Posted on 08/11/2011 4:48:01 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
One of the most common objections to Dispensationalism offered by Preterists and Covenant theologians is that, according to them, it was an invention based on a 'vision' ascribed to a young Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald.
As they tell it, in 1830, she had a vision about the end of the world and when she came out from under her trance, she wrote it down. This account attracted the attention of Edward Irving and his church later claimed Margaret as one of their own prophetesses.
Irving also had an interest in prophecy and held prophetic conferences. The historian of Irving's church claimed that Margaret was the first person to teach a two stage second coming of Christ.
John Darby traveled to Scotland to visit the MacDonald home. Darby was a lawyer until a year after his conversion when he was ordained a deacon in the Church of England. Soon after entering the ministry he became disillusioned with the institutional church and started the Brethren movement in Plymouth, England.
Darby became known as the 'father' of Dispensationalism, the first eschatology to incorporate the 'prophecy' of Margaret MacDonald. Darby continued to develop this new view by becoming the first to make a radical distinction between Israel and the Church.
Darby taught that God has two special groups of people (or two Brides) and a separate plan for each of them. This meant Christ would have to return twice.
Covenant theologians sneer that, "this secret rapture was so secret that no one had ever heard of it for 1800 years!" Can that be true?
First, let's clearly define what Dispensationalism means; "the act of dispensing or something dispensed; a specific arrangement or system by which something is dispensed."
Moses dispensed the Law. The word 'dispensation' does not mean a period of time. It means the dispensing of a particular message or ministry. For example, the Church Age began at Pentecost and will end at the Rapture.
". . .Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11)
The Margaret MacDonald story has been told and retold so many times that most Covenant theologians can recite it in their sleep. There is something about Dispensationalism that makes them see red.
Most Dispensationalists couldn't care less whether or not a segment of the Church believes it will go through the Tribulation. I am among that group.
If somebody trusts Christ for his salvation, but disagrees with the timing, (or even the doctrine) of a secret Rapture, they are still saved.
But I've yet to discuss Dispensationalism with Covenant (or replacement) theologians without being called names like 'false teacher' and 'liar'. The Margaret MacDonald story is included in every missive, so that 'ignorant' can be added to the list.
Is it true? Was the doctrine of Dispensationalism born out of the vision of a Scottish schoolgirl and nurtured by a church who proclaimed her a 'prophetess'? Is Dispensationalism, as replacement theology teaches, such a secret that nobody had heard of it for 1800 years?
In 177 AD, which is, ummm, like 1833 years ago, Irenaeus wrote in 'Against Heresies (1.10)
"What the church believes: One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who PROCLAIMED THROUGH THE PROPHETS THE DISPENSATONS OF GOD, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven."
In addressing the teachings of an heretical sect called 'Montanists" (today we'd call them 'replacement theologians') Irenaeus wrote;
"Montanists set at naught the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect of the EVANGELICAL DISPENSATION presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete (John 16); but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit."
In 'Against Heresies’ 3:15 Irenaeus wrote, “Jesus and the Father are the only true God. Jesus gave Moses the dispensation of the Law."
And, "Some of the orthodox are ignorant of God's dispensations." (Against Heresies 5.32)
Clement of Alexandria (192 AD -- 1,817 years ago) in his 'Stromata (5.3) identified seven distinct Dispensations of God, including the present Age of Grace.
Origin taught Dispensationalism in 230 AD (1,779 years ago). Justin Martyr taught in the 1st century that there were four phases, or dispensations' of human history; Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the eternal state.
So, if the early Church fathers taught Dispensationalism, then why so much focus on Margaret MacDonald? How come nobody was teaching Dispensationalism in 1492?
An honest reading of history provides the answer.
When the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the state Church of Rome, he set into motion a codification process in which ultimately resulted in the Bible being restricted to members of the clergy.
This period is known to history as the 'Dark Ages'. It wasn't until the Bible was made available to the common man that the Protestant Reformation began to take place in the 15th century.
And the Protestant Church was born out of the Roman Catholic Church. While it rejected Catholicism's teaching of salvation by works, it carried with it much of its doctrine, including that of replacement theology.
For almost three hundred years, the Protestant Church continued to accept the Catholic doctrine of replacement theology without challenge. Until Dr. C. I. Schofield reviewed and advanced the teachings of the early Church, publishing his findings in the Schofield Reference Bible.
The Scofield Reference Bible attempted to set in order the right divisions of God's purpose as Scofield understood it. And it is important to note that there is very little similarity between the writings of Scofield and the writings of Darby, despite being assigned joint credit for 'inventing' the doctrine by its critics.
As Christians, we are obligated to search the Scriptures and see if the Bible teaches different dispensations, and if it does, we are obligated to embrace its teaching. If it does not, we are bound to reject it.
There are three things to keep in mind about dispensational teaching. First, it maintains a distinction between Israel and the Church, recognizing God has an eternal, unchanging, Plan for Israel and a different Plan for the Church during the Church Age.
The second is that Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, instead of spiritualizing a text or making everything a 'type'.
Thirdly, Dispensationalists believe God's purpose is much bigger than the salvation of mankind. God's purpose centers in His glory.
It was at the Cross we get in on God's blessings and Purpose. However, the Cross is not the center or the end of God's Plan.
The Bible teaches that there have been and will be saved Jews and Gentiles who are not part of the present body of Christ. Moses and Abraham come to mind. So does the Gentile King, Melchizidek. And the Bible teaches that Enoch was not only saved, he was raptured early.
After the Church Age, the Bible teaches that all Israel will be saved at the end of the Tribulation.
Dispensationalists also believe in a literal thousand-year rule of Christ on earth. During that time, Scripture says Israel will be the head of nations and Jerusalem will be the center of government.
The Bible is all about God's kingdom and His Son ruling over it. This is the part where the replacement theologians start turning red. Dispensationalists believe that there is a place for the Jew, the Gentile and the Church of God in this eternal purpose.
Those saved in this age are part of the "Church", which the Bible says is the Body of Christ.
Replacement theology cuts the Jew out of God's Plan, blurs the line between Christian and Gentile, and assumes unto the Church the Promises of God to Israel.
Therefore, according to the modern interpretation of replacement theology, modern-day Israel isn't really the Israel of the Bible. It has no special spiritual connection to the Land.
This theological worldview is behind most mainstream Protestant churches sharing the Vatican's unwavering support for the Palestinian cause.
Replacement theology is also the root cause of modern anti-Semitism. This is why those who hold to it get so nasty when attacking Dispensationalism.
If Dispensationalist truth IS truth, then they are standing against God's Chosen People.
"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:3)
There are far safer places to stand.
But Jesus gave us something to look forward to - His literal, thousand-year reign on earth, the description of which, when we read it in Scriptures, certainly isn't talking about conditions which exist today.
There is the "kingdom" of Christ which exists in those who have accepted Him as Savior and a future, thousand year kingdom, which is also in Scripture and cannot be discarded by anyone who truly knows Christ, which Jesus tells us will exist.
I agree! Thank You GiovannaNicoletta
There is no quote in the Old Testament that says that.
Jonah and Nahum were from Galilee.
Thank You Lera for helping my laziness in looking for me. I wonder why the pharisees believed this?
How strong are the Post trib and mid trib rapture positions these days. To me the problem of interpretation always seems to come down to Who Is Israel? Way back in transition from my replacement theology days I did embrace Rosenthal’s pre wrath rapture position for a little while.
We are quickly getting down to the nitty gritty: either you believe in Christ and His death on the cross as the only path to reconciliation with the Father or you don't; you either believe the Scriptures as God wrote them, especially as those last-days Scriptures are happening before our eyes or you don't; you either take what you have been told and taught and compare that with what God says in the Bible to find out what is fact and truth or you don't.
The fact that we are so close to Christ taking His bride home is magnified by the way that so many false doctrines, in light of Scripture and what is going on in the world, are being exposed for what they are - alternatives to the truth of Scripture provided to man by Satan and tailor-made for each personality.
It's gotten down to the bare metal, and as we progress in the plan of God to wrap up this age and bring in His kingdom, we will continue to see those who have rejected the truth of God for lies either repent and come to Christ for salvation, or become more determined and entrenched in their rebellion.
When it's all said and done, the entire universe will know that God was entirely justified in how He destroyed evil and those who practice evil and not only reject Him themselves, but do their best to cause others to reject Him as they have done.
The Tribulation will make perfect sense and we will rejoice at God's holy justice and righteousness.
Thank you for so expertly pointing out the absurdities of attempting to supplant the clear, concise words of God for anything one can find to make the Bible irrelevant.
You did a superb job, by the way!!
I believe that the fact that the prophecies given to us by God to look for for His return are falling into place in our time means we have no choice but to accept that the rest of the Scriptures, including those passages in which He assures His bride that He will take us home before the Tribulation, are going to happen just as He says they will.
You’re most welcome.
I don’t know why they believed what they did . You have to remember that at that time they were under the jurisdiction of Rome . Rome chose their leaders including their High Priest and you can reasonably assume that they were chosen not because they agree with the Scriptures but because they worked with and agreed with Rome . The Pharisees believed the written WORD but they also believed oral tradition to be equal to the written WORD.
Awww, shucks... :)
So what is a Dispensationalist going to do? Embrace the non-existent "dispesnations" allegedly taught by Clement and then conveniently disregard the 95% of the same book that speaks about allegory, symbols, mysteries and abstractions as being ways to convey God's Truth?
I came across a reference today to something "dispensationally considered", in Geerhardus Vos, of all people. In his Pauline Eschatology. So, I guess Dr. Geerhardus "Two Age Model" Vos was a dispy. If Origen can be one, anyone can.
Which is to say, for anyone else reading, that the definition
First, let's clearly define what Dispensationalism means; "the act of dispensing or something dispensed; a specific arrangement or system by which something is dispensed."is far too broad to be useful. You don't even need to be, you know, Christian. A gum ball machine would count.
Dispensationalists often in this forum wish death and destruction upon hundreds of millions of Semites. They are the true monsters whose dreams if come true would have a larger body count than all of the murders committed by the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos, Pol Pots, Castros et al over the past millennium.
Might be time to revisit this: Faux Christians as Worshippers of Dionysius .
Of course, you can't be a real Dispensationalist until you just blurt out pure blasphemy:
Read Gerstner's book on dispensationalism?
Maybe Jack Kinsella ought to hold back that outrageous "anti-Semitism" card, especially when he slanders us by calling us "replacementarians" and hypocritically accuses us of "nasty" attacks. Speaking Truth to this demon and the people who blindly embrace this dreck is not "nasty", rather it is heaping upon them the condemnation of rejecting the Gospel - which is what Dispensationalism is really all about.
It gets the troops whipped up.
This lot seems maybe not totally secure in their beliefs.
Why do you suppose that is? Because He forgot to read it? No. Because the day of vengeance had not arrived. This shows clearly that Christ rightly divided the Word of Truth. From reconciliation to wrath. That is what dispensationalism is about. Rightly dividing God's Word.
It gets the troops whipped up.
This lot seems maybe not totally secure in their beliefs.
I would wish this lot would be secure first in their Faith in our LORD. If Dispensationalism is consistent with the true Faith, then all would be well. Unfortunately, Dispensationalism trumps most of Scripture and thus is contrary to the Faith. For a crowd that believes in "free will", and "choose you this day who you will serve" ironically applies to them, this is one of those Choices.
Admittedly, I use plenty o' Smack Down™ in the theater of posts on this subject but the audience is a community of entertainment consumers rather than theologians, and I have noticed sadly that doctrines and orthodox theology are of little consideration, thus the amp'd up rhetoric.
GiovannaNicolette is performing a great service to those of the Faith in bringing us these posts as it gives us insight at many levels to what influences guide their feelings. This desperate appeal to History through the complete deconstruction of the word "Dispensation" and the liberal use of the Fallacy of False Equivocation is an excellent example of insecurity in their pet beliefs. The "S&P hits a change of 666 points makes it the Mark of the Beast" sophistry was comedy satire at its best. Yet this crowd was poking in to that steaming pile of bovine excrement trying to find oracles in the movement of the maggots.
What bothers me most about those who hold on to Dispenationalism is the remarkable disability to take the abstract concept and form concrete images and analyze the repercussions of these ideas.
For example, they talk about loving Jews, a demographic that has been historically the most antagonistic towards Christians, they also love to characterize all non Dispensationalists of being anti-Semite for reasons never disclosed, yet it is they that teach that God will, in the Future, not regraft them (Ro 11:23), but will slaughter two-thirds of them in a bloody holocaust (Zech 13:7-9).
Students of the Bible and History know that Zechariah 13:7-9 speaks of the war with the Romans that Flavius Josephus graphically documents in this book "War of the Jews". The two thirds that died were the ones who stood in Jerusalem screaming at Pilate the demand to crucify our LORD saying "His blood be on us and on our children" (Mt 27:25). In the Olivet Discourse, our LORD plainly said that "when Jerusalem is surrounded by [Roman] armies" (Lk 21:20) suddenly will come the death and destruction that could be avoided by those who were "ready" (Parable of Ten Virgins) who would "flee to the hills of Judea" (v21) (the one-third that survived).
So here history clearly tells us of fulfilled prophecy, something that we don't have to wait for, but has already happened. God's Judgment was placed on those who actually crucified our LORD and their children, exactly as they had demanded. In contrast, those who claim to love the Jews, give no reason whatsoever why God will isolate and strike down two-thirds of today's Jews in a bloody holocaust. Who is the monster here?
So do we accept the Dispensationalists' brand of love that has God slaughtering off his "Chosen People" for no reason whatsoever, or do we accept the Justice of our LORD who sent His Son to warn the people of coming judgment, gave them clues and things to look for, practically begged them to seek the signs, ordered them to Repent, told them exactly why they would suffer (Parable of the Wedding Feast), and the people demanded that God Judge them for crucifying the Messiah. So He did as He said He would and as the People demanded. Furthermore, in His warning on the Mount of Olives, He told them exactly how to escape this Wrath if they had ears to hear. He also gave them a window of time when this would take place - "this generation". And in our LORD's mercy, He patiently waited until the very end of that generation before He came in His glory to Judge them in 70AD (not to be confused with the future Parousia). Zechariah foretells that one third would find His Mercy and not perish in the Roman siege - a promise of Hope and Redemption.
But in the upside-down, deconstructed, double-minded world of the Dysfunctionalist, instead of seeing God's Justice and Love, they prefer to have their god perform capricious and wanton slaughter of their god's "Chosen" and "loved" people. If their god slaughters his own people for no good reason, what makes them think that this same hateful and capricious god will "rapture" them when its most convenient for them to make their exit?
I see a little problem with your theology here...
Zec 13:8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
Zec 13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.
If the events of Zachariah 13 happened in 70 A.D., then a third of the Jews called on Jesus and were saved at that time...And we KNOW that didn't happen so Zachariah 13 HAS to be future...
And the Ten Virgins???
The ten virgins didn't wander off into the hills; none of them did...They were preparing to meet the Bridegroom...
Mat 25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut...
The Bridegroom didn't show up in 70 A.D....
That's the problem with non-dispensationalists...They have all these 30,000 plus verses of scripture and they don't know what to do with them...They run them all together and end up with a mess...
The Jews of Zachariah did not accept Jesus as their Lord in 70 A.D. and the Virgins who had kept their lamps full did not run off into the wilderness in 70 A.D....AND, they did not go with the Bridegroom to the Wedding in 70 A.D....It's all future...
In contrast, those who claim to love the Jews, give no reason whatsoever why God will isolate and strike down two-thirds of today's Jews in a bloody holocaust.
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Sorry, Jesus didn't show up in 70 A.D....But he will show up, in the future...
I see a little problem with your theology here...
It's not my theology, its the theology of +99% of all the Christians since the first century.
If the events of Zachariah 13 happened in 70 A.D., then a third of the Jews called on Jesus and were saved at that time...And we KNOW that didn't happen so Zachariah 13 HAS to be future...
How do you know that? Uninformed speculation? There wasn't a single Jew in the upper room during Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2? Are you really saying that for the the first three years while ALL of the Apostles were in Jerusalem, that few people were brought to Christ? Then for the next forty years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem that very few Jews came to faith in our LORD? The Holy Spirit is that incapable of bringing people to faith? The Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew - was that for the benefit of the Greeks? What do you think of this salutation in 1 Peter?
"To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia..."
Do you have an idea who is meant by "pilgrims of the Dispersion"? Only Hellenists? Again, How do you know?
"The Bridegroom didn't show up in 70 A.D...."
How do you know this? Uninformed Speculation? No one here is talking about the Parousia of the Last Day. You think the LORD can't come in Power? Who was the fourth person in the furnace with Daniel's friends? Who was accompanied by two Angels when the trio appeared before Abraham to warn him of Sodom and Gomorrah?
The passages regarding the Coming of the Son of Man in (Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28) is not speaking of the secret "Rapture" because you have the world mourning, and a "great sound of a trumpet" - unless this is really just a "great dog whistle" that only certain people can hear. The tradition understanding of these passages has always been that the LORD would come in power to do away with the physical Temple, judge the Jews who rejected the Messiah and crucified Him, and empower the spread of the Gospel to the entire world. The "gathering of the elect" has clearly been happening "from one end of heaven to the other" now for thousands of years. The word in Matthew 24:31 rendered "angels" in English means "messenger" and could be interpreted that way, yet the symbolism of the "angels" bringing in the harvest is just as well.
Interpreting these passages as a singular future event completely ignores the language steeped in Old Testament history. The "coming on the clouds" doesn't mean literal clouds because it says that "all of the tribes of the earth... will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". Clearly that can't mean the secret Rapture, for it is impossible for all people to physically see anyone coming on the clouds, for one because the earth is round, its dark on half the planet, the clouds themselves would obscure seeing someone, the distance above would make the person too small to see, and for the next ten days Jerusalem's WX forecast is expected to be clear with no clouds.
Here is some of the OT language regarding an overpowering conquering suddenly approaching and overwhelming the enemy as a monstrous dust storm appears out of no where and blows through with great power.
But actually in Revelation we have a passage that tells us that the generation of people He was talking to would indeed see Him in His glory ushering in the Kingdom and ending the Temple system. For some strange reason you posted it, but didn't even bother to read it. For if you did, you couldn't possibly come to the conclusion you did.
Rev 1:7 "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him.
The same language as our LORD used on the mount of Olives, that He would come in the clouds of power, that "every eye would see Him", and most important, it would come while those who shouted "CRUCIFY HIM" were still alive.
Unless you are willfully ignorant, blind to the Scriptures, or just flat out lying, how can you say, without substantiation that this wasn't 70AD, and when you did post some Scripture, it proved exactly the opposite of your position? Are you really going to day that "even they who pierced Him" doesn't mean "those who pierced Him"? You like literalism, this is about as literal as it gets regarding those Jews who shouted "May his blood be on us and on our children".
What gives?
There's far, far, far too much scripture that you guys have to ignore make these events something of the past...
Zec 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
Didn't happen...
Zec 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Didn't happen...
Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
Didn't happen...
Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Didn't happen...
Zec 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
Definately did not happen...
Zec 14:6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
Zec 14:7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
Did not happen...
Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
Didn't happen...
Zec 14:10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. Zec 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
Definately did no happen, yet...
Zec 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
Nope...Not yet...
Zec 14:13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.
Didn't happen...
Zec 14:14 And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.
Never happened...
Zec 14:15 And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.
Nope...
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Definitely has not happened...But it will...
This is just a few verses...There are hundreds if not thousands of them that show Jesus did not come back the 2nd time...
"The Bridegroom didn't show up in 70 A.D...."
How do you know this? Uninformed Speculation?
Nope...Reading and believing the scriptures...
The tradition understanding of these passages has always been that the LORD would come in power to do away with the physical Temple, judge the Jews who rejected the Messiah and crucified Him, and empower the spread of the Gospel to the entire world. The "gathering of the elect" has clearly been happening "from one end of heaven to the other" now for thousands of years.
Spreading the Gospel to the entire world is not heaven...Gathering the elect from the four corners of heaven is not turning people to Jesus on the earth...
Like I said, you guys are forced to run various scriptures all together that makes a complete mess out of the scriptures...
We spread the Gospel on the earth...The elect in heaven are not people on the earth...Things that are different are not the same...
The gathering of the elect from heaven will happen in one day...NOT thousands of years...
Interpreting these passages as a singular future event completely ignores the language steeped in Old Testament history.
Naw, you're making stuff up...
The "coming on the clouds" doesn't mean literal clouds because it says that "all of the tribes of the earth... will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". Clearly that can't mean the secret Rapture,
Of course it's not the Rapture...
for it is impossible for all people to physically see anyone coming on the clouds, for one because the earth is round, its dark on half the planet, the clouds themselves would obscure seeing someone, the distance above would make the person too small to see, and for the next ten days Jerusalem's WX forecast is expected to be clear with no clouds.
Ever hear of a TV???
But actually in Revelation we have a passage that tells us that the generation of people He was talking to would indeed see Him in His glory ushering in the Kingdom and ending the Temple system. For some strange reason you posted it, but didn't even bother to read it. For if you did, you couldn't possibly come to the conclusion you did.
Well of course I could...I was showing you that had Jesus shown up in 70 A.D., it wouldn't have been a secret...The Disciples would have written about it...Josephus would have written about it...
And shortly thereafter, ALL people of the nations of the earth are required to travel to Jerusalem to worship the King, on his throne, in Jerusalem...
Rev 1:7 "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him.
The same language as our LORD used on the mount of Olives, that He would come in the clouds of power, that "every eye would see Him", and most important, it would come while those who shouted "CRUCIFY HIM" were still alive.
Nope...Jesus wasn't talking about that generation...And like you said, every eye could not see him if he had come because no one had a TV...
Unless you are willfully ignorant, blind to the Scriptures, or just flat out lying, how can you say, without substantiation that this wasn't 70AD
The substantiation is in the scriptures...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.