Full-Preterism is Dangerous, Orthodox Eschatological Views, and Israel w/ Anthony Rogers PT.2

I just want to encourage the audience. The context is pointing back to Jesus being the firstfruits.

So this could not possibly be talking about an old covenant Israel paradigm, their resurrection.

I mean that abuses everything. I mean everything is being grounded in Adam. And so this has a bearing not only on covenant

Israel, but this would also have an effect on the Gentiles as well. And so like later in the text it references the man of dust,

Adam, because he was made from the dust and he returns to dust, but we are being renewed into that image of the man of dust.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.

The Word was God. Yeah, so I don't know if there's more of this.

There's obviously more in the text. I don't know if you wanted to look at more. There's another passage I want to bring up eventually.

So 1 Corinthians 15, when you go down to verse 35, we'll read it from your translation.

Good choice. I'm glad that you freely, uncoerced, decided to come over to the

NAS. Yes, so verse 35 is kind of a response to verse 12 about, you know, some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead.

This, you know, in the Corinthians' mind, it's being perverted by the Stoic and Epicurean philosophy,

I think you can make a case for. And then he says, But some will say, how are the dead raised, and with what kind of body do they come?

This is the same conversation that the full preterist are having now, and Gary DeMar mocks the idea of having a future bodily resurrection.

And so I'm just saying this is all of what was being discussed here at Corinth with Paul. So has

DeMar spoken on his view of Christ, his view of the resurrection of Christ, the current nature of Christ?

Has he addressed that, or has that been ignored? No, I mean, he's sound in terms of Trinitarian theology and his

Christology, but there's a disconnect when we start talking about eschatology. But because of the inextricable link between Christology and eschatology, that's why

I'm wondering, because like I said, my experience with JWs who redefined the second coming, they also had to do something with the nature of Christ as resurrected.

There's other ways you could try to deal with that, but the way they did it, they jettisoned the true glorified humanity of Christ.

And I've known other hyperpreterists that do that. I've mentioned my own experience with people who say he wasn't physically raised.

You mentioned how it's very common among them after the Resurrection to say something wonky and basically deny that he is a real flesh and blood human being, or a real physical human being.

So I'm just wondering how he deals with that sort of thing, because if Christ is a physical human being, and he's the paradigm for our resurrection, and you redefine the resurrection, well, then you would also,

I think, logically be bound to redefine Christ's resurrection. Which he doesn't.

He just basically says, look, I've been studying this for four years, and I'm still asking questions, which

I think is so disingenuous, personally, because... Four years. Yeah, I mean, I think he said four, maybe it's 30.

But his whole point is, I've been at this a long time, and you think you have the answers when I still have questions?

And so, because he affirms the bodily nature of Jesus's resurrection, but he has questions because, like you said earlier, the way that he interprets

Mello, he's convinced that this is something imminent at 70 AD. And the problem is, in Acts 17, it's talking about the resurrection, right?

So he's kind of in no -man's land, because he won't affirm those essential things of eschatology.

He just asks questions. What verse is he going to? And then he shoots them down, identically like the full preterist would.

And so, Jesus is the first fruits, right? His resurrection is a promise to the kind of resurrection we will have.

And so Paul's kind of ticked off. I mean, he's kind of like we are today, dealing with full preterists.

But some will say, how are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come? Well, this is

Paul. Paul is bringing this up in a mocking tone, and we feel his frustration. You fool!

Because it is foolish to doubt Christianity 101, those people that are bringing up objections as though it's an impossibility.

And yet, these are the same people that embrace Jesus in his bodily resurrection. And so he goes on to say, that which you sow shall not come to life unless it dies.

And that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or something else.

And so this right here, other translations say a bare kernel, a bare grain, goes into the ground so it can be raised up.

And so Jesus and his death and being buried in a tomb, once again is the paradigm.

Jesus resurrected and came out of the tomb. And so our bodies go into the ground like a kernel, only to come out of the ground and be transformed.

Full preterism abuses this analogy because we go into the ground and then we are to go into heaven as a disembodied spirit.

And so they view that as their future. And so it's like saying, you got a seed over here, and then we're being raised up somewhere else.

And so Paul is being very intentional of saying this Adamic, sin -cursed body must die so it can be raised and be transformed.

Yeah, so let me underscore something here. So Paul makes it clear that there's a continuity between what rises and what went into the ground.

All throughout this context, he says, that which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

So it's what dies that comes to life. Just grammatically that's unavoidable.

He goes on in 37 to say, that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or something else.

But God gives it a body just as he wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.

So again, throughout the context here, he's certainly talking about something more glorious, a transformation, something new, but not in the sense of a fundamental discontinuity of what was and what will be, right?

Whatever will be is a transformation of what was. Yes. You see what

I'm saying? It's not... So I'm saying this because in the comments, and I've heard this elsewhere too, but it was mentioned,

B 'nai mentions, Paul's saying that the resurrection is not of the earthly body. We get a new one, right? So the word new in scripture sometimes means something brand new, right?

Something that didn't exist before. But sometimes it just refers to something that was being renewed or perfected or in this case glorified, right?

Because in fact, as Paul goes on to say later in the text, there's something here that I know is abused as well, but he says, so also is the resurrection of the dead.

It, notice, is sown a perishable body implied. It is raised an imperishable body.

Notice, it's the same it, right? It is sown a perishable body. It is raised an imperishable body.

It is sown in dishonor. It is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness.

It is raised in power. It is sown a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body. Now, we've already commented, this is where the big objection,

I think, comes in, at least at this point in the context, spiritual is said to be immaterial, right?

So it's supposedly consistent with the hyper -preterist view that this all happened in AD 70. It was an ethereal event or whatever, but spiritual is not used by Paul to mean immaterial, right?

In 1 Corinthians 2, like I said, it's the same. The reason I keep going to this as the go -to text is because it's the same epistle, right?

Paul has already used the term this way, so there's precedent for this, but he speaks of the fundamental contrast between the unbeliever and the believer.

The unbeliever is a natural man. The believer who has the spirit is a spiritual man.

And so when Paul speaks of the resurrected, glorified body as no longer perishable, dishonorable, weak, but rather as imperishable, glorious, and powerful, and then goes on to say it's no longer a natural body, but a spiritual body, he's not saying it's immaterial, right?

He's talking about it as a body that is— there are different ways that people have explained this.

The basic idea is that it is completely subject to the

Spirit. Yeah. I just want to encourage the audience. The context is pointing back to Jesus being the firstfruits, so this could not possibly be talking about an old covenant

Israel paradigm, their resurrection. I mean, that abuses everything. I mean, everything is being grounded in Adam, and so this has a bearing not only on covenant

Israel, but this would also have an effect on the Gentiles as well. And so like later in the text, it references the man of dust,

Adam, because he was made from the dust and he returns to dust, but we are being renewed into that image of the man of heaven, essentially.

So, yeah, this chapter, I just want to once again encourage people. This gives—Full

Preterist just fits. I noticed the one gentleman in the chat said he's not ashamed of this chapter, but my experience with the

Full Preterist is they have to leave 1 Corinthians 15, the book of 1 Corinthians, to say, well, when we go to Ephesians 2, we were dead in our sins and our trespasses, right?

But God, His rich mercy come to saving faith in Him. See, that's a type of spiritual resurrection.

Or they'll appeal to John 11, where Jesus says, I'm the resurrection and the life, you know.

And by believing in Him, you too can have basically a resurrected life. And I don't doubt that there is, you know, that spiritual understanding, you know, of seeing the light, being regenerated and born again.

That's not the argument Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 15. And so that's important to not let them go elsewhere, that where there is good context, you know,

Ephesians 2, but keeping in mind that this has a context, and it's grounded in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.

Yeah, in fact, for Paul, the spiritual resurrection, regeneration, that he certainly taught, that was something that was true of Christians before 80, 70, right?

That's why, and you've mentioned it, they have to explain this some other way, right?

Like something to do with the nation of Israel or something like that, right? But let's address some of these questions, and then there's another text that I want to look at.

I'm sure you've heard this, seen it used in favor of hyper -preterism. But Joshua Springer says,

Is it true some manuscripts have 616 instead of 666, and they both work for Nero, depending on Greek versus Hebrew, Gematria, do you believe a human antichrist?

So I'll, I don't know if you want to go first, or I'm happy to address that, but yeah,

I'll go first. I'll do brief. So I'm not in favor of Gematria. I'm just not, but you know, it was an actual thing.

So yeah, I'm aware of the manuscript differences there. The context,

I think that's Revelation 13. I would just encourage people, go look what's going on. This kind of war between the system of the world versus, you know, those that are, you know, living their life for Christ.

And so the second part of the question about you know, an actual human antichrist,

I have not made up my mind. I think it makes sense that if God wanted to have the man of lawlessness be a real man in this type of eschatological context, he can do that.

I know in the pre -millennial paradigm, that's crucial. But I've also heard good arguments for this is kind of just the spirit of the age, the man of lawlessness, just being those that are in opposition to God.

So those are hills for me to dial on, and so I think those are good conversations to have. Yeah, so first of all 666, that's

I think the right reading, that's the original reading, but there is a variant represented in the textual tradition that is 616.

Some people jokingly say that 616 is the neighbor of the antichrist, right?

666 is his actual address, 616 is his next door neighbor or something like that.

I don't know who said that, I don't know if it's a good joke either, but that is at least how some people have tried to make light of it.

But it is interesting for the reason that the questioner asked that it ends up working for Nero either way, and not so much in terms of the

Greek Hebrew issue, but Greek Latin. So in other words, let me back up a step. So when

Paul talks about the beast in the book of Revelation, he mentions a seven -headed beast, right?

And you don't always get in the book of Revelation the interpreting angel telling you what these different visionary things are all about, but occasionally you do.

So John is being shown certain things by Christ's angel, right, an angel

Christ sent to him, and sometimes he'll stop and he'll explain things to John. In this case, you get an explanation at least for what this seven -headed beast represents.

And what's interesting is it's got a two -fold referent. So normally I would say it would be irresponsible for somebody to, you know, give things two or three different meanings, but the angel in this case explicitly says that this seven -headed beast has reference to two things.

On the one hand, he says it refers to seven hills on which the woman sits, and then he says on the other hand, it refers to seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, he must remain for a little while.

So this is interesting because everybody in the first century, certainly everybody situated in the

Roman Empire, where John is writing from, he's in Asia Minor, subject to Roman rule, he speaks of seven hills and a woman sitting on it.

Well, everybody knew Rome to be the city of seven hills. It was founded as a seven -hilled settlement.

I don't remember the name of all the little hills, but Capitoline, I mean, there's a bunch of names, they all have different names, and even on Roman coins, you would see seven hills and then a woman, the goddess

Roma, seated atop those hills. Now, that doesn't mean

I think that the woman in the book of Revelation refers to that, but you do have this imagery being used for Rome.

I mean, I'm just saying that the woman doesn't necessarily refer to the goddess

Roma in Revelation. There's a good case to be made for— You mean the woman's not Mary, according to Sam Shimon?

Well, the woman in Revelation 12 supposedly is, right? No telling why she's—well, anyways.

I'll get to that on another occasion. A hundred problems there, but there, in that case, you have— the

Old Testament is usually the place you need to turn in order to disambiguate otherwise uninterpreted apocalyptic elements in the book of Revelation.

It all comes out of the Old Testament. There's pre -established meanings. That's one reason why the angel doesn't have to interpret a lot of these things, because they already have an

Old Testament background. So, for example, a woman being clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and a crown of 12 stars on her head, that's

Old Testament imagery that refers to Israel, not Mary. If you look at Joseph, he has a dream with the sun, the moon, and 11 stars bowing down to him.

It was a way of referring to Israel. And it's just never used to refer to Mary, so that's entirely artificial.

That idea comes along much later in church history, and there's other problems as well.

But no, this is talking about a different woman, right? You've got more than one woman in the book of Revelation, right?

The church is portrayed as a woman coming down out of heaven, like a bride beautifully adorned for her husband. You have a woman who's full of blasphemies, right?

She's portrayed like a harlot, and she's going to be stoned with 100 -pound stones from heaven.

So there are different women. But here, what I'm pointing out is just that the vision that is presented to John of a beastly figure with seven heads is interpreted in a twofold way.

First is referring to seven hills, which any person in the first century would have thought of as Rome.

And then he says it also represents seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is.

Now, this is significant because it tells us something about when the book was written, because John tells you it was written during the time when that sixth king was ruling.

And when you look at the emperors of Rome, counting as the Jews did from Julius Caesar, the sixth emperor is

Nero, right? And it was Nero who inaugurated the imperial persecution of the church.

The first persecution of the church by Rome was inaugurated with Nero.

Prior to Nero, Rome was actually a help to the Christians, right? Paul could constantly appeal to Rome to defend him against those caustic

Jews that at every turn were trying to stir up trouble, right? Until we get to Nero. Once we get to Nero, who was, by the way, referred to by his countrymen as a beast.

That's how his own countrymen referred to him. He was referred to as a lawless beast. He was the man who would dip

Christians in oil and then light them up on fire to serve as candles for his garden parties.

That's why the apostle John was on the island of Patmos, because he was dipped in oil, but as the tradition goes, he wasn't killed and he was banished to Patmos.

And that's where he gets the content of the book of Revelation. My point is just to say that there's a lot of elements here and they all do fit, right?

And I don't think that a Christian needs to deny these sorts of things in order to support the more exciting idea that all of this is grounds for speculation, which is what a lot of people want to do, or in order to deny the hyper -preterist position that everything has been fulfilled.

Just because a text could refer to something that's now in our past, but was for them in the future, for John and his audience, it doesn't mean that the conclusion follows that hyper -preterism is true.

So moving to the number of the beast, it does tell us it's the number of a man. And while I would agree with Jeremiah, Gematria, we're not supposed to run around the

Bible trying to engage in mathematical codes, here John does explicitly say that this is a matter that calls for wisdom, and he does tell you that he's using numbers here significantly.

So there is warrant, at least at this place, to ask what this stands for. It's the number of a man.

I have a question. You may be able to shoot this down really fast, but I remember I watched a video a long time ago and you know, someone that was saved out of Islam apparently looked at the manuscript and thought it was like a two swords and the name of Allah or something like that.

And I always thought, what in the world? Yeah, so John explicitly says it's not the shape of the letters or the way it looks or what have you.

He says this is the number of a man, 600, 3 score, and 6 on the standard reading.

And the numerical value of Neron Kaiser in Hebrew is 600, 3 score, and 6.

If you do his name in Latin, it's 6, 1, 6.

So there's a remarkable correspondence there between Nero and the other elements of the passage. No, it's not

Arabic. Yeah, it has nothing to do with Islam. Now, I will say that the reformers, the

Protestant reformers, they referred, and I don't dislike this use of terminology.

I'm not saying it's necessarily eschatologically true or what have you, but they would refer to the

Pope as the Antichrist of the West and of Muhammad as the Antichrist of the East.

So, you know, for whatever it's worth, you know, I don't think that that's not my final position on these things.

But, you know, of course Muhammad was Antichrist if we're using the term Antichrist to mean somebody opposing

Christ. Exactly. And the Pope identifies himself as the Vicar of Christ, which ends up being very interesting because the term translated

Antichrist, one could interpret that either in the sense of in the place of Christ or against Christ, right?

Either one of those is a legitimate way of understanding that, and the Pope fits the bill in both cases, right? Because he's, he is somebody who styles himself to be

Christ on earth. He's an alter Christus. He's in the stead of Christ, in the place of Christ. But we think he opposes

Christ in doing so, and so he fits both ways of viewing the word.

But I don't think that's what John is talking about. Well, one thing I would say about John's terminology of Antichrist in, that language is only used in First John, and in First John, he speaks of many

Antichrists having already come and of the spirit of Antichrist being at work in the world, but he takes this as proof that the

Antichrist is coming. And so the term Antichrist has broader application, but that doesn't rule out a specific individual.

The question that people should wrestle with is whether what John refers to as the

Antichrist is to be identified with some figure in the book of Revelation. I don't think that's out of court.

I'm just saying you have to make the connection some way beyond the terminology because that term is not used in Revelation.

So again, I'm not saying it's out of court to say this is to be identified as the beast or the image of the beast or the false prophet in the book of Revelation.

I'm just saying that there has to be another way of connecting them beyond that terminology, because there are people who would make a distinction.

Some would point out that the beast in Revelation seems like more of a political figure, whereas Antichrist in John's first epistle seems like more of a theological figure.

And then when you look at the man of lawlessness, again, the terminology is different, but could it be referring to the same figure?

How does that all work out? I'm just saying there are issues here that need to be worked out, and Christians are on this issue in a lot of different places on it.

All right, so Roman says, great stuff guys. What if someone uses

Colossians 3 .1, if ye then be risen with Christ? So he gives us part of the verse, and he's basically asking what if they use this to prove that the resurrection has already occurred, hence hyper -preterism, full -preterism, and so forth.

Yeah, so this is what they do, because you got to get at, remember 1 Corinthians 15, to me, that's the wheelhouse.

They can't escape, and they're going to try to. That's why the quotations of Hosea, they think that gives them the back door to run somewhere else and make a strict definition and read it in.

And so that's what they're doing when they go to Colossians 3. Ephesians 2 is kind of the go -to for them, because you see, we're dead in our sins and trespasses, but now we're made alive together.

Let me ask you this. When was Paul writing this, Jeremiah? Talking about Colossians?

Yeah. I mean, I don't mean what year, but just give me a very general idea.

Was it before or after 80 -70? Before. So it's obviously not referring to 80 -70, is it?

So when Paul, in the same epistle, speaks of the resurrection as something future, it's obviously not this thing that he's talking about.

It's something else. So it is true. Scripture—here's the thing—so Scripture speaks of certain future realities, future realities that are in store for us, but because Christ our

Savior has gone ahead of us and we are united to Him through faith, there's a sense in which we participate in those things now, even if not in their consummated form.

And so, for example, sometimes Scripture speaks of eternal life as a present possession of Christ's people, and then elsewhere it'll speak of it as something we are awaiting, something that's yet future, right?

This gives us an already not yet character, right, of eschatology.

So we can think of right now that, you know, we have eternal life, we have fellowship with God, but our fellowship with God is not as glorious as it's going to be in the future, right?

Jesus said in John 17 -3, He defines eternal life not merely as life that is of endless duration, but it's a quality of life.

This is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God, right, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

So eternal life in the ultimate sense is that intimate fellowship and communion that the believer will have with God.

We already experience that in part now, but there's a yet future, more glorious way in which we're going to experience that in the future, at the resurrection, at the renewal of heaven and earth and so forth.

And in as much as, well, it's future, but it's also something we experience to some degree now.

And so Paul can speak just like Jesus did of eternal life as present and eternal life as future.

He can speak of us being raised up now and speak of us being raised up later. But notice how

Paul makes the distinction in various places in his writings. The same Paul in Romans talks about people being raised up, but then he also talks of something yet future, namely the resurrection or redemption of our bodies.

Right? In Romans 8, Paul, after talking about believers receiving the spirit, what

Paul has in view here in Colossians 3, right? The spirit is poured out upon us. He renews the heart.

He makes us new creatures in Christ Jesus. That's what he means by being raised up with Christ.

The same thing is in view in Romans 8 when Paul says that God has sent forth the spirit of his son into our hearts, right?

But then he goes on to talk about something that we're still waiting for, namely the redemption of our bodies.

And so again, this is another example of how their methodology works, right?

They see a word that has one meaning somewhere and then they say it has that meaning everywhere.

Right? But it doesn't. Being raised up doesn't always refer to the final resurrection or to this.

And you quoted Romans 8. We know also there that there's going to be a restoration of all things.

The world has been subjected to futility, right? But is longing for the restorations of the sons of glory.

So yeah, I just want to encourage the person to ask the question. Yeah, I mean, there is something that we participate in now, this kind of spiritual knowing

Jesus, right? Being united together with him. We can call that raised, like Paul says in Colossians 3.

And then yes, we anticipate that future bodily resurrection. Remember 1

Corinthians 15? Each in his own order. Jesus' bodily resurrection was first, and then at his coming all those who belong to him, which this is talking about, you know, in our future when we will be raised bodily to be with him for all eternity.

We will be with him face to face. Yeah, very good. So Federal Theology, thank you so much.

And I saw this question. I didn't know who was asking it. I didn't notice it before. I actually know

Tony, I believe it's the Tony from, well, you know where you're from, Tony. We actually know each other.

And I want to thank you for super chatting that same question twice. You are the man. You could ask me a third time just to sweeten the pot.

He said, please don't miss it. Yeah, yeah. So do you know anything about Don K.

Preston? So like I said, I haven't focused a lot on eschatology in the past decade or so.

This is something that I spent a lot of time reading about back in the 90s, the early 2000s.

I mean, if you were here, in fact, you can of course come up anytime you want. I know that Arkansas is not all that close, but you can come up anytime you want and have access to the library.

I've got books galore on hyperpreterism. Here's one just sitting here.

This is James Stewart Russell's book, The Parousia. Parousia. But yeah,

I've got loads of literature. But even though I studied the issue, I've been out of the loop for at least 10 years. I don't think

I'm especially the guy for this job. I think there are people that focus on it. It doesn't mean

I wouldn't be willing to. From what I understand, I assume Don Preston is considered a good representative of the position, right?

So he'd be a competent... He just did a debate on Donny's channel with I think a pre -millennialist, but they were talking about has the resurrection already occurred.

So you could actually click on that to kind of see who Don K. Preston is, but he's

Church of Christ. Surprise, surprise. And so, yes, a lot of the full predators are trying to get air time.

They're trying to debate Doug Wilson and Jeff Durbin. And I think those men are being so wise by not handing those people their microphone to their audiences.

But I do think it's worth having... For one, it's worth discussing and warning people because some people have questions and they are formulating arguments that catch a lot of lay

Christians by surprise. They don't even know how to continue the conversation. So that's why these things are really beneficial.

But Dr. Sam Frost, he has extended the invitation to all these guys to debate and they're just not satisfied with him.

So they're trying to get somebody with more clout. Who's not satisfied with who?

I missed that part. Don K. Preston, I believe him and Sam Frost have actually done a radio debate before.

But they don't want to interact with Sam Frost. They want somebody with a bigger audience. Oh, I see.

I see. So let me say this. Tony, good name, of course. Tony and I, in fact,

I could probably pull up... I won't pull up a picture. He probably doesn't want his picture seen, but I'm pretty sure it's the

Tony that I know from up north. But it's not off the table.

So stay in touch maybe and watch the channel and stuff because maybe at some point

I'll say, yeah, I got some time for this. But that's not my focus, right? So most people know that I have done a lot engaging

Muslims and engaging Unitarians and I've already got a full plate for the next many months.

One of the things I'm working on is a upcoming discussion with Khalil Andani, who's a

Shia Muslim. I haven't interacted publicly or formally with Shia Muslims before.

And this one is especially interesting to me because it is a theological divide, right?

He likes to... I've had trouble getting Muslims who want to debate the doctrine of God.

They like to just take their Unitarianism for granted. And yet Khalil is a different kind of Muslim, not just in the sense that he is a

Shia, but in the sense that he's interested in having those sorts of debates. So that's one thing that I'm focused on.

There are a number of other things that I'm doing and since this just isn't something I focus on, apart from Jeremiah needling me into this,

I think there's probably other people that are better people to go to.

This is a day coming when me and Dr. Frost, we're going to be doing some two -on -two debates with this stuff.

Got to. Yeah, see one thing is like this is just how I work. I need to...

Every position, it's sort of like I always liken things to fighting sports because there's an interesting correlation.

Did you play any sports? What's that? Did you play any sports? Oh, so when I was younger, the only sport

I ever liked were fighting sports. I did play baseball as a kid.

I used to speed skate. I grew up racing. And so we did a lot of stuff related to that.

I did a lot of training outside of a skating rink for that. So we would run. We did some crazy stuff to become better at different things.

I was a basketball player. Oh, okay. Yeah, I think I've seen some things about that. But I always loved fighting sports.

I loved boxing, watched boxing with my dad growing up. I loved martial arts. Back in the 90s,

I had a friend that was really big into MMA and so I started watching a lot of that. But one of the things you know when you look at these guys is they study their opponents.

They do a lot of stuff to make themselves familiar with this person's particular style.

And it's not just subject matter, right? Obviously, you don't want to get into a debate if you don't know the subject matter, but there's more to it when it comes to debating.

People have their own idiosyncrasies and it pays to know those sorts of things, right?

So even though like for example in fighting there's an orthodox way to throw a straight punch, right?

Not everybody is orthodox in their style. Some people throw wild punches and that's the sort of thing that you want to know something about.

I've debated my fair share of people that wildly flail about that. I'm kind of not interested in that.

So I've sort of limited some of the challenges that I've had lately because it's you know,

I still want to see the debate between you and Albrecht. Yeah, I don't think, I don't know if that'll ever happen because for one,

I mean they just lied so much that it's like, do I get scared though? Huh? Oh, yeah.

He absolutely got scared. The guy was mortified, right? So and it has to be said since you brought it up, the guy that put him out there in front of him was even more petrified, right?

So there was William the front man, the fall guy, and then there's the guy way back behind him like a hundred miles.

So that was, but see they lied so much and it was like, you know, well, it's like now it's,

I just think, you know, do I want to get back into that whole thing again? It'll just be more of the same, right?

All right. So it's not entirely off the table but not right now.

I see Donnie in the chat. Shout out. Hey Donnie, good to see you. So Joshua says

Roman numerals of bicker of Christ add up to 666. So I wonder if he's talking about or what language he's talking about.

Yeah, so one of the things that people say in or with reference to all that stuff in Revelation is, so it's interesting that John encodes things in a sense, right?

He's he's not just coming out and saying certain things and this would make sense if he's writing in a context where he's trying to inform

Christians about something but not tell everybody else what he's saying, right? Christians would have the ability to interpret these things in light of the

Old Testament, but the Romans wouldn't. So how could, how could Paul if he, or John, if he wanted to say something about Rome and he wanted to say something about Nero, I'm not saying necessarily this is it.

I'm just saying if he wanted to say that, how would he do so without provoking their ire? Well, the way he would do that is just the way he did it.

And so it's interesting that it ends up working not only in terms of the

Hebrew, but also in terms of the Latin. Some people say that the variant arose because when people were reading it in Greek, they would understand who was in view in light of all the details

I mentioned, but then what about somebody who is a Latin speaker or something like that? So some people say that the variant was just a way of this

Latin text indicating two Latin readers who was in view. Whatever you want to make of that.

I'm just pointing out some of the argumentation that goes into saying it was Nero. You don't get this similar, a similar sort of thing working in the case of the

Roman pontiff, right? The Roman pontiff isn't the sixth king, right?

And there are other varieties there, but you don't also get 616 working for him.

But, you know, it doesn't mean that theologically speaking one can't call him antichrist. I certainly would.

Were there any more questions or passages you wanted to look at? Well, that's, oh, yeah. So there's another passage.

Oh, yeah. Okay. So he's, so Tony's telling on himself. I didn't know if you wanted me to, if you wanted me to mention him.

He says, we ate it, wise guys. It was a pleasure to meet you guys. God bless. He's cranking out those $9 .99

though. Yeah. Well, I probably wouldn't have seen it. Not because that's all

I'm looking for, but it highlights them on my end, right? So I can, I can see these things when they pop up. I should,

I should pay attention to some more of these, but another text that I wanted to bring up and you'll probably already recognize why but it's 1

Thessalonians 4 and I'll bet, you know, I'm sure they're still using it this way.

That's why I'm bringing it up. So here is 1

Thessalonians 4 and Paul is giving comfort to the

Thessalonians in light of the fact that certain people have died and the concern for those that were still living is that those who had died were going to miss out, right?

They're going to miss out on Christ's world -ending coming. But you, you know where I'm going with this?

I think so, but I'm still just soaking it in. Okay, so here's what the text, it says, we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the

Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the

Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words. So I'm sure you caught it, right? You heard the argument.

So in verse 16 it says uh He's obviously talking about the descent of Christ But he specifically uses the the phrase we right this we say to you by the word of the

Lord that we Who are alive and remain that's verse 15 Until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

And then again in verse 17 He says then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the

Lord in the air So have you heard hyperpreterists use this to defend a ad 70

Interpretation of the text is because Paul is identifying himself with these individuals

Yeah, so that's something i've heard maybe it's not in vogue anymore. I think it probably is I can't imagine that I've actually not come across that but I definitely see that them using that as fuel

Yeah, so So for those that didn't catch it, here's the claim. The claim is that Paul includes himself

With those who see Christ at his coming right this we say to you by the word of the Lord that we who are alive

And remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep Now, I don't want to put jeremiah on the spot.

This is his first time hearing this but I was going to ask I was going to ask If you can think of an obvious problem with interpreting this as inclusive of paul

And also being a reference to the coming in judgment on jerusalem in 80 70

Here's here's the immediate problem The immediate problem is this paul died before 80 70

Right paul was killed by nero before 80 70 nero inaugurated the imperial persecution of the church which lasted for three and a half years right

And he died and then it was uh, not nero but titus

Who then comes in and destroys jerusalem? So if 80 70 is the event the event that paul has in view here

Because the language says we then it it it doesn't work because paul was dead

But here's the the more fundamental problem This just completely misses how phrases like we and you are used in ordinary speech

And very frequently in the bible now I can think of scores of text off the top of my head where this is the fact

But let me just i'll give you one example here Here's deuteronomy 4 now for those that don't know deuteronomy is

Really comprised of four sermons that moses preached Just before he died.

So he's preaching these four sermons of different lengths as the israelites were on the cusp of the promised land

So he's has to die in order for them to enter in the mediator has to die before god's people can enter into their promised rest

And that's that's where we're at in the book of deuteronomy. So even though it's very interesting how the bible will sometimes deal with Long periods of time in a very short space and then other times it'll deal with a very short period of time at great length

Right. So when you look at the primal history right when you look at The life of adam for example that spans genesis 2 to genesis 5

Right adam lived just short just shy of a thousand years and yet his his

Life is dealt with in four chapters Well, here's moses the last days of his life and he gives four sermons that stretch out over 34 chapters, right?

Not that all 34 chapters are those sermons, but that makes up the bulk of the book. So here's the point Or notice what moses says

He says now israel listen to the statutes and the judgments which i am teaching you to perform

So that you may live and go in and take possessing possession of the land which the lord the god of your fathers is giving you

Okay, so he's he's talking to those people that are currently In front of him right in the wilderness on the cusp of entering into the promised land

He goes on to say in verse 5 See, I have taught you statutes and judgments Just as the lord my god commanded me that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it

So keep and do them for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear

All these statutes and say surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people For what great nation is there that has a god so near and so forth now?

This is giving you the context but We're getting closer to the point In verse 9 he says only give heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently

So that you do not forget the things which your eyes have seen And do not depart from your heart all the days of your life

But make them known to your sons and your grandsons now watch this Remember the day you stood before the lord your god at horeb

When the lord said to me assemble the people to me That I may let them hear my words so that they may learn

To fear me all the days that they live on the earth and that they may teach their children Now notice what moses says to that generation that was about to enter the promised land.

He says remember the day you Stood before the lord your god at horeb.

Okay. Horeb is another name for sinai, which is obviously referring back to When the nation having come out of egypt in exodus arrives at the mountain exodus 19

And then god speaks to israel from the mountain the words of the ten commandments Right.

This this event is recorded in exodus 19 through exodus 24. This is the occasion that moses is referring back to now now here's the here's the point here's the problem with with the

Reading things the way the the hyperpreterist wants to do in first thessalonians 4 This generation that moses is talking to is not the generation that was there at horeb

Right remember that generation had to die Because they sinned against god

Right exodus 25 and following they sinned against god. And so god says you're all gonna die

Just like moses That's why moses has to die. Moses is one of the stragglers, right?

He's one of the last holdouts of that generation They all had to die Before the nation could enter in but moses addresses them as though they were in solidarity

With the people of israel who had come before them. He addresses them as a corporate entity

Which is a multi -generational entity. So even though they were not at horeb paul can address them as though they were at horeb

And so here's an analogy or a similar use of the term if I say That we in our history fought the british in order to be a free country, right?

Do I mean that you and I were present to fight the british No, we speak that way all the time

Right. We use terms like we when we're referring to a corporate entity. The church is a corporate entity

It is a multi -generational entity and it can be addressed You know

A particular generation can be addressed as though it was somehow involved in What a previous generation was involved in or as if it is involved in what a future generation will be involved in And and this sort of thing again, it happens all throughout the bible.

So number one Paul couldn't have been including himself because he died number two That's just not how the word we and our and us and so forth functions elsewhere in the bible

Yeah, he's trying to encourage christians, right? Especially those who have already died and he's basically saying hey there's they're not without hope right christ is going to To bring all those who are his and we we can rest in that great hope

So I know I think that's a great point. I've never heard of that objection before And maybe you're right. Maybe it is out of vogue.

I think the unless There's just a universal take on full preterism where we're living in a post -redemptive time and everyone's saved

I think the one that people are are trying to gravitate towards now like don k preston is this

Kind of corporate israel resurrection. So in some way those who have fallen asleep.

That's a reference to old testament dead saints Interesting.

And so what's your response to that that approach? Oh, man, so everything we've said everything everything we've said but those who have fallen asleep

Cannot paul doesn't use it explicitly for old testament saints He applies it to christians like we looked at in first corinthians 15

Who were after the resurrection and so I think to pushing it all the way back to adam

Um for the the federal headship is on both jew not only but in gentile and so what they're trying to say is israel kind of Died covenantally and is in sheol and then jesus was the first fruits bringing

Corporate israel out of sheol. And so the point is you can point back to jesus and say what was his resurrection covenantal?

It was bodily right? Um, and he reverses the curse. So yeah kind of going back to everything we said

Um, are there any other um type of things that you want to touch on? Um, because so why don't we go for 18 more minutes if you've got that, uh, people want to bring in a question.

Um, I don't think i've missed any um Oh, thank you so much.

By the way, donny. Thank you for that Um, I should uh see if There are other questions that weren't super I got it.

I got Um, i've been trying to keep an eye. I was gonna tell you I have a debate coming up on donny's channel

It's not been advertised yet. I think he's still working on a logo, but it's on October 31st in honor of the reformation with me and a lutheran

We are going to be debating and i'll be defending double predestination Interesting interesting so Yeah, lutheranism is interesting

Uh in a number of ways with respect to some of that number one because on the one hand you've got luther

Right, and then you've got post lutheranism and they're not always the same, right? There are some differences there and then of course there's the interesting notion of belief in election, but also

Idea that grace is resistible. So it's just an interesting thing, right? For those that don't know there's there's an interesting

Combination of things and you know, like when you go back to augustine, it's interesting on the one hand augustine believed that A person who was regenerated could eventually fall away, but he didn't believe the elect could fall away

Ordinarily those who believe in election think of only the elect being regenerated

So augustine agreed that god has an elect people and that they couldn't be lost but he didn't think that it was coextensive with Or that regeneration was coextensive with the elect which and i'm just saying there are these interesting

Different positions that people aren't even aware of as options, right? uh, so that's interesting but one of the reasons augustine held that was because augustine was under the the throes of baptismal regenerational thinking right so If you think that baptism regenerates then you have to believe that some people who were regenerated

Because they were baptized and later, you know left the faith You have to account for that some way so he had to he had to divorce regeneration from election

Right. I learned too that luther, you know He viewed that the spirit always goes out in regeneration with the word

And so it can be resisted like you're saying, um, and you can walk away from regeneration but when he looked at baptism, it was interesting because You know, he looked at this as a verbal proclamation of the gospel, which

I wouldn't disagree But since the spirit all always works regeneration with the word

Then it works in the waters of baptism because that's the word of god made visible

So it's interesting because not all baptismal regeneration are cut the same i'm starting to learn

Oh, yeah, but in our closing minutes, uh about 15 minutes. I did want to ask you a question.

I think a lot of people In our current context would be interested about because we're talking about eschatology

Yes, I wanted to briefly just kind of touch on how do we understand the nation of israel?

Like during this current time like they're they're going through some hardships. They're under War right now with with some of the things that are going on with hamas.

Am I saying that right? Um hamas. Yeah, and so a lot of people are worried that this is, you know

Triggering the end times because you know those who bless israel Will be blessed and those who curse israel will be cursed

So how would you kind of approach that conversation of how how are we supposed to view israel today?

Well in the first place quite apart from particular theological views

I don't think it should be hard for anybody to be fundamentally on the side of israel, right?

Just i'm just saying quite apart from eschatological considerations people who look over there and see what's going on who can't discern who the

Party that is in the wrong is just have their senses dulled and don't have much of a moral compass or they're just profoundly ignorant of of the political situation and the historical issues that Apply there

So I you know, I I am committed to the idea that Israel is in the right and hamas is in the wrong and and It's not just a matter of the way things have happened

Historically and politically over there. I mean in terms of modern history but if you just go read hamas's own statements, right people who are pretending that They have nothing other than praiseworthy motives and They're applying a proper standard and have a legitimate goal in all of this

You're not reading what they're saying. Okay hamas thinks of itself as engaged in islamic jihad

As following the precedent set by muhammad and seizes its goal to eradicate israel and so forth

So you you know, whatever you think about eschatology I don't again I don't think it should be hard as a christian to look at that and evaluate it and say

Here are these people who are trying to spread an evil religion and as part of their

Right their their mission israel has to be gone, right? So so I fundamentally oppose them hamas and and and not to mention the the the godless methods

They're employing Right, they they do horrendous things and they try and set israel up to look bad like for example, they'll

They'll they'll position themselves in the context of civilians So it makes it hard one of the things

I was thinking about think about this real quick one of the things that we were seeing early on is these

People coming into israel, you know sort of paragliding in And you know coming in with guns and it's a concert and stuff like that.

I was just thinking of the difficulty of Let's say that the idf was able to respond

You know by all accounts they were sort of caught off guard Some people say they weren't they wanted to let hamas do what they did so that it would be clear that they had right to do what they were doing in response, but Whatever your view on that the

I was just thinking about how difficult their situation would be as opposed to the the

Terrorist hamas people coming in because think about it. These people are coming in And everybody is a potential target to them, right?

Idf if they respond and these people that were there at the festival or concert or whatever it was But if the idf comes they have to worry not to hit their own people

Even though the hamas people are intermingled with them. You see what i'm saying? So These people could just shoot wildly any direction they wanted where there were people but israel

Israel fighters would have to israelite fighters would have to be you know more focused and so forth and discriminating but then

Uh, where was I going with some of that? What were you gonna say? so along with kind of this question because it kind of touches on eschatology is, you know, certain eschatology say or or just Theologies in general say there's two people of god.

You got israel and the church Now i'm not saying that the you know, these dispensational views or you know outside of christianity

I'm, just saying like a lot of people are saying God has a very distinct plan for israel and will you know go to?

romans, uh chapter 11 to you know and ephesians 2 to say, you know, there's a hard distinction

Between the israel of god and kind of you know reformed Theology says well then aren't you just replacing?

all of the the Blessings and curses that were meant for israel and now you're trying to replace a lot of those blessings with the church

So I didn't know if you wanted to offer some maybe Potential things to consider for those people that are pro israel for these

Eschatological reasons. I didn't know if you wanted to weigh in on that conversation. One thing I would say is that it's Because I so I early on I mentioned you referred to the different millennial views

I mentioned that there's differences even within each of those camps so that there are different sorts of pre -millennialists.

You have the classical this uh Classical pre -millennialists like george eldon ladd

Actually, I I really enjoy a lot of his material even though I don't agree with all of his his views but Uh, he's he's definitely a good representative of that position

Believe it or not. There are uh, even people in the reformed camp that have been pre -millennial It hasn't been a a strongly represented view but like, uh, gordon clark, for example was a no way

Is that your point? Are you more van till? Uh, well if you're talking about In terms of apologetics my my view is more

Ventilian. Yes. I like clark though. I like clark a good bit, but i'm just saying that he was an oddball

But he was he was reformed he believed in pre -millennialism so Even though it's not well represented in the reformed camp.

There are reformed pre -millennialists uh, but the reason

I bring this up now is because even within let's say The amillennial camp and the post -millennial camp while they would reject dispensationalism there has been a

Strong contingent of people who do believe that god is going to bring jews in mass back to christ

The the distinction they would make is that this is not Uh in such a way as to re -establish jewish hegemony

They're not going to be in some privileged position over other christians There's not going to be some bifurcation where jews are reigning on earth and christians are reigning in heaven

All the jewish distinctives will be taken out of it but the idea that god will return and bring jews and mass to himself has has been

A view held by a lot of people who are not pre -millennialist And romans 11 would be one such text psalm 67 would be another text that people would point to because it talks about it's actually a beautiful text in many ways, but psalm 67 it says uh

It's it's a prayer to god to to shine with them. It's the people of israel praying shine with us and then at the end it it talks about how

Uh, god is going to bless them and through this all the nations are going to be blessed And so some see that dovetailing quite nicely with romans 11 where it talks about jews being cut off because of unbelief has allowed for Gentiles to be grafted in and so if that resulted in What we would as gentiles certainly want to celebrate right our our inclusion in christ.

Yes, then paul reasons. What will their Grafting in again mean right if if they're being cut off meant riches for us

How much more will they're being regrafted in again? That's one way people have interpreted I realize that's not the only way but i'm just saying that What do you think about those views that say

Like the temple needs to be rebuilt for a lot of these things no,

I would say no, so Uh, there's no indication in scripture of a rebuilt temple.

So usually here's how this works for those that don't know the the idea It is that because people

Have pushed the olivet discourse the whole of it Not just the first part of it, but the I mean not just the last part of it, but the whole of it into the future

And they see jesus talking about the destruction of the temple And of his coming in judgment in relation to that temple

Because they pushed all that into the future Then it's assumed that since there's not one now there has to be a rebuilt temple

Right because john in the book of revelation in revelation 11 talks about the temple being measured right the temple in the courtyard and all that Well, there has to be a rebuilt temple what they're just completely overlooking is when all these things were written

There was a temple and so instead of looking for A rebuilt temple that that needs to be built in order to fulfill these things

Why don't you just see the temple that was already there? And was destroyed as the fulfillment of what they were talking about, right?

So Again, nobody should misunderstand. This is saying that every text in the bible is talking about an event that occurred in 80 70

There are all sorts of things that still have to happen such as the return of christ the General resurrection the general judgment and the new heavens and new earth

But that doesn't mean that there aren't things that already happened and that the new testament writers You know didn't spend a lot of time talking about that they did

So coming back to the Oh, yeah, so the the temple

There's no indication in scripture of the need for a rebuilt temple The the whole temple system pointed to christ

The the book of hebrews is making the point not to go back to these things Because in christ we have the reality to which they all pointed

Right really the new testament as a whole is about this and so in a sense to miss this is to miss the whole point john's gospel is especially

Keen on this john in the beginning in the prologue says The law was given through moses and I love the grammar here

It's passive the law was given through moses. So moses was just the instrument He's a passive vehicle for the law the law actually comes from god, right, but it was given through moses

But then it says grace and truth were realized by jesus christ here.

There's a stark contrast Whereas moses was simply an instrument christ is the very one by whom grace and truth are realized

Okay, so unlike moses. He's not merely a passive instrument. He's the active agent bringing about grace and truth

Now the point of the contrast there is not between falsehood and truth right when jesus says

Or john says grace and truth were realized by jesus christ He doesn't mean the law was false and jesus is the is true it's a contrast between types and shadows between A shadow and the reality

This is the sense in which The truth is being used here so As you move through john's gospel this issue crops up again and again in in verse 14

It says the word became flesh and tabernacled among us. That's an echo of exodus. It's identifying christ as the true

Right count is the true Presence of god among us what the temple stood for But didn't fully realize

Again, it echoes exodus when it says we beheld his glory the glory is of the only begotten of the father full of grace and truth

When moses constructed the tabernacle the glory of god came and dwelt in it And then in john's gospel one passage after another underscores this idea in john 2

Jesus said destroy this temple and in three days i'll raise it up. So he identifies himself As the temple in john 4 the woman at the well is caught up with the temple and whether it should be in jerusalem or in samaria because there was a

Controversy between the samaritans and the jews and jesus said, you know woman That's all irrelevant now, right?

Time is coming and now is when those who worship the father will worship him in spirit and in truth

Okay, notice the the phraseology there. It's going right back to john 1 And it's saying that the shadows are no longer going to be relevant

The reality is now here and it has thrown all that other stuff out of gear so Again, this this sort of thing is is all over the new testament.

The author of hebrews is bringing it up Because he's writing towards the end of that generation and many christians

Are wondering well what's going on here? We expected all this to be destroyed As jesus said not one stone left here on top of another but it's all continuing it's it's continuing

On as if nothing has happened. Nothing has fundamentally changed. There's still a temple. There's still a priesthood

There's still sacrifices and on top of it. We're being persecuted so Maybe we were wrong

Maybe we should go back to all this and the author of hebrews is saying number one Don't go back to this because jesus is better Like jesus is the reality that it all pointed to Number two, he says it's all about to disappear

Right. It's on the verge of disappearing Read hebrews 8 13.

I mean that for the audience. I'm sure you've read it I'm sure many in the audience have as well, but Hebrews 8 13 says that what has been rendered obsolete is about to disappear so it's already obsolete by virtue of christ coming and Inaugurating the new covenant and it's about to disappear meaning 80 70 right so we do believe that 80 70 was a significant moment in redemptive history

And we do believe that there are things in scripture that speak to that event What we don't believe is that this is to be read

Into every text that talks about something future, right? So when it comes to the temple though the basic point in answer your question is that there's

I don't know of any indication in the new testament that There is going to be a future rebuilt temple or that it's necessary to the eschatological scheme of things

Perfect. Thanks so much. I just wanted you to kind of address that because a lot of people are asking that question

Right now because of the things that israel is is currently under here's an interesting thing now.

I see somebody told me Um hervey said something so i'll come back to hervey in a second, um,

Here's something interesting so the new testament clearly speaks about The judgment that would come upon jerusalem, right read the parables leading up to the olivet discourse

Matthew 20 matthew 21 matthew 22. There's one parable after another that's told about Jerusalem and her leaders and how it's going to be destroyed because they reject christ and were going to reject those waves of Prophets that he was going to send to them as a sort of final warning to them

One of my favorite things by the way in josephus Is josephus who was an eyewitness to the events?

He mentions that when the first Boulder if you will of the catapult was was flung into the air and the watchman on the wall saw it

So they were they were white and they they had this sort of uh Reflective veneer on them that that caused the sun to Radiate off of them if you will they uh, they would mirror the sun

So as they're whirling through the air you get this picture of this resplendent object and it would make this hideous whistling noise

And by the way, these stones that were hurled by the catapults weighed about a hundred pounds and So think about it book of revelation talks about this unfaithful woman

An adulterous woman who's going to be stoned Right with hundred pound hail stones Well, josephus tells us there were these hundred pound stones being hurled at jerusalem when the watchman on the wall saw this happening

They immediately began to cry out as they saw this brilliant thing flying through the air

They said the sun is coming. The sun is coming s -o -n They interpreted this as the coming of the sun

There would have been ringing in their ears people uh christians saying that that Christ is going to come in judgment on jerusalem but uh

What's interesting is that the new testament although it speaks to this event It never records it as something that happened so The question should become why why does the new testament ever record this?

That the answer would be either because they were all the books of the new testament were written before 80 70 or because What I don't know what the explanation would be for why they never mentioned it after 80 70 especially when you consider now, this isn't an argument from silence because you know argument from silence works when

We don't have good reason to think that somebody would speak to something. But how could a first century jew?

Fail to mention jerusalem's destruction And especially the apostles who are claiming in jesus the fulfillment of these things.

How could they fail to mention? by the way people Right, by the way judaizers

There isn't a temple to go to there isn't a priesthood functioning right now, right? That would have been the first thing out of their mouths and refuting the judaizers if these things

And by the way, I mean first of all Paul couldn't be writing after 80 70 because he died before 80 70

So every single one of paul's writings was before 80 70 Peter couldn't have been writing before 80 70 because peter died along with paul before 80 70 under nero

So here you have paul and peter's writings all being written before 80 70. What about james?

Well, james was one of the earliest to go. So james epistle had to be before 80 70. I could go on and on with this

Uh, but my point is that You you have this

Event predicted in the new testament. It's never mentioned as something that happened the apostles often mention things that were fulfilled

After jesus spoke them if they had occurred by the time when the apostles began to put paper to or pen to paper, right?

so when jesus and john 2 said Destroy this temple and in three days i'll raise it up. John goes on to say that It came to the disciples remembrance

After jesus was raised from the dead that he said these things and he was referring to the temple of his body So whenever jesus said something that subsequently came to pass before the apostles wrote the apostles would draw attention to this

They never do that in the case of jesus predictions about jerusalem's destructions

All of this i'm saying points to a pre 80 70 date of composition for the new testament writings And this this point has been argued at great length by men such as at roberts and numerous scholars have made this point but I bring this all up here because this was a major apologetic point for the early christians

The early christians after 80 70 kept pointing to the fact that everything was destroyed as jesus said

And as would be expected if he fulfilled all these things and this was such an issue that when julian

Ascended the imperial throne Okay, so under constantine christianity becomes a legal religion right constantine

Now makes christianity legal before it was a illegal religion you could you know

When it was thought to be part of judaism, it was considered legal because judaism was was a legal religion

But once it was distinguished from judaism after the destruction of the temple when it continued on It then became an illegal religion until the time of constantine so constantine makes it legal, but then after constantine other people come to power and Julian was an apostate.

He he was a christian, but he became an apostate And he didn't like how christians were able to point to jerusalem's destruction as a definitive

Proof of the truth of christianity and of the words of christ and so forth and so one of the things that he did was he

He began to finance the jews So that they could go back to israel and rebuild the temple

So julian the apostate wanted them to rebuild the temple and he even financed it now

People can take this for what it you know, however, they want but this is how it's recorded in the historical records

We're told that the jews went back to israel under julian and again to try and Reconstruct the temple they were digging up the ground in preparation for laying the foundation and so forth

But again, this is the historical accounts. It says that when they tried to do so Subterranean vaults in the earth

As they as they uncovered them with their tools and so forth were suddenly ignited and fire shot up from the ground and consumed the the jews that were trying to To do this and so eventually

Because they had such a experience they abandoned the effort Right.

So this is this is attempt number one to rebuild the temple over there Now I could go on through history and how this has happened one time after another but one thing that's true now is the uh that Islam has one of its structures there

Which stands as I like to call it a kind of divine corkscrew, right? It's as if You know, you've got this impediment to a temple and I know that people who believe there's going to be a rebuilt temple

We'll say well, that's That's yeah, it's an impediment that's going to be ultimately bulldozed over in a sense, but uh

They built in the wrong place and they got to go somewhere else to build the temple Yeah, well one thing though, and this is a question

I like to ask jewish people is when you look at the old testament and the first destruction of the temple your

Number one the prophets announced that it would be destroyed before it happened. God doesn't do anything of any significant redemptives

You know import without announcing it through his servants the prophets so it was that's what amos says This was predicted by numerous prophets before it happened the first destruction

Secondly, the israelites were told why it would be destroyed so they weren't in the dark

Wondering why this was happening. They knew exactly why it was happening the prophets would tick off the number of things for which god was going to Cause these things to happen number three

They were told when these things would be reversed So they were told when this would have its end and they would be able to rebuild the temple

So the reason for telling them ahead of time that it was going to happen was so they could make Preparations for it

Also, so they would know what they were to repent of how how are they supposed to return to the lord unless they know?

What they've done and what they're to repent of Uh, but then third as I said, they they have this indication of when it's going to happen

So they had some concrete thing to hang their hat on some some event to look to for their hope

So so here's the question that I asked jewish people What uh, or it's really this series of questions

Where was the destruction of the second temple announced number two? What was the sin that precipitated its destruction number three?

Where is the indication prophetically of how long this thing was going to last? The fact of the matter is without the new testament.

You have no answer to those questions Right. You don't know what the sin was. You don't know

How long this was supposed to last? and this is huge because again, this is just Unexpected given how god operates and has operated right in in uh in prior history and uh

When you look at what's interesting further is when you look at the talmud It it tells us that 40 years prior to jerusalem's destruction the destruction of the temple a number of strange events occurred

Okay, first of all, we're told that The sanhedrin could no longer meet in the chamber of hewn stone

Which was their normal Location of of deliberating which it was a area in the temple precincts

They could no longer meet there because the structure was considered unsafe because of an earthquake that had occurred 40 years prior to the temple's destruction

Now think about it an earthquake 40 years before the temple's destruction that rendered the structure unsafe

That made it such that the sanhedrin The the ruling body of the jews couldn't meet in their normal location to pass down judgment sounds kind of Interesting, right?

Yeah, it's almost as if There was something that happened 40 years prior that god was not pleased with and and kicked them out subsequent to that, right?

so the The structure was unsafe because the lintel above the the temple was cracked.

Okay, so there was a fundamental Structural problem with the temple now the gospels record certain events as well and some of those are also mentioned in jewish works, but we're told in the gospels that The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom we're told that there was a great earthquake

We're told you know all sorts of things happened in conjunction with christ's death and his resurrection But another thing we're told prior to the temple's destruction 40 years is that they couldn't keep the light going in the temple

They would light it but it would go out this is in contrast by the way to the what happened under the maccabees where we're told that Even though they didn't have enough oil it remained lit longer than It would seem possible

So here you have the light they couldn't keep it going no matter how much oil they had then we're told that The scarlet cord that would hang in the holy of holies

It was supposed to turn white signifying that when the blood of atonement was brought in signifying that god had received the sacrifice but At 40 years prior to the temple's destruction it stopped turning white

And so it was as if it was saying god is not accepting their sacrifices. This is all in the talmud

This is not christian propaganda christian apologetic. This is jewish material then a fourth thing it says is that When they would cast lots for the scapegoat, you know, which one was to be sacrificed and which one was to be sent into the wilderness it says that the the

The one that was for the lord would never come up again in the right hand. So Whatever was going on when they would cast lots just like flipping a coin it would be

Right statistically 50 50 sometimes it would come up head sometimes tails 50 50 well in this case the lot would never come up in the right hand for the lord, so Christians use this as a powerful apologetic for christianity

There's nothing from a jewish perspective that can account for why the temple was destroyed when it's supposed to end

Uh, and and christians likewise have to deal with this if they're thinking of a rebuilt temple Where does it tell us when this temple is going to be rebuilt?

And under what conditions and so forth and and there's just nothing in the new testament that speaks to this Anthony anthony,

I appreciate you Going into all that depth. Um Definitely later i'm going to make some isolated clips of those things

So I appreciate all your wisdom in those areas all my stuttering and stammering So where was I saw that herbie had a question.

Somebody told me that so I don't know how to say that name

But he says anthony rogers because the earth will be made anew and of the same model How can new jerusalem fit on it when it is huge like the size of america?

I think this will be on earth or in space Well that that presupposes that the visionary content of the book of revelation is necessarily to be understood in a wooden literal way

I I just don't think that's the right approach to the book when when you have and I know because i've been around the eschatological block that There are certain people

Who will insist that everything has to be understood literally? But you just can't do that.

Right, right. So think for example of Revelation one when john when jesus appears to john it mentions a sword proceeding out of his mouth

And then it mentions seven stars being in his right hand And other things or him walking in the midst of seven candlesticks

This is all apocalyptic imagery. Jesus doesn't literally have a sword hanging out of his mouth like a toothpick

Right, and he's not literally holding seven stars in his hand Otherwise the resurrected christ is fantastically large by the way

That's just Not how it's to be interpreted. And so I would say similarly In the case of new jerusalem, there's something being communicated by the imagery that is true

And is to be accepted as such but I don't think that the point of it is to say

That it's you know, those are the exact literal dimensions There's something being communicated by those dimensions, but I I don't think it's this is the exact Length and width and breadth and so forth of all these things

What would you say no i'm with you It's all on how you approach the book of revelation and there's kind of four primary ways

You got kind of the futurist approach, which I lived for eight years Uh, then you kind of have the historic preterist approach and then you got the idealist approach or the historicist approach

So it's like you said it's all on how you approach the book of revelation. I've heard it said

You know john's gospel didn't write an olivet discourse And so it seems like this is kind of his take on the olivet discourse with the book of revelation

You know, I think that's an interesting way of looking at it However, you interpret the olivet discourse will have necessary effects with how you interpret the book of revelation

Yeah, so I I would actually say so there is good reason to look at it that way for a number of reasons, but one is the synoptic gospels

Although there's differences between them and those differences are significant for certain

Emphases and other points that the authors are making there are certain things that are common to them

And so it's it's pretty striking when you get to john and those just aren't there, right?

So for example in the synoptic accounts, they all mention caesarea philippi and peter's good confession

That's found in all of the gospels. They also All mention the transfiguration

They all have an olivet discourse. So those are among The things that they have in common, even though when you look at other events in the life of christ some you know you'll have

It in three gospels in some cases in two gospels in some cases in one gospel in some case But there are certain events that are found in all three of them.

So when john doesn't have any of those it's kind of striking What's interesting is you can find something in john

That is similar to those events. So it's almost like John recognizes the synoptics have already covered this

And he's not going to cover the same ground, but he does want to make sure he he gives the same Trues he doesn't want people to be left out of the loop on those things

So it's almost as if he's picking out different events in the life of christ that would make the same point

But he doesn't use the same exact occurrences because the synoptics have already dealt with it But i'll give you an example of what

I mean in place of The transfiguration you have something interesting in john 12, which was about midway and john's gospel

The transfiguration is about midway in the other gospels right matthew 6 or 17 uh

Mark 8 9 you've got caesarea philippi and the transfiguration luke and so forth.

It's it's all about midway for the most part Well midway in john's gospel you have john

Identifying jesus as the one whom isaiah saw Right. Remember when it says that isaiah saw his glory and spoke about him.

Well, this is a I think a way that john is Underscoring the same point that the synoptics do

But by referring to something else, right? Peter's great confession if you look at john 6, it's one of my favorite texts in john

After the the great church shrinkage seminar when jesus turns away thousands of people

Yeah Thousands of people walk away because they're offended by his teachings and peter comes up to him and says lord

You know you're offending people and he says you want to leave too And then peter says no lord, where shall we go? You know, you have the words of eternal life.

We've come to believe that you are the christ the son of the living god There's peter's great confession, right?

Peter is so here's the crowds. They don't accept jesus for who he claims to be but here's peter

Confessing christ as the son of so I think that john has equivalent Things to what you find in the synoptics counterparts

And so it's interesting when you don't get in all of that discourse In john, but then you find that he has

A whole account of the end. I think that's a good way of looking at it, too Yeah, anthony.

This is this has been a blast. Um I appreciate you kind of embarking on this with me because the full preterist, you know

People are asking questions, especially here in arkansas And so I appreciate um you coming with me to just kind of talk about how these things fail.

Like I said Historically logically and most importantly exegetically, you know, because when we look to our creeds and confessions

They weren't like you said new kids on the block like these are These are uh saints that come before us with less distractions than we do

And so there's a reasons why a lot of these these creeds and confessions say what they say Um, it's a part of that.

Um Historic faith that's been handed down to us over time So I just want to thank you again for letting me join you with some of these things

Yeah, so I will Let you go i'll stay behind just a little bit to make sure I answer some of these other questions

I can tell that i've i've worn you out You can tell i'm starting to talk a little slower, even though we talk slow in the south

Uh, no, but I I thank you so much Uh, i'd be happy to have you back on to talk more eschatology if you want or other matters.

Just let me know We'll set it up. I appreciate it and I look forward to your future debates.

Um My church here at 12 five we love doing watch parties And so I think

I told you this last time We we had a big watch party set up for you and william albrecht and then it fell through and we're like no

Yeah, you know what's interesting is so seraphim hamilton The other day I have a screenshot of it.

He was basically lamenting his performance in our debate on that And he was saying

I don't know if he'd give me another chance But uh, he'd be interested in having a part two so that that's that's a possibility

I may be willing to do that And I said before that he was a much better Idea than william albrecht.

This was even before debating him uh, because I don't think william I I knew he knew that he wasn't the right man for the job, right and he uh, but anyways, uh

So it was interesting Uh, I I was more interested in debating a roman catholic than an eastern orthodox guy

But uh, you know seraphim Seraphim may be interested in doing a part two. So that'd be awesome.

That's a possibility. We'll see. Um But I I don't know i'm not committed to anything right now because I've already got a lot on my plate.

So All righty jeremiah, thank you so much All right.