Did the Lord return in AD 70?

I agree, but did it count for anything? Many Christian Jews continued in that system while trusting in Jesus because they didn't know any differently, as Jesus Himslf had worshipped in it. When He "educated" the apostles differently, that's when the real trouble began.

 

I do not see Him being crucified being said any where to be such reason.

Nothing about the crucifixion being any reason in the mix.

 

It is a remembrance of it. I do not understand the point you were making.

 

Couldn't agree more, Brother. If that's not judgement, I don't know what is.

 

To review - "Oikumene", in the context of its New Testament usage, always refers to the Roman Empire. Remember, Augustus called for a census of the "oikumene", translated as "all the world". Everybody knows this census was limited to the Roman Empire. The passages I posted earlier show that the Gospel had been preached throughout "oikumene" - the (Roman) world. Since you pointed out that the Gospel had not reached China, Japan, etc., this leaves only one conclusion - it had spread throughout the Roman Empire, just as the NT says.

Actually, it's Futurists who misinterpret the time indicators, the proof being that you fail to recognize that those events have already happened.

As usual, you are way off base, Brother. Caesar and Christ both used the same word, and they have the same meaning.

The Old Covenant system, temple worship, and animal sacrifices counted to the Jews. This is the system He came to put an end to. He instituted the New Covenant at the Last Supper, but He destroyed the Old Covenant with the destruction of the Temple.

 

Not sure how else to show you, Brother. I'll ponder upon it. @kyredneck provided another great "proof text" in post # 78. We may be at an impasse.

 

@Lodic post #78

Nothing about the crucifixion of Christ.

 

Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord."
When did He make that covenant ?
Matt.26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Don't know EXACTLY when it ent into effect, but it was no latr than His resurrection.

 

Egad, Christ was not righteous blood?

You're a trip....

 

After His resurrection is one commonly held interpertation, at John 20:22. The other commonly held view is on Pentecost. John 20:22-23, Acts of the Apostles 1:8, Acts of the Apostles 2, per Matthew 3:11-12, John 16:7.

 

For me, it's a matter of connecting the dots. Israel had rejected the Messiah, and had Him crucified. Jesus pronounced their judgment in Matthew 23:35 "so that upon you will fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah..." This points to the coming tribulation and destruction of Jerusalem.

 

An important similar passage is found in Luke 11:46-52, ". . . And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. . . ."
Thank you for taking the time. Even if I cannot agree, I really need to understand the points of view I don't hold. Some times I can not connect said dots.

 

Very similar passage indeed, Brother. I was just reading the last couple of verses of that chapter. The scribes and Pharisees were really mad at Jesus after He had called them out on their hypocrisy, and they began to be very hostile to Him. I believe this is the "seed" of when they ultimately decided to have Him crucified. Backing up to verse 51, we see Jesus pronounced judgment against their generation, which came to pass with the Jewish Wars ending in AD 70. Honestly, I can't think of any other reason why God brought judgment on Jerusalem than their rejection of Christ.

I really appreciate this type of conversation, where we discuss our different views as brothers in Christ. Too often different views lead to insults and un-Christian behavior. Even if we never agree on this subject, you are a gentleman and a scholar, as well as a true brother in the faith.

 

Mavbe. I believe the Apostle John cited when they decided to put Jesus to death, John 11:48-53, ". . . If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. . . ." What was said in verse 48 is the reason for Jesus saying what He did as recorded in John 12:32.

 

Indeed, Good Sir. This was all according to the Father's plan. But, "woe to those cities" that He used (Matthew 11:20-21). In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounced "woe" to the scribes and Pharisees for then lamented over the coming destruction of Jerusalem. In context, we see that He is calling them out on their hypocrisy. But, when we come to vs. 31-36, we see Christ's upcoming crucifixion included in the offenses that would bring about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and effectively the end of the Old Covenant. At least, that's how I see it.

 

Salty, that link is absolute garbage.

 

I took a look at it again. It uses the date year of 33AD. Not an uncommon supposed year for the crucfixtion. Mark 14:12 was indeed a Friday that year. But if one really reads the text, that was day before that following evening Mark 14:17.