Brother Collins, I appreciate you taking the times to post these lessons, I've learned a great deal from them and they have been a great resource. The only thing that I would say would make them better is if you put your key verses in the description of the videos to make them easier to find. For example, I have previously watched this entire series, but wanted to find this exact one about Matthew 24. I had to open and skim through every video until I found it! Thanks again, God bless you and this work!
Really?! Earlier you said that Jesus doesn't start speaking of His end-of-time coming until Mat. 24:36. Now you're calling his words in verses 23-27 are about that, then He jumps back to Jerusalem and Rome in verse 28. Make your mind, brother. Too much jumping around. :(
I am not jumping around at all. Jesus does not focus on when He is coming back until verse 36. The focus before verse 36 is on the destruction of Jerusalem. However, Jesus makes the point in those verses 23 -37 that there will be false prophets saying that Jesus is here come and see, but Jesus just emphasis that when He does come at His final coming it will not be hidden because it will like the lightening in the sky from east to west. In other words, he is making a statement about His final coming here with His discussion of the destruction of Jerusalem. Anyways, I just pointed out what Jesus was saying here, and it doesn't take away from the fact that main focus of the first 34 verses is the destruction of Jerusalem and the verse 36 through chapter 25 focus on the finally visible appearing of Jesus for the day of Judgment.
I actually agree with a LOT of what you say in your talks against premillennialism; however, I now also disagree with quite a bit of it. I'm at least a 4th generation member of the churches of Christ and have been a full-time minister for over 36 years, but I no longer hold to the church's modern-traditional amillennialism. Why? Because you (as I myself did) either ignore the numerous time statements / indicators or try to find ways around them to coincide with the amillennial view of the nature / purpose of the Lord's return. It's all askew and has created an untold number of unbelievers in Christ and Christianity. One example was in your mention of Mat. 16:28, in which you just happen to leave off verse 27; but even so, Jesus still, even in just verse 28, clearly stated that His return would transpire before all those in His audience that day had died. But you don't believe He did, for you claim, and rightly so, that Jesus on Pentecost sent the Spirit to so His disciples. Why? Because He wouldn't be coming, but would be leaving them as orphans if not for the Spirit taking His place while He was away. Anyway, that's one out of numerous verses you referred to in which you either ignored the time statements or found some work around to, as I said above, correspond to your view of the nature / purpose of His return. Brotherly, ~TD
I understand your view and studied it for years. The A.D. 70 doctrine has too many problems. Basically, that doctrine tries to make sense of vague passages and then tries to explain away clear passages based on the vague ones. The doctrine you now how hold, which you think comes from ignoring time statements, ends up in universalism. I would suggest you check out my lengthy article about resurrection that I believe fully refutes the A.D. 70 doctrine. www.lgchurchofchrist.com/daniel-12%20final%20edit.pdf Regarding 16:27, it refers to Jesus' final coming. This verse reminds of the parable talking about the final judgment in Mt. 13, where the tares and wheat will be seperated. Verse 28, is talking about where all this begins which is when the kingdom/church comes to be in Acts 2. I know you want to connect those verses together and make them mean the same thing, but they don't. They are talking about 2 different things. Mark's account has it this way: Mark 8:38 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." Mark 9:1 And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power." It's to show that this was fulfilled in Acts 2: (that is Mt. 16:28 and Mk. 9:1): Mark 9:1 Kingdom would come with power Luke 24:44-49 The spirit and the power were to come together If we can show when the spirit came we can also show when the kingdom came. Acts 1:8 Jesus tells the apostles to wait in Jerusalem to receive power from the HS Acts 2:1-4 The spirit came on Pentecost so the kingdom came at Pentecost. According to Isaiah the kingdom was to start in Jerusalem and it did Isaiah also tells us that the kingdom was start in the last days. Please notice what Peter says in Acts 2:14-17. Notice it was in the last days that the spirit was to be poured and Peter says this is that which you are seeing. You will also notice that before the day of Pentecost the kingdom is spoken of in a future sense but After the day of Pentecost it is spoken of as present reality. Col 1:13 also see acts 8:12. We can clearly see that the church/kingdom had its beginning at the day of Pentecost.
Luke 21:31 So you also when you see "these things" happening ,know that the *Kingdom of God is near*. So according to this those incidences were to take place before the Kingdom came (i.e.before Pentecost) but this happened around 70 AD after Pentecost . How ?
Since we know that kingdom of God was already in place prior to the A.D. 70 event, we can know that this phrase used by Luke is not saying that kingdom had not yet come or was not already in place. With this in mind, what could this mean? Wayne Jackson explained it this way: The expression "kingdom of God" clearly refers to the Lord's exercise of regal judgment. The Greek word translated "kingdom" can be used abstractly to refer to royal power. In other words, as they say these things happening and the destruction of Jerusalem, it would show that Jesus was indeed reigning on His thrown and exercising judgment from His eternal kingdom. Hench the idea that the kingdom of God is near.
Thanks God, thank you brother Collins.
Thanks for listening
I love these lessons!!
At long last I can say that I FINALLY understand the "LEFT BEHIND" illustration that the Bible talks about, Thank You, for explaining it so clearly.
Thank-You!
You're welcome!
Love these lessons
Thank you so much. Awesome lessons. Learned so much
Glad you found it helpful.
Brother Collins, I appreciate you taking the times to post these lessons, I've learned a great deal from them and they have been a great resource. The only thing that I would say would make them better is if you put your key verses in the description of the videos to make them easier to find. For example, I have previously watched this entire series, but wanted to find this exact one about Matthew 24. I had to open and skim through every video until I found it!
Thanks again, God bless you and this work!
***** Thanks Jarred. I will try and find some time soon to give more information in the description of what lesson contains what.
Really?! Earlier you said that Jesus doesn't start speaking of His end-of-time coming until Mat. 24:36. Now you're calling his words in verses 23-27 are about that, then He jumps back to Jerusalem and Rome in verse 28. Make your mind, brother. Too much jumping around. :(
I am not jumping around at all. Jesus does not focus on when He is coming back until verse 36. The focus before verse 36 is on the destruction of Jerusalem. However, Jesus makes the point in those verses 23 -37 that there will be false prophets saying that Jesus is here come and see, but Jesus just emphasis that when He does come at His final coming it will not be hidden because it will like the lightening in the sky from east to west. In other words, he is making a statement about His final coming here with His discussion of the destruction of Jerusalem. Anyways, I just pointed out what Jesus was saying here, and it doesn't take away from the fact that main focus of the first 34 verses is the destruction of Jerusalem and the verse 36 through chapter 25 focus on the finally visible appearing of Jesus for the day of Judgment.
I actually agree with a LOT of what you say in your talks against
premillennialism; however, I now also disagree with quite a bit of it. I'm
at least a 4th generation member of the churches of Christ and have been a
full-time minister for over 36 years, but I no longer hold to the church's
modern-traditional amillennialism. Why? Because you (as I myself did)
either ignore the numerous time statements / indicators or try to find ways
around them to coincide with the amillennial view of the nature / purpose
of the Lord's return. It's all askew and has created an untold number of
unbelievers in Christ and Christianity. One example was in your mention of
Mat. 16:28, in which you just happen to leave off verse 27; but even so,
Jesus still, even in just verse 28, clearly stated that His return would
transpire before all those in His audience that day had died. But you don't
believe He did, for you claim, and rightly so, that Jesus on Pentecost sent
the Spirit to so His disciples. Why? Because He wouldn't be coming, but
would be leaving them as orphans if not for the Spirit taking His place
while He was away. Anyway, that's one out of numerous verses you referred
to in which you either ignored the time statements or found some work
around to, as I said above, correspond to your view of the nature / purpose
of His return. Brotherly, ~TD
I understand your view and studied it for years. The A.D. 70 doctrine has too many problems. Basically, that doctrine tries to make sense of vague passages and then tries to explain away clear passages based on the vague ones. The doctrine you now how hold, which you think comes from ignoring time statements, ends up in universalism. I would suggest you check out my lengthy article about resurrection that I believe fully refutes the A.D. 70 doctrine. www.lgchurchofchrist.com/daniel-12%20final%20edit.pdf
Regarding 16:27, it refers to Jesus' final coming. This verse reminds of the parable talking about the final judgment in Mt. 13, where the tares and wheat will be seperated. Verse 28, is talking about where all this begins which is when the kingdom/church comes to be in Acts 2. I know you want to connect those verses together and make them mean the same thing, but they don't. They are talking about 2 different things. Mark's account has it this way:
Mark 8:38 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." Mark 9:1 And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power."
It's to show that this was fulfilled in Acts 2: (that is Mt. 16:28 and Mk. 9:1):
Mark 9:1 Kingdom would come with power
Luke 24:44-49 The spirit and the power were to come together
If we can show when the spirit came we can also show when the kingdom came.
Acts 1:8 Jesus tells the apostles to wait in Jerusalem to receive power from the HS
Acts 2:1-4 The spirit came on Pentecost so the kingdom came at Pentecost.
According to Isaiah the kingdom was to start in Jerusalem and it did Isaiah also tells us that the kingdom was start in the last days. Please notice what Peter says in Acts 2:14-17. Notice it was in the last days that the spirit was to be poured and Peter says this is that which you are seeing.
You will also notice that before the day of Pentecost the kingdom is spoken of in a future sense but After the day of Pentecost it is spoken of as present reality.
Col 1:13 also see acts 8:12.
We can clearly see that the church/kingdom had its beginning at the day of Pentecost.
Luke 21:31 So you also when you see "these things" happening ,know that the *Kingdom of God is near*.
So according to this those incidences were to take place before the Kingdom came (i.e.before Pentecost) but this happened around 70 AD after Pentecost . How ?
Since we know that kingdom of God was already in place prior to the A.D. 70 event, we can know that this phrase used by Luke is not saying that kingdom had not yet come or was not already in place. With this in mind, what could this mean? Wayne Jackson explained it this way:
The expression "kingdom of God" clearly refers to the Lord's exercise of regal judgment. The Greek word translated "kingdom" can be used abstractly to refer to royal power.
In other words, as they say these things happening and the destruction of Jerusalem, it would show that Jesus was indeed reigning on His thrown and exercising judgment from His eternal kingdom. Hench the idea that the kingdom of God is near.
+Cougan Collins Thank u .
+Cougan Collins So sir according to the explanation above by Wayne Jackson can we then pray the Lord's prayer saying *Thy Kingdom come * ?