On the contrary, I don't lump all those terms together, so I can't possibly be making the argument you're suggesting.
I know you don't read those statements cumulatively. That's what I'm saying the problem is. You're compartmentalizing everything within a single book so that none of it means anything, while freely throwing together pieces of different books to force them to mean something entirely contrary to what the context requires.
Quote
Some things did happen relatively imminently, such as the 70 AD catastrophe. Some things were simply "near,"
"Eternal" means "eternal" except when it's about the Law because you said so. "Soon" means "soon" except when it's about the end times because you said so.
Quote
As for how long the NT period would last before Christ's return, Jesus made it clear that we are not to try to calculate times and seasons.
Quote
No, Jesus told his apostles in his own generation not to be concerned with times and seasons, which includes the duration of time left in the present age, the "last days." They could not have been teaching, therefore, that the end was coming in their own generation.
He literally says "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place" right after talking his return and the signs that will precede it. This is the exact opposite of what you're claiming. He didn't pin down a day on the calendar for them, but he explicitly says it would "all" be fulfilled in the lifetime of "this generation."
Quote
In his Olivet Discourse, Jesus didn't say that the judgment coming upon Jerusalem would be the end of the age. Rather, he said it would be the beginning of tribulations for the Jewish People.
And the very next things he said were "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" they would see the son of man appearing, and that "all these things" would be fulfilled before "this generation" had passed away. There is no ambiguity. Which generation? His and the apostles' generation, the one alive during "those days". Which days? The days they should pray were "cut short", the days of Jerusalem's defeat by the Romans.
Quote
No, the one man in 2 Thes 2 is a reference to Dan 7, which refers to the "Little Horn" among 10 kings.
2 Thessalonians 2 doesn't mention or reference Daniel, a little horn, or ten kings.
Quote
You're assuming what you wish to prove,
To assume is to accept something as true without evidence. I didn't come to this conclusion by assuming it. Years of study led me to this position. I changed my mind on the basis of evidence: the text, the words used, and the existence of other Jewish end times movements from the time who talked the exact same way.
Quote
that all the apostles expected Jesus to come back in their lifetimes.
They directly say as much.
Quote
But Jesus had already indicated many of them would become martyrs,
Jesus outright says them being martyrs was a sign of the end times. "As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. ... Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."
Quote
and after it, a great exile of the Jews would begin.
Jesus says the very opposite. Jerusalem will fall, the heavens will be shaken, the son of man will come on the clouds, then he will send out his angels to gather the elect "from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven." He's referencing Deuteronomy 30:3-4 (his wording is closer to the LXX), which is about the restoration of God's elect, Israel, from their scattering. "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."
Quote
The Transfiguration is one theory. Another is that Jesus "came" in the sense of bringing a prophesied judgment in 70 AD--not his eschatological coming, but an historical coming in judgment against the Jewish People.
An invisible, impossible-to-prove-or-disprove "coming" is extremely convenient when the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's literally just a Christian saying "That event was his coming because it is because I told you so."
Quote
Soon means what it means *in context.* That's the rule in any interpretation. Biblically, "soon" can refer to the next thing after an important event. In this case, Jesus' atonement for sin makes eternal judgment the next big thing. It is "soon" for us all!
So "soon" means "soon" except for all those times it means "absolutely not soon, actually several thousand years later." You make language mean nothing when you make it mean whatever you want, including the opposite of how everyone uses it.
It strains credulity when the only way to make a claim work is to throw away every dictionary and lexicon and pretend words mean their exact opposite, but conveniently only in the exact occasions you need them to. It's self-serving nihilism. It's exactly the same thing as "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
As I said before, only the promise of Jewish continuance is everlasting.
It's convenient how "everlasting" means "everlasting" when you're okay with it meaning it, but when the Law repeatedly calls itself "eternal," "everlasting," and "permanent" those words suddenly mean the exact opposite: temporary and destined to be replaced.
Language means nothing when it means whatever you need it to for your theology, regardless of context.
I'm glad you realize how evil it is to go around accusing whoever you please, of anti-Semitism.
I didn't "accuse whoever I please." I said antisemitism has been a pervasive issue throughout Christian history and is still found today, which are facts. And I gave examples of it rearing its head here on the forum, such as the guy who posted that God is going to "cleanse the Jews from the holy land" during the end times (which you defended, insisting it was ambiguous and needed to be clarified further, despite it being textbook antisemitic genocide language).
Meanwhile, across two or three threads, you've falsely accused the one Jewish guy here of being an evil, antisemitic, Satan-follower who has a second account where he pretends to be an agnostic. Like... you're unrepentantly making up these brazen lies, but insist it's others who need to follow the rules? I'm baffled by the transparent hypocrisy and gaslighting.
When unable to respond to the substance of something another person says, make up lies and conspiracy theories about them, and claim they serve Satan...
Are you one of them, perhaps? Because pretending that you are not, and then going on and on and on in every post about anti-Semitism and making sure you call anti-Semtism out when it's not there (for example claiming that it's "anti-Semitic" for someone to say that Jesus' apostles did not follow Judaism), is a sure sign that something may be amiss. Anyone who ever wanted to infiltrate any group anywhere would pretend to be intolerant of the things the group is intolerant of.
Your obsession with anti-Semitism and calling people anti-Semitic is indeed very strange.
First the guy who sometimes agrees with Fenris is himself Fenris.
Now the guy who insists "cleanse the Jews from the holy land" is antisemitic is himself antisemitic.
Judaism is indeed a misinterpretation of the scriptures.
Judaism isn't an interpretation. It's a religion, within which many interpretations are offered. Many of those interpretations objectively understand the Old Testament text better than many Christian interpretations.
Quote
There's nothing ant-Semitic in that statement,
Disagreeing with a religion is not antisemitic, no. For example, I don't follow Judaism anymore than I follow Christianity. There is something antisemitic in the statement that God intended to destroy the Jewish religion in year 70.
Quote
The basis of Judaism is was negated by Jesus and all twelve of His Jewish apostles too.
Jesus and his apostles remained Jews, and remain in Judaism. They continued to to keep the commandments and to participate in the temple system, both before and after Jesus died. There is something antisemitic in Christians saying Jesus and the apostles left their religion for a "true Judaism" (or a new religion entirely). It's a denial of the inherent Jewish identity -- not just their ethnicity, but their religion, which in the first century was a key component of Jewish identity -- of those people.
Quote
the entire New Testament is proof of that, aside from the many Jews who believe in Jesus.
The comparatively few Jews who believed in Jesus during the first century continued to participate in the temple system. They didn't see themselves as part of a different religion from Judaism. There is something antisemitic in saying they abandoned a part of their ethnic and cultural identity when, in fact, they never did.
Quote
But when Jews or anyone else goes looking for the anti-Semitism devil under every Christian rock and behind every Christian tree, one feels as though you'd love to get them some counselling.
The religion that ended up covering the world followed after a very supersessionist, antisemitic form of Christianity that came about during the late first and early second centuries. Gentiles with little knowledge of Jewish religion started thinking they knew how to read the Jewish scriptures better than the Jews did... including the Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah. When supersessionist antisemitism has been ingrained in Christian theology from end of the first century all the way until today, it doesn't suddenly disappear because people claim it's not as big of a problem anymore. Three of the six Christians active on this forum (well, two, now that the pro-genocide guy got called out) are examples that antisemitism is still a problem in Christianity. No one's inventing antisemitism under every rock or under every tree... antisemitism is already present enough in saying God tried to destroy their religion, or that Gentiles know the Jewish scriptures better than Jews, etc.
I will admit to you that I have heard many who call themselves Christians who show by the things they say that they have made the grave error of thinking that in God's eyes "Jews bad, so God gave the kingdom to the nations".
Antisemitism is kind of engrained in Christian theology. Catholic, Calvinist, Pentecostal, "1948 Israel is the chosen nation" pre-trib premil dispensationalism, "post-70 Judaism is apostasy" preterism, "we are the 144,000 Israelites" ascetic Jehovah's Witnesses, prosperity gospel... antisemitism has its claws in all of them to some degree or another.
On this forum, one person has been pushing supersessionist anti-Judaism pretty hard in almost every thread they've participated in. Another outright posted a "Rothschild" conspiracy theory in one thread and "God will cleanse the Jews from the holy land" genocide ideology (in as many words!) in another thread. A third person has made regular comments about "the Jews" and "Judaic misinterpretation". There's only been about eight regularly active people on this forum so far. Subtract the one Jewish user and the one agnostic user... 50% of the Christians here have dabbled in antisemitic language or beliefs.
Unfortunately, antisemitism permeates Christianity, even among those who sincerely don't think of themselves as harboring any disdain or bigotry toward Jews or Judaism.
I do think that some sort of folded time up like an accordian and saw the "Last Days" as happening pretty quickly, perhaps even during the ancient Roman Empire.
Since that is what "now," "soon," "near," "at hand," "presently," "upon us," "has come," "no more delay," and "this generation" cumulatively indicate. This idea of a folded accordion -- the analogy I always heard was mountain peaks and valleys, or "gap" theories -- is an after the fact justification for the first century expectations not coming to fruition. The need to explain away the delay of the end times is seen throughout the early centuries until amillennialism became the common view.
Quote
Some, however, interpreted the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7 as indicative of an empire that is broken up into 10 kingdoms
Not in the apostles' generation, which is what I was referring to. The people after them came up with this view for the same reason as your accordion: to excuse the original expectations not coming to fruition by delaying the time of fulfillment. "We misunderstood all along! Not ten kings, but kingdoms! Much longer time than we thought before!"
Quote
Antichrist's coalition had to take place 1st -- see 2 Thes 2.
This only talks about one man, not ten whole kingdoms. This is part of the original generation I was talking about.
Quote
Some in the Early Church apparently believed in the Millennial Day theory, and also could not have expected an imminent appearance of Christ's Kingdom.
Another view that was invented after the apostles' generation's expectations didn't come to fruition.
Quote
Jesus himself seemed to speak against an imminent appearance of his Kingdom--certainly not in his own time!
Not in his time, but in the lifetime of his apostles. "You won't reach all the cities of Israel before the son of man comes." "Some standing here will not taste death before the son of man comes" "Immediately after the tribulation of those days ... They will see the son of man coming in the clouds ... This generation will not pass away before all these things take place." A dozen new interpretations were invented after these expectations didn't come to fruition, to make them no longer about a first century time frame. (Like the mental gymnastics that go into claiming he was talking about his transfiguration.)
Quote
Though it's popular, in some parts
It's pretty much universally accepted in academic circles. Even among devoted Christians. It's only about identifying what was being said, and not making up new rules of interpretation or wild accusations. "Soon" means "soon," not "well you see there's this cabal of Satan-worshipping university intellectuals who are bent on making accordions look bad..."
I heard the term "last days," and see a basic confusion with many who are trying to understand this term. What are the "last days," if they were designated as such in the apostles' time, and are also used for the end of the age?
The apostles believed their time was the end of the age/world. The NT says it bluntly multiple times.
I know that because you are arguing from a position of attempting to bring the discussion back to what I believe to be the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures regarding the Law and the New Covenant (and attempting to prove the Judaic view because you are convinced of the Judaic view), you will probably wind up repeatedly side-stepping my questions (as you did in the quotes below), and hence taking the subject off-course to make me answer things that have nothing to do with the subject.
Excellent form of public discourse. Start a new conversation by backtracking your claim not to want to talk about a subject, and immediately accusing the person you wanted to talk with of derailing the conversation before it's even happened.
Actually, I believe Jesus was predicting the end of Jewish religion as it was, namely the end of sacrifice, as indicated in Dan 9.27.
The verse specifically says the sacrifices are halted only temporarily, "for half of the week." It's talking about the exact same thing as the previous chapter, which says "then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state" after the sacrifices were temporarily halted.
The Babylonian Exile set the precedent for the termination of the covenant of Law.
What? It sets the precedent for the exact opposite: exile for disobedience followed by restoration for newfound obedience. The Babylonian exile ended and the Jews took up the Law again.
"See how the Jews went into exile for disobeying the Law and then were brought back from exile to continue obeying the Law, exactly like Leviticus and Deuteronomy say will happen? This is secretly saying that the Law will be abrogated permanently when there is exile."
It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.
The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.
I'll quote it one more time.
Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
Quoting the verse one more time doesn't help when the verse still doesn't say what you claim it says. Not one word about the Messiah. Not one word about the Law. It doesn't "point" to anything about the Messiah throwing away the Law. You have to conjure those ideas from thin air, because Jeremiah says nothing about them. This is genuinely one of the most dishonest hermeneutics I have seen in quite a while.
Like, how do you just happen to stop one verse short of what Jeremiah says this "new covenant" actually is, a verse which completely undermines what you're saying?
Quote
Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah elaborates on this "new covenant" in the next chapter, calling it "an everlasting covenant"
Quote
Jeremiah 32:37-43 See, I am going to gather them from all the lands to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place, and I will settle them in safety. They shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for all time, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing good to them, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good fortune that I now promise them. Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, It is a desolation, without human beings or animals; it has been given into the hands of the Chaldeans. Fields shall be bought for money, and deeds shall be signed and sealed and witnessed, in the land of Benjamin, in the places around Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, of the hill country, of the Shephelah, and of the Negeb; for I will restore their fortunes, says the LORD.
So what are the components of this "new covenant"?
God will "gather them from all the lands to which I drove them"?
Deuteronomy 30:3-4 "gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the LORD your God has scattered you"
God will bring them back to "this land" (which he directly says is the land of Benjamin and Jerusalem and the cities of Judah)?
Deuteronomy 30:5 "the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed"
God will give them "good fortune"?
Deuteronomy 30:3 "the LORD your God will restore your fortunes"
God will put "my law within them" and "write it on their hearts"?
Deuteronomy 30:6 "the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants"
They will be his people and he will be their God?
An idiom used throughout the Old Testament, but which Jeremiah directly says in context of the Babylonian exile
Jeremiah 24:5-7 Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Like these good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans. I will set my eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up, and not tear them down; I will plant them, and not pluck them up. I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.
Every part of this "everlasting" "new covenant" is part of the restoration package promised in Deuteronomy. The one exception, the "my people" idiom, Jeremiah already invoked when talking about the Judean exiles returning from Babylon.
1) What Jesus said about Jewish religion came true. The temple was completely destroyed throughout the present age.
Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple wasn't a comment about "Jewish religion." Jesus was a member of the Jewish religion. He wasn't predicting supersessionism anymore than Ezekiel or Jeremiah did when they predicted the destruction of the first temple.
Quote
2) The Law cannot be followed except in its present Rabbinical form, which is the equivalent of observance in a state of captivity--there is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrificial system in place.
This was the case during the Babylonian exile. I don't understand how this is a "reason" in support of the "mystery" of Christianity.
Quote
3) The Jewish Scriptures pointed to the need for something to mitigate the problems of the Law,
The Law itself contains mitigations for failures to uphold the commandments. Like... this has been spelled out to you several times. "If you fail do do this, then you must do this, and all will be set right." "If you persist in disobedience, you will be punished, but then restored after a time." These are not problems with the Law itself, but with the people failing to keep it. It's not any different than a Christian who claims to follow the commandments of Jesus, but sins. They set things right by following X instruction.
Quote
It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.
The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.
You'll notice "agnostics" posts and Fenris' posts all go together and support one another's every word. So whether I'm correct or not, I'm not too sure "agnostic"'s posts aren't Fenris' other account.
For someone who is constantly harping on others to follow "the rules" (guidelines) of the forum, your willingness to resort to a blatant lie/conspiracy theory as the only possible explanation why anyone could disagree with you instead of addressing the substance of what those two people actually said is... well, not that shocking, really.
Quote
I could be wrong of course but they do seem kinda like a married couple the way "agnostic" always supports and upholds everything Fenris says.
Show Posts
