases, pride was a (usually) insurmountable obstacle.

Similarly, your pride at having found the super-secret-decoder-ring to the Scriptures prevents you from grasping the meaning of the plain text.

Spiritually means allegorically based on the philosophical wisdom of God. That is an ethical way of life. The answer to your question is general revelation, God revealing Himself in nature (Rom 1:20). Philo names his predecessors in the view as well as his contemporaries. He is talking about the Theraputes, Josephus, and the like. Not all Jews shared the same spiritual view. Jesus shows it in His parables like the one I gave earlier. Paul explains it in the spirit and law. Paul shares quite a bit with Philo.

"Nature" sure as heck doesn't include Justin Martyr. I am aware the writers of the New Testament employed Philonic Logos imagery to describe Jesus and were obviously familiar with his writing, but just as obviously they did not agree with him on certain things, namely and most importantly that Jesus was the Christ. Ironically, the man you are holding up as a paragon of "spiritual interpretation" missed the boat on the whole Jesus is the Messiah thing.

I made a post about that in the other thread.

Would you please cite it here? I don't intend to go hunting for it.

[eschaton]

I believe a structure will be on Mt. Zion, but what does it matter if it is the same structure? The prophecy is fulfilled so long as there is a structure and He dwells there.

4Q372 [Dead Sea scrolls](c. 200 BCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_Joseph

Scripture Verse: 1 Corinthians

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

© Copyright Original Source

Define "spiritually". Whose "spiritual" interpretation should we take as authoritative and on what objective basis? What's the difference between claiming a "spiritual" interpretation independent of the bounds of the text and claiming revelation from a dream?

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 23

prophesy the delusions of their own mindslead my people astray with their reckless lies

© Copyright Original Source

What about plain old reading comprehension? Some people are stupid. Most are stupid because their own wickedness blinds their vision. "If thine eye be single." There's no need to substitute some imaginary "spiritual" interpretation that goes beyond the bounds of the text--that is, beyond God's very words. He can get His point across without our "help".

My point is that He was standing in the millennial temple. If He was standing in a spot forever, and the whole heaven and earth flee away, does God flee away too? If there is a new heaven and earth is there a new God too. I'm saying it makes no sense.

I don't believe the Sanhedrin was an Essene.

1 Cor 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Cor 1:20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Spiritually means allegorically based on the philosophical wisdom of God. That is an ethical way of life. The answer to your question is general revelation, God revealing Himself in nature (Rom 1:20). Philo names his predecessors in the view as well as his contemporaries. He is talking about the Theraputes, Josephus, and the like. Not all Jews shared the same spiritual view. Jesus shows it in His parables like the one I gave earlier. Paul explains it in the spirit and law. Paul shares quite a bit with Philo.


What you say about some people is true. That's the reason the scriptures say:

1 John 4
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. ...

I made a post about that in the other thread.

[Darfius]

God is in the millennial temple in Eze 43. read it closely.

43:4 And the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.
5 So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house.
6 And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

I believe a structure will be on Mt. Zion, but what does it matter if it is the same structure? The prophecy is fulfilled so long as there is a structure and He dwells there.

The saints and martyrs, while not considered inerrant, based their beliefs on the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Not all of Jesus' teachings are in the Bible (John 21:25). The Bible is simply tradition written down. The Ethiopian eunuch needed apostolic teaching (Acts 8). He couldn't understand the OT without apostolic instruction. We shouldn't try that either. Our understanding should be based on Jesus and the apostles (Eph 2:21). The Jews didn't know who Jesus was. The Sanhedrin didn't say anything about Messiah, because he didn't know Messiah would suffer.

Luke 19:44
And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

4Q372 [Dead Sea scrolls](c. 200 BCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_Joseph

Before the written tradition of scripture (special revelation) there was the general revelation of God in nature. (Rom1:20, Psa 19:1)
Allegory has rules. Philo of Alexandria says the rules of allegory are based on natural philosophy. In the first century, some understood Moses as allegory. Philo wasn't unique. Josephus wrote:

Scripture Verse: 1 Corinthians

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

© Copyright Original Source

Define "spiritually". Whose "spiritual" interpretation should we take as authoritative and on what objective basis? What's the difference between claiming a "spiritual" interpretation independent of the bounds of the text and claiming revelation from a dream?

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 23

prophesy the delusions of their own mindslead my people astray with their reckless lies

© Copyright Original Source

What about plain old reading comprehension? Some people are stupid. Most are stupid because their own wickedness blinds their vision. "If thine eye be single." There's no need to substitute some imaginary "spiritual" interpretation that goes beyond the bounds of the text--that is, beyond God's very words. He can get His point across without our "help".

[One Bad Pig]

Jews and generations..

And they obviously don't have any sort of eschatological bias. If you have a better source, put up or shut up.

What makes you think a modern scientific estimate of the length of a Jewish generation has anything to do with ancient concepts of generation length?

Let's see if this link works. If not, it's from the book "Covenant & Polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical Foundations & Jewish Expressions" by Daniel J. Elazar, in the section "The Biblical Organization of Time".

Source: Daniel Elazar

The oft-used biblical phrase "forty years" is the idiom for a generation, representing the outer limits of a generation's time span. Empirical studies subsequently have shown that the time span involved in a historical generation is between 25 and 40 years, as the Bible itself frequently suggests.....
A person's "generation" refers to the generation of his maturity. A normal lifetime, according to the Bible, is essentially two generations in length and a full three generations (120 years) is the Bible's upper limit.

© Copyright Original Source

[eschaton]

While Justin Martyr and Irenaeus can provide interesting information about the beliefs and practices of the early church, their beliefs and practices are in no way authoritative independent of Scriptural support. "Tradition" is the way the Jews and Catholics perverted the truth into Babylonian knockoffs.



"Literally", the Scriptures present both a suffering Messiah and a conquering one. The Jews hoped for and therefore expected the wrong version of the Messiah. Even still, those most educated in Scripture (the Pharisees and Sanhedrin) knew Jesus was the Messiah. They just rejected Him. "It is better for one man to die for the people than that the whole nation perish." Caiaphas was basically saying, "since Jesus will not be the conquering Messiah we desire, we will help Him be the suffering Messiah He appears to want to be."



God says His "dwelling" will be there (on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem), but He does not specify that a specific building will last forever. Actually, according to Scripture, the rebuilt temple will be defiled by the Antichrist, so I'm not sure where the idea came that it would "last forever."

God is in the millennial temple in Eze 43. read it closely.

43:4 And the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.
5 So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house.
6 And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

The saints and martyrs, while not considered inerrant, based their beliefs on the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Not all of Jesus' teachings are in the Bible (John 21:25). The Bible is simply tradition written down. The Ethiopian eunuch needed apostolic teaching (Acts 8). He couldn't understand the OT without apostolic instruction. We shouldn't try that either. Our understanding should be based on Jesus and the apostles (Eph 2:21). The Jews didn't know who Jesus was. The Sanhedrin didn't say anything about Messiah, because he didn't know Messiah would suffer.

Luke 19:44
And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Before the written tradition of scripture (special revelation) there was the general revelation of God in nature. (Rom1:20, Psa 19:1)
Allegory has rules. Philo of Alexandria says the rules of allegory are based on natural philosophy. In the first century, some understood Moses as allegory. Philo wasn't unique. Josephus wrote:

For all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe: while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically; and others under a decent allegory: but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory: which I now indeed shall wave the explication of: but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it after I have finished the present work.

[Littlejoe]

Okay, then I'm out.

Why? Because even Darfius disagree's with you? After thinking about it, I don't think how long a generation is, is that important but how long those of the generation hearing it (or seeing it when it happens) live is what the text says to me.

[seanD]

So you finally quote an actual source instead of assuming modern generation is the same as ancient....

And, it disagrees with what Darfius posted (unless I misread his meaning). He quoted Scripture where Moses says it's 70 or 80 years. Jesus didn't say it would start "before the next generation begins" he said ..."this generation will not pass away". I take that to mean that it would happen before everyone hearing him passes away. So, again, fits with preterism.

Okay, then I'm out.