Rapture - The End Times Error that Leaves the Bible Behind

[MaggieOH]

Mijoy2:

Yes, I agree. There are a great number of these parallels (as I like to call them) that have come to my attention recently. Most noteably from the book “Salvation is from the Jews” by Roy Schoemann. A facinating read at the least; it goes along with the nature of this thread. Having a love affair with Cape Cod and with our Blessed Mother caused my experience to be all the more profound as I read this book.

Again, I pose the question (not looking for an answer necessarily); how many of these parallels are circumstantial, and how many are by intent? Interetsing question in itself.

I wish I could contribute to this thread from a scholarly perspective. But I am a recent revert and am largley scripturally illiterate (relatively speaking). however the more I learn the more I intend to change that.

Thank you for this thread Maggie. I am learning

I am not a Biblical scholar. I am a very ordinary person like yourself. So go ahead and contribute to the thread. I hope that we will be able to see and draw on some of those parallels that will actually strengthen the case against the Dispensationalist Rapture.

Maggie

 

[Mijoy2]

MaggieOH:

I am not a Biblical scholar. I am a very ordinary person like yourself. So go ahead and contribute to the thread. I hope that we will be able to see and draw on some of those parallels that will actually strengthen the case against the Dispensationalist Rapture.

Maggie

Having this invitation , I will contribute one particular very high level thought that seems to keep coming to mind.

I have a tendency to doubt that God’s intent when inspiring the writings of sacrid scripture was to present us with a puzzle of which some well-meaning people will interpret correctly and others incorrectly. Further more present us with a puzzle of which is tricky to the extent where most wil interpret incorrectly. This seems to go counter to the intent I chose to believe is a greater intent. That is to demostrate Gods will for how we are to live ourlives and to understand His word.

Having said this it seems to sit better in my mind to trust a more direct interpretation of the Olivet prophecy which seems to point mroe directly to the present generation.

With regards to Revelation; following the reading of The lambs Supper by Scott Hahn, I almost see the Left Behind Series as an extreme stretch of the imagination.

But again, I highlight, I am in the process of learning.

 

[Mijoy2]

MaggieOH:

I am not a Biblical scholar. I am a very ordinary person like yourself. So go ahead and contribute to the thread. I hope that we will be able to see and draw on some of those parallels that will actually strengthen the case against the Dispensationalist Rapture.

Maggie

Having this invitation , I will contribute one particular very high level thought that seems to keep coming to mind.

I have a tendency to doubt that God’s intent when inspiring the writings of sacrid scripture was to present us with a puzzle of which some well-meaning people will interpret correctly and others incorrectly. Further more present us with a puzzle of which is tricky to the extent where most wil interpret incorrectly. This seems to go counter to the intent I chose to believe is a greater intent. That is to demostrate Gods will for how we are to live ourlives and to understand His Will.

Having said this it seems to sit better in my mind to trust a more direct interpretation of the Olivet prophecy which seems to point more directly to the present generation (of the time).

With regards to Revelation; following the reading of The Lambs Supper by Scott Hahn, I almost see the Left Behind Series as an extreme stretch of the imagination.

But again, I highlight, I am in the process of learning.

 

[Benadam]

For the moment, and Bible Reader is at least going in the right direction except that he has not examined Matthew in light of the prophecies of Daniel and the events surrounding the Maccabean Wars, let us just concentrate on what is written in the Scripture for the moment and then we will see if it is relevant to move into what unknown dispensationalist preachers have to say on the subject.

Maggie

One has to be cautious about using foreshadowings and prophecies in the Old Testament to regulate the meaning of the gospel words describing the actual events in the gospels, or the meaning of Christ’s New Testament interp of the Old Testament words of the foreshadowings and prophecies.

Old Testament foreshadowings and prophecies are best described as predictions made “through a looking glass, darkly.” By-and-large, the New Testament reality regulates the meaning of the Old Testament foreshadowing, not *vice versa. *There are exceptions, but not many.

For example, when God says, in Genesis 3, that, "He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel

," what does that mean? What is that foreshadowing, as “through a looking glass, darkly”?

Simple: All 4 gospels tell us that the cross of Christ pierced the dust of “Skull Place” – “He will strike at your head” – while Jesus hung nailed through the feet – “while you strike at his heel.”

Note how the gospels clarify Genesis, not vice versa.

I agree that the types and shadows in the old testament define in part what is fully revealed in Christ. I like the physical analogy of Golgatha and the nail in christ’s feet too.I feel though that as long as it’s kept in mind that an OT type is a definition in part and must fit other types like a puzzle to make whole, I see no reason to fear it. Also, the symbology of the serpent striking a heel was reshaped by pagan memory into a serpent that swallows it’s tail.

By and large, the words of Daniel and the events of the Maccabean revolt should be considered in light of Jesus’ words in Matthew, not vice versa.

Bible reader, with all due respect I think the word ‘regulate’ gives a vague definition of the relationship between OT types and shadows of the new testament.

The picture in part and the whole picture better defines that spiritual reality. The OT contains types and shadows of what’s revealed full in the NT but they are also echo’s of the dawn of historic man and into man in his Original Innocense.

The Holy Spirit also reveals the forgotten past and those events come to light the nearer the end events become.

 

[MaggieOH]

Benadam:

I agree that the types and shadows in the old testament define in part what is fully revealed in Christ. I like the physical analogy of Golgatha and the nail in christ’s feet too.I feel though that as long as it’s kept in mind that an OT type is a definition in part and must fit other types like a puzzle to make whole, I see no reason to fear it. Also, the symbology of the serpent striking a heel was reshaped by pagan memory into a serpent that swallows it’s tail.

Bible reader, with all due respect I think the word ‘regulate’ gives a vague definition of the relationship between OT types and shadows of the new testament.

The picture in part and the whole picture better defines that spiritual reality. The OT contains types and shadows of what’s revealed full in the NT but they are also echo’s of the dawn of historic man and into man in his Original Innocense.

The Holy Spirit also reveals the forgotten past and those events come to light the nearer the end events become.

Benadam

you have made some good points here. I certainly think that we can look to the past to see our present reality, and I do think that Jesus was doing the same when he gave the eschatological discourse on Mt Olivet. There were two events that were brought clearly to mind: (1) the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple prior to the exile in Babylon; and (2) the effects of the Maccabean Wars.

Not to labour the point about the Maccabean wars though, I do have to point out that it was Judas Maccabeus who made a peace treaty with the Romans and the Romans were invited to come to Jerusalem. There was not an initial invasion. The Jews certainly do not want to remember that the Romans were invited to come to Jerusalem.

This also brings me back to the prophecy in the Book of Daniel, a prophecy that I also believe has been fulfilled with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. There is a lot of talk about the 70 weeks that were propesied in Daniel but again I do not see that as being something that has to be literal. Daniel did prophesy the reign of both the Greeks and the Romans. He also prophesied the coming of the abomination in the Temple. This has happened at least twice. The first time was done by the High Priest in Jerusalem during the reign of Antiochus Ephinanes and the second time can be interpreted as the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, but it must also be remember that the emperor Justinian tried to revive the Temple and plant his own god on the site.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

Mijoy2:

Having this invitation , I will contribute one particular very high level thought that seems to keep coming to mind.

I have a tendency to doubt that God’s intent when inspiring the writings of sacrid scripture was to present us with a puzzle of which some well-meaning people will interpret correctly and others incorrectly. Further more present us with a puzzle of which is tricky to the extent where most wil interpret incorrectly. This seems to go counter to the intent I chose to believe is a greater intent. That is to demostrate Gods will for how we are to live ourlives and to understand His Will.

Having said this it seems to sit better in my mind to trust a more direct interpretation of the Olivet prophecy which seems to point more directly to the present generation (of the time).

With regards to Revelation; following the reading of The Lambs Supper by Scott Hahn, I almost see the Left Behind Series as an extreme stretch of the imagination.

But again, I highlight, I am in the process of learning.

Mijoy,

Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper” does an excellent job of explaining all of this, and especially how we can understand Christ’s Presence in our lives on this very day.

Maggie

 

[BibleReader]

MaggieOH:

BR,

How can you be certain that Jesus was speaking about some event that was going to be so far into the future. I do not agree with you on this point. I think that he was definitely referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, just as all my Bible commentaries state.

The age that was coming to an end was that of the Old Covenant. The destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem is the final sign that we have entered into the new age which is the “Age of Grace”

That does not discount the belief that Jesus will come again in glory, but he will do so to judge the living and the dead.

That is why I have sought out the Old Testament typography that points to Jesus Christ, and also to better understand the meaning of the words of Jesus.

MaggieOH

Hi, Maggie. Your analysis squarely contradicts the plainest interpretation of the plaintext meaning of Matthew 24.

I repeat, The Olivet Discourse begins thusly…

3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately and said, “Tell us, when will this happen, and **what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?” ****4 **Jesus said to them in reply,…

How could it be clearer?

If we can “interpret” around the meaning of such words, to reach a contrary result, Bible study, and the Bible itself, is useless.

 

[MaggieOH]

BibleReader:

Hi, Maggie. Your analysis squarely contradicts the plainest interpretation of the plaintext meaning of Matthew 24.

I repeat, The Olivet Discourse begins thusly…

3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately and said, “Tell us, when will this happen, and **what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?” ****4 **Jesus said to them in reply,…

How could it be clearer?

If we can “interpret” around the meaning of such words, to reach a contrary result, Bible study, and the Bible itself, is useless.

BR,

why do you believe that there is only one level of interpretation? I think that this is actually contrary to Bible study and the Bible itself. By giving only one level of interpretation like you are doing, and applying this discourse to the End Times alone, you are in effect claiming Jesus to be a liar.

There are two levels of interpretation to be considered in this discourse. The first level is a prophesy that Jesus will judge those who plotted against him. The Scripture prophets are always interpreting their own times with that double meaning that refers to the future events. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the other prophets were interpreting what was happening in their own time, but there was that underlying prophesy that also pointed to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus followed this same pattern. That is why the second level refers to a future time, and we accept that as End Times. However, over the period of 2,000 years there have been several historical periods where there has been a partial fulfillment of that prophesy.

I am quoting from The Ignatius Study Bible with commentary by Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch:

“A closer look at Jesus’ words in the context of ancient Judaism reveals a better interpretation. Namely Jesus was predicting the demise of the Jerusalem Temple -** the architectural symbol of the Old Covenant. **At the literal-historical level, Jesus entire discourse is an extension of his cryptic comment about the Temple: there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down” (Mt 24:2). Hearing this the disciples were probably reminded of a similar event in the OT when God allowed the Temple to be destroyed in 586 B.C. as punishment for Israel’s sins (2 Kings 24:8-10). Interpreting Jesus’ words in this way does more adequate justice to the symbolism of his language and the testimony of history. Ancient sources confirm his prophecy: the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, a tragedy that claimed the lives of more than 1 million Jews. From this perpective Jesus stands vindicated, since his words did come to pass within the lifetime of his contemporaries.

---

There is more that I can quote from this same source of information. All I am doing here is setting up as the first place of reference the historical aspects of the prophecy. I am not, I repeat, I am not stating that there will not be other future events.

Now let us keep the discussion on track and deal with the End Times error of Rapture theology.

MaggieOH

 

[BibleReader]

BR,

*why do you believe that there is only one level of interpretation? I think that this is actually contrary to Bible study and the Bible itself. By giving only one level of interpretation like you are doing, and applying this discourse to the End Times alone, you are in effect claiming Jesus to be a liar. *

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m a Commie and a nuclear terrorist, too.

Calm down. I’ve been reading Bible for aboutr 35 years now and I really do know what I’m doing.

Of course there are two levels to Scripture – not always, but mostly. And then sometimes there are four levels to Scripture, not just two.

There is always the plaintext level. That never isn’t present.

Then there is the sensus plenior, or “fuller sense,” level. Typically, that level is marked by the presence of types and word pictures.

Sometimes, there is a plaintext-level symbolic level which is “pre-typological” – you might say “pre-allegorical.”

Very occasionally, the sensus plenior level features its own non-typological, *supra-*typological symbolism. That’s pretty rare, though.

The two “work-horse” levels are the plaintext level, and the sensus plenior level.

Now, how does the sensus plenior level work?

Well, one can’t pretend that it is there, or assume it is there. It actually has to be there. Normally, the presence of the standard Bible types and the presence of word pictures marks the presence of a *sensus plenior *level meaning.

So, at the plaintext level, Luke 5:1-3 is about Jesus getting into Peter’s boat and teaching a great big crowd on the shore of Lake Gennesaret while sitting in the boat.

However, “boat” = Boat Type = “the Church”; the lake = an Abyss Type analog = “the sea of damnable souls”; “sitting” = the Sitting Type = “presiding.” So, the sensus plenior level meaning is a word-picture of Christ “presiding” in the “Church” of Peter, and the teaching of Christ Himself coming out of an inspired Church to people who have been saved from the “sea of damnable souls.”

That’s how the sensus plenior level works.

Note what the *sensus plenior *level meaning is about. It’s not about “bad guy” Romans hurting helpless Jews in Jerusalem. It’s about the salvation process.

There are two levels of interpretation to be considered in this discourse. The first level is a prophesy that Jesus will judge those who plotted against him.

Please tell us which verse achieves this. I agree that the plaintext meaning of one verse, alone – Matthew 24:2 – is about Titus’ destruction, but Luke’s gospel indicates that it was not a judging for plotting against Jesus, *per *se, but rather because the original Chosen People the Jews didn’t recognize the first coming of the Messiah, per se.

After Matthew 24:2, though types are used to modify and enrich the plaintext level, I don’t think that there is a sensus plenior level. After Matthew 24:2, the entire discourse in Matthew is about the End Times.

I think that you are wrong.

TO BE CONTINUED…

 

[BibleReader]

The Scripture prophets are always interpreting their own times with that double meaning that refers to the future events. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the other prophets were interpreting what was happening in their own time, but there was that underlying prophesy that also pointed to the coming of the Messiah.

Mostly, that is correct.

Jesus followed this same pattern.

It’s really not as simple as that, but I’ll accept that for our purposes, here. You kind of make it sound like Jesus was following an Old Testament recipe with inflexible vigor. That portrayal is a little bit off.

*That is why the second level refers to a future time, and we accept that as End Times. *

What “second level” in Matthew 24? Jesus refers to the End Times with the clearest plaintext-level speech. The Apostrles ask about the End Timkes with plaintext level speech. Jesus answers about the End Times with plaintext level speech.

*However, over the period of 2,000 years there have been several historical periods where there has been a partial fulfillment of that prophesy. *

*W-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l, I wouldn’t call Verse 6 a “prophesy.” Christ expressly – at the plaintext level – dismisses the normal “wars and rumors of wars” as unimportant, as something which is bound to happen. That sentence suggests that the “nation rising against nation” are not the nonsense He referred to in Verse 6 and dismissed as unimportant. I.e., this important “nation risding against nation” will be huge beyond comprehension, I think, and have not occurred yet, unless He was referring to the World Wars as an End Times signal.

I am quoting from The Ignatius Study Bible with commentary by Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch:

"A closer look at Jesus’ words in the context of ancient Judaism reveals a better interpretation. Namely Jesus was predicting the demise of the Jerusalem Temple -* the architectural symbol of the Old Covenant.*

I am sure that you won’t prefer my analysis over Hahn’s and Mitch’s, but they’re wrong. The Temple is the type, or symbol, of the New Testament Church, in the sensus plenior level.

GTG. More later.
*

 

[MaggieOH]

The Scripture prophets are always interpreting their own times with that double meaning that refers to the future events. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the other prophets were interpreting what was happening in their own time, but there was that underlying prophesy that also pointed to the coming of the Messiah.

Mostly, that is correct.

Jesus followed this same pattern.

It’s really not as simple as that, but I’ll accept that for our purposes, here. You kind of make it sound like Jesus was following an Old Testament recipe with inflexible vigor. That portrayal is a little bit off.

*That is why the second level refers to a future time, and we accept that as End Times. *

What “second level” in Matthew 24? Jesus refers to the End Times with the clearest plaintext-level speech. The Apostrles ask about the End Timkes with plaintext level speech. Jesus answers about the End Times with plaintext level speech.

*However, over the period of 2,000 years there have been several historical periods where there has been a partial fulfillment of that prophesy. *

W-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l, I wouldn’t call Verse 6 a “prophesy.” Christ expressly – at the plaintext level – dismisses the normal “wars and rumors of wars” as unimportant, as something which is bound to happen. That sentence suggests that the “nation rising against nation” are not the nonsense He referred to in Verse 6 and dismissed as unimportant. I.e., this important “nation risding against nation” will be huge beyond comprehension, I think, and have not occurred yet, unless He was referring to the World Wars as an End Times signal.

I am quoting from The Ignatius Study Bible with commentary by Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch:

"A closer look at Jesus’ words in the context of ancient Judaism reveals a better interpretation. Namely Jesus was predicting the demise of the Jerusalem Temple -* the architectural symbol of the Old Covenant.*

I am sure that you won’t prefer my analysis over Hahn’s and Mitch’s, but they’re wrong. The Temple is the type, or symbol, of the New Testament Church, in the sensus plenior level.

GTG. More later.

Guess what BR I have been reading the Bible for 40 years, yes that is right. Ever since I was given my first Bible (a hand me down from my sister since it was used in school) I have been reading the Bible.

I have only one thing to say about claiming that you know better than someone who has a Doctorate in Theology. It could be that you are also wrong but too proud to admit that it is possible that your interpretation might in fact be faulty.

My understanding of this discourse is completely in line with what the Church teaches. The Ignatius study Bible has the Imprimatur of the Church. In this case it is William J Levada, Archbishop of San Francisco.

Since I had already written out the complete information in another thread, I did not complete everything that was stated regarding this information.

My Jerusalem Bible even prefaces this discourse with the heading: prediction of fall of Jerusalem. That is the simplest meaning of the discourse, not something at least 2000 years into the future.

The wars and the rumours of wars are also an allusion to the strife before the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. From before the birth of Jesus there had been false Messiahs and they were severely punished when they were caught. The massacre at Masada was a prelude to the sacking of Jerusalem.

(tbc)

 

[MaggieOH]

The fact is, the Rapture as it is described in dispensationalism, which is the subject of this thread, is not Scriptural. To date no one has provided any form of proof from within the Scripture that supports the false dispensationalist doctrine of the Rapture.

The issue of the End Times is a lot more complex because there are so many more things to understand. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether or not any of us believe that the End Times are around the corner. To do so at this point in the discussion would be to take it off topic.

The purpose of this thread is to examine and discuss the Scripture that is used by the dispensationalists to attempt to prove that a Rapture will happen before a Tribulation, and also the Scripture that disproves that theory.

If we continue on the current track we are in danger of taking the thread off topic because there are too many people with their own pet theories.

So, to get this topic back on track, we need to investigate the claims of the Rapturists. What are the Scriptures that they use in order to prove that Christ will come and take them up into the air so that they will not suffer?

MaggieOH

 

[BibleReader]

MaggieOH:

Guess what BR I have been reading the Bible for 40 years, yes that is right. Ever since I was given my first Bible (a hand me down from my sister since it was used in school) I have been reading the Bible.

I have only one thing to say about claiming that you know better than someone who has a Doctorate in Theology. It could be that you are also wrong but too proud to admit that it is possible that your interpretation might in fact be faulty.

My understanding of this discourse is completely in line with what the Church teaches. The Ignatius study Bible has the Imprimatur of the Church. In this case it is William J Levada, Archbishop of San Francisco.

Since I had already written out the complete information in another thread, I did not complete everything that was stated regarding this information.

My Jerusalem Bible even prefaces this discourse with the heading: prediction of fall of Jerusalem. That is the simplest meaning of the discourse, not something at least 2000 years into the future.

The wars and the rumours of wars are also an allusion to the strife before the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. From before the birth of Jesus there had been false Messiahs and they were severely punished when they were caught. The massacre at Masada was a prelude to the sacking of Jerusalem.

(tbc)

Hi, Maggie.

I have only one thing to say about claiming that you know better than someone who has a Doctorate in Theology. It could be that you are also wrong but too proud to admit that it is possible that your interpretation might in fact be faulty. --MaggieOH

Nobody has a doctorate in Bible typology, however, because the literature on it is either Protestant and imcomplete, or it “stinks.”

Maggie, you accuse me of implying that Jesus is a “liar.” When I disagree with you you have repeatedly said that I am “off track” or “hijacking the thread,” as though “truth” orbits around your analysis only, and everything else is non-relevant.

Why not just talk to yourself, since it is not possible, in your mind, that another perspective is “relevant”?

Or, you could calm down, way, way, way, way, way down, and say, calmly and lovingly, “Can you prove your case, my Catholic brother?”

Let me just deal with the Scott Hahn business, here, by simply analyzing the temple in the Old Testament.

TO BE CONTINUED…

 

[BibleReader]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST…

Again, read Matthew 24. Jesus discusses the temple for one sentence. The rest of Matthew 24 is about the End Times.

At the plaintext level, the temple is, indeed, about “the temple.” (So, in John, when Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days,” there He is using the temple as a PLAINTEXT-level symbol of the “Old Covenant” “church,” Judaism, and saying that in three days He’ll create a new NEW Covenant Church out of the destroyed OLD Covenant temple.)

However, at the *sensus plenior/*typological level, the “temple” is Christianity and, at the core, Roman Catholic Christianity, the “Church” (with a capital “C”).

Hebrew Solomon goes to Gentile Hiram, and has Gentile Hiram supply “cedars” out of which to build the temple. 1 Kings 5:20-23. In the Bible, all non-fig trees = the Non-Fig Tree Type = “the cross.” The wood of the cedar of Lebanon, cedrus libani, is very red, and a good picture of the wood of the cross – covered with blood! So, the temple is made out of “crosses.”

And what did Solomon give to Hiram the Gentile to build the “Church”? 20,000 kors of “wheat”! 1 Kings 5:25. The Eucharist! A picture of Gentiles receiving the Eucharist to strengthen them to build the Church. The “oil” supplied with the wheat is the “grace” of the Eucharist. “Oil” = olive oil = Oil Type = “grace.”

What else was the temple made out of? “Rock”! 1 Kings 5:31-32. “Rock” = Rock Type = “a church” or “the Church.”

And when did construction begin? In the “second” month: 1 Kings 6:1. “Second” = Two Type analog = “Church.”

There are many, many, many references to the “two’ness” of the symbols of the Church in Solomon’s temple.

And what is IN the temple, on the altar? “Showbread”! The Eucharist! 1 Kings 7:48. That is framed by two sets of “five” “lampstands,” where “five” = Five Type = “Christ,” and “lampstands” = Fire Type analogs = “a special presence of God.” So, we even have an affirmation of the Real Presence of “Christ” in the “Eucharist.”

Now, MarieOH, be skeptical. Try to prove me wrong on each of the types.

 

[BibleReader]

Hi, MaggieOH.

Another good thing to pay attention to is the Mark 13 version of Matthew 24. There is a line there, in Jesus’ eschatalogical (End Times) homily, in Mark, at Mark 13:10.

After Jesus talks about the “wears and rumors of wars” and earthquakes and famines and beatings in synagogues and arraignments before governors and kings and such He says, “BUT THE GOOD NEWS MUST FIRST BE PROCLAIMED TO ALL THE GENTILES.” Mark 13:10.

Believe me, that wasn’t even CLOSE to happening when Titus sacked Jerusalem.

The Good News would not be proclaimed to “ALL THE GENTILES” for many centuries.

I.e., the title given to the Olivet Discourse, the “eschatalogical homily” (which merans, in essence, “End Times homily”) is correct.

By reducing a very, very clear plaintext-level comment on the End Times (again, READ THE APOSTLES’ QUESTION in Matthew 24) to a presentation on fighting between Roman soldiers and Jewish people in Israel, you are ignoring the meat of the words of Christ.

You appear to be wrong.

 

[BibleReader]

And, of course, my purpose is not to prove that the End Times are around the corner, per se. My purpose, instead, was to prove that you are wrong to restrict Matthew 24 to fighting between Roman soldiers under General Titus and some Jewish people in Jersulem because Christ was angry at Jewish people for plotting against him.

Your interpretation is absurdly narrow, and has Christ not answering the Apostle’s acxtual question, “What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the world?”

Christ spends one sentence on the temple, Verse 2, and blows-off worries about "wars and rumors of wars, generally, Verse 6.

The rest of Matthew 24, up to and including Verse 51, is about the End.

You are wrong, Maggie.

 

[MaggieOH]

BibleReader:

Hi, Maggie.

I have only one thing to say about claiming that you know better than someone who has a Doctorate in Theology. It could be that you are also wrong but too proud to admit that it is possible that your interpretation might in fact be faulty. --MaggieOH

Nobody has a doctorate in Bible typology, however, because the literature on it is either Protestant and imcomplete, or it “stinks.”

Maggie, you accuse me of implying that Jesus is a “liar.” When I disagree with you you have repeatedly said that I am “off track” or “hijacking the thread,” as though “truth” orbits around your analysis only, and everything else is non-relevant.

Why not just talk to yourself, since it is not possible, in your mind, that another perspective is “relevant”?

Or, you could calm down, way, way, way, way, way down, and say, calmly and lovingly, “Can you prove your case, my Catholic brother?”

Let me just deal with the Scott Hahn business, here, by simply analyzing the temple in the Old Testament.

TO BE CONTINUED…

BR,

you are hijacking the thread and if you do not stop doing that I will report you. The way that these hijackings are going the thread will end up being locked.

I have not stated that I am correct in all things. In fact I am soaking up the information that is provided. What I am concerned about is that you have decided that only your interpretation is the correct one and that no one else could possibly be correct.

You have not read my contributions properly and that is making the thread more difficult to maintain.

I have not option. I am going to ask the moderators to lock the thread because I am not going to get in an argument with a fellow Catholic who is caught up in the potential End Times but refuses to look first to the historical aspects before proceeding to the other aspects of Matthew’s Gospel on the prophecy of Jesus.

Maggie

 

[Benadam]

Biblereader:After Jesus talks about the “wears and rumors of wars” and earthquakes and famines and beatings in synagogues and arraignments before governors and kings and such He says, “BUT THE GOOD NEWS MUST FIRST BE PROCLAIMED TO ALL THE GENTILES.” Mark 13:10.

Believe me, that wasn’t even CLOSE to happening when Titus sacked Jerusalem.

Not even a rumour of a war will exist because if there is even the rumour of a war somewhere, the time is not yet. Sin will have reached a head when it seems to be functioning quite well having made humanity worship and serve the physical.

They know not how empty is their cup lest it be filled.

 

[MaggieOH]

Before this thread is closed, let me look at a few things that did come to pass.

1. By A.D. 70 according to the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel message had reached the Gentiles. It had spread to the nations. The Gospel message had travelled from Jerusalem to Rome and was continuing to spread. Hence, in the understanding of the early Christians, the Gospel message had reached “the ends of the earth” as it was known in their time (not in our time).
2. By A.D. 70 there had been several wars that had broken out. These included the revolt at Masada and of course ended in the sacking of Jerusalem. Within that scenario there were also rumours of wars, because there were the false Messiahs who were whipping the people into a frenzy to get them to join in a revolt.
3. By A.D. 70 the Christians had been persecuted by the Jews, such that they fled to safety. The Christians and Jews were persecuted by the Romans. At the same time the Jews had forbidden the Christians to enter into the synagogues. Therefore that condition had also been met.

These are the pointers that prove that the prophesy of Jesus as it was originally meant was fulfilled in A.D. 70.

** However, that does not mean that this prophesy will not also be fulfilled in the future **

We cannot look at this Scripture in either the isolation, that is, the early Christian period alone, or our own time alone, or even some future time alone. In order to understand what is being said we have to begin with the historical period and then work forward.

So far no one has come up with what can be remotely called a satisfactory definition of End Times. That is why there is so much confusion and far too many people live in fear of what they think will happen in the near future. This is why concentrating upon the End Times tends to take people’s attention away from serving God.

We are on this earth to serve God. We are not here to be like jelly fish quivering in fear. We are not being told to run to the hills, to accumulate food and water supplies, or anything else of that nature. If we truly trusted in God, that is, if we were so sure of God’s might that we entrusted ourselves completely to Him in times of trouble and danger, then He would protect us, just as He did every time the Chosen People turned to Him instead of their false idols.

Are we in an End Time? I do not know. Can we discern some signs of the times? Yes we can. We live in a period where there are wars, rumours of wars, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados (yes even Sydney has been hit by mini tornados), hurricanes, cyclones, floods, fire, and famine. We see the consequences of marching against the leader of a nation every day on the T.V. as more and more people are being killed by insurgents. As soon as one hotspot cools down, another starts up. That is the reality of our world today.

Is there an Antichrist around today? Well I happen to think that the riddle of antichrist is not necessarily a person but the one who leads us to sin. As it is written, “anyone who leads us away from Christ is an Antichrist” and there are many antichrists in our world today. If we believed and trusted in God, then we would stop following the antichrist who causes us to sin and separate ourselves from God.

The things that I am pointing to in our own times are the things that also existed during the period of early Christianity. An age did come to an end at that time. The Age that came to an end was the age of the Old Covenant and the age of animal sacrifices. That is the starting point for understanding apocalyptic literature. We have to start with the historical factors before moving forward and discover those features that lead to future prophesy.

If that is not the starting point then you will have a distortion of the meaning of the End Times, and that distortion has already led to a false theology called “Rapture” and dispensationalism.

MaggieOH