RMcwilson

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

@JosiahForYeshua https://t.co/k8rJng843V

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

https://t.co/k8rJng843V

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

@wonnderfl_truth @Ihunanya_chi It is also recorded in Matthew.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

@dalepartridge @RealDonMarshall Why would that be wild?
He never directly calls himself "the son of Mary" or "the lamb of God" or "Messiah of Israel" or any number of true identifiers...

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

@dalepartridge The New Testament calls Jesus "the Son of David" and "the son of Abraham"... and that he is "the lion of the tribe of Judah."

So, if all of these are true:
1. a descendant of Abraham
2. of the tribe of Judah
3. a descendant of David
THEN (wait for it)

He is a Jew.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

YES .. and Peter, James, and John SAW Jesus in his kingdom glory, and John SAW and RECORDED the second coming before he tasted death.

Sometimes plain words have a different, yet absolutely true meaning (such as "Destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in 3 days" --- This passage alone reveals that the APPARENT meaning is not always the ACTUAL meaning).

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

Yes, the last days (biblically) are the period between the first and second coming of Messiah.
Last (eschatos) means final.
We are in the final age of man before the Messianic Age.

You keep pushing a hyper-focused viewpoint the scriptures reject. Our timeline is not God's timeline.
Peter tells us that.
Jesus told us in the parable of the stewards, that he would be gone a long time.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

I dont know, with certainty, what the disciples expected. We have hints that they expected the immediate establishment of the Messianic Kingdom after Christ's resurrection... according to Acts 1.
As far as timing, he warned them that no one knows.

His parable of the stewards gives a strong hint that he will leave and be gone for eons of time because it speaks of the master leaving and taking a journey of many days.

There has to be time for the propagation of the Gospel throughout the whole world before he returns because it says the gospel had to be preached to the whole world and then the end of this age would come.

It appears that Paul did not know if he would make it to the coming of the Lord to experience the catching away (harpazo) of the saints.

I would say that an honest reading of the Old Testament and those passages in the New Testament would indicate that it's probably going to be a very, very long time between the first and second coming of Messiah.

We had to have the dispersion of Israel (according to Moses and the prophets) were they would be out of the land for many, many days and in the latter years brought back in unbelief before the Messiah sets up his kingdom.

We have the Apostle Peter warning us that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day, indicating that God's timetable is not our timetable but compared to Eternity it will be the snap of a finger.

So maybe Peter had a true clue of the immense (human) timescale, and some of the OT prophets also.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

Because the text was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not a word is inaccurate.
We may not understand it, Peter said that some of Paul's scripture was hard to understand.
Difficult.
But not false.

Jesus said something that the people standing there, alive, at that moment, could easily misunderstand.
He said "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in 3 days."

A preterist must say "Well, he must have been talking about the physical building of the temple because it was right there, they could see it, and how else could they have understood it?"

But they were WRONG about an APPARENTLY simple, plain statement. The Holy Spirit clarified Jesus' ACTUAL meaning (the temple of his body).

I wonder what other APPARENTLY SIMPLE words Jesus said can have another, deeper meaning?

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

False.
Isaiah 11 says that the LORD will set His hand to regather Israel a SECOND TIME.
The first was after the Babylonian exile.
The second exile, was the Roman dispersion. We are just now beginning to see that being fulfilled.
Here is a Hebrew scholar who examines the OT prophecies:
https://t.co/Vrro3oWOh7

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

@shekenahglory @johngacinski @RonSCantor Peter answered your complaint.
You just dont like his answer.
The disciples were often confused with things Jesus said, they didn't even understand about his crucifixion though he told them plainly several times.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

Ungrammatical is merely a syntax issue not a TRUTH issue. When Jesus said that people should be baptized in the NAME (singular) of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"... that may seem awkward grammatically but it is because it is conveying a much deeper truth that surpasses mere human grammar.

The "rules" of grammar are average guidelines for expression not absolute laws, and special cases abound in all languages.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

@yJewsStayJewish @abi4560 Yahid means numerical one or unique, whereas echad can mean composite unity.
The TWO shall be ONE (echad) flesh in Genesis.
God chose that word for a reason regarding Himself, not yahid.
The issue of Isaac... that is because he was the singular, only, unique son of promise.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

The disciples asked him many questions about Jerusalem, the temple, and the restored Kingdom... and Jesus answered those questions... and not all of them had the same answer.

The Jews first had to be dispersed and then they will be regathered in the latter days (as the Old Testament prophets said) especially Isaiah who said they would be regathered the SECOND time when the Messiah comes in his kingdom and Glory.

Jesus spoke of his return to Israel, but not until the Jews were willing to repent and then he and the apostles would judge the tribes.

The book of Zechariah speaks of Jerusalem and Israel being surrounded by all nations, but that the returning Messiah would deliver them... and that his feet would stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives.

It is not the destruction or the obliteration of Jerusalem but the deliverance of Jerusalem and the Jews which ushers in the Kingdom age.

Please explain Zechariah 12-14

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

Your personal temporal expectation has little to do with God's timing. I find it humorous that you did not mention that Peter reminds us that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day... which completely invalidates your central premise.

Both Joel 1 and Zephaniah 1 speak of The Day of the LORD as NEAR, with universal implications and global judgment... yet we still wait for it 2500 years hence. Peter was right, its only been a couple of days.

Haggai 2, God says "in a little while, I will shake all nations" yet the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 12 applies this in the yet distant future. The examples go on and on.

Yes, the non-preterist is very much at ease in scripture, letting scripture interpret scripture... not forcing hyper-literalist viewpoints.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

Jesus, as God in the flesh, speaks locally and universally. What command in the gospels do people typically quote about evangelism? Oh... its when Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel."

But wait, He said that only to a certain group at a certain time, there is NO WAY that could have future implications. But wait... it does.

Even in the Old Testament, Moses spoke to THAT generation and he spoke to the LAST generation. He spoke locally and universally... and surprise of surprises, one "greater than Moses" did, too!

This isn't difficult or surprising.
There were some standing there (Peter, James, and John) who saw Christ in His kingdom glory... AND John did not die UNTIL he saw (and recorded) Jesus coming with the angels of heaven.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

@shekenahglory @johngacinski @RonSCantor The non-preterist view has been vindicated by history and prophecy.
It does not require one to allegorize or spiritualize vast passages of scripture. They can mean what they say they mean.

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

And then there's Exodus 23:
"Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.

21“Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for MY NAME is in Him.

22“But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries."

But we had already met the angel of the LORD a few times before. He is called God by Hagar, and by Jacob, and acknowledged as God by Moses).
Exodus 3:
"2 And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.

3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”

4¶So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”

5 Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.”

6 Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

And that appearance in Judges 2:

"Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you.

2‘And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this?

3“Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side,fn and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ”

4So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.

5 Then they called the name of that place Bochim; and they sacrificed there to the LORD."

We could list many more.
The angel of the LORD is separate yet one with YHWH. He is called God. He expects obedience and punishes evil.

Yes, the LORD is ONE, but we all know that God used "echad" (composite unity) rather than "yahid" (absolutely one).

[RMcwilson @randymcwilson]

Unless it speaks of Christ's deity, which is the entire point. As one who rejects the deity of Christ, you may not like it, you may be scrambling to find ways to explain it away, you may complain that Jesus used bad grammar or that we are using bad grammar when we translate it, but He was clearly referring to Himself as the one who appeared to Moses in the burning bush...
the angel of the LORD, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

Before there was Abraham, I AM was there.
It is a powerful and profound claim.
I can see why people fear it.
The implications are breathtaking.