Hey Bill

[Barry]

I spent a little time over at "Bill's blog" and wow!
Some really nice stuff up there bro. Great job!
You are a real blessing!
How long you been working on that?
Barry
PS, For those interested you can find the address on Bill's profile.

[Bill]

Barry,

Thanks for the kind words. I've been developing the thoughts in my blog for all of the 30 years I've been a believer. From the very beginning I had strong doubts about the popular teaching on the Holy Spirit and the progressive nature of sanctification.

I think that I started the blog itself a little over a year ago. For me, it's just a place to record some of my thoughts on things that are important to me. I've also started my own commentary on the books of the bible. So far I have finished all of Colossians, 1 Thessalonians 4, part of Romans 10, and James 1 and 2.

I'm now working on Revelation 20 and also an article on the two gospels in the Narnia movie. All of it is from my own Preterist/Universalist perspective.

I'm glad you enjoyed your visit.

Bill

[Barry]

Hey Bill,
Is your commentary on James on your blog?
That would be very interesting (as well as the other stuff).
Looking forward to reading some of your stuff for sure.
I'll spend more time on your blog. It's time well spent.
Barry

[Bill]

Barry,

There should be an "archives" listing in the right hand column and it should have James 1 & 2. I also have 1 Corinthians 15 which I forgot to mention before.

Have fun,

Bill

[Barry]

Hey Bill,
I read your James 1 and really liked it. You work out from a strong eschatological unfolding and that IMO is good.
I see James' statement "a doer of the work" as their first-fruits mission which they did in love. Showing partiality would be the contrary to their oneness and common equality in Christ. Law mentality of favoritism would be the opposite.
Or looking down on the poor or the widows would be the same.

I'll hit some of your point on such things tomorrow in Jame 2.
Good stuff bro.
Is your work on Rev. 20 up there too?
Barry

[Bill]

Barry,

I really appreciate any input you have on anything I've written! Most of what I've said is original with me so it probably could use a lot of correction. :) I don't have Revelation 20 finished yet. It'll be up soon.

Bill

[Barry]

Hey Bill,
Went over your James 2 today. Really good stuff IMHO.
I know you don't mind me bring up some thoughts because your a cool cat about such things but I don't see much there that would warrant changing :). Just kinda chatting about it :)
You said,
"Under the new hybrid law, mixing Moses with Christ they are transgressors of the very law they are trying to uphold.

This is similar to the situation in Galatia where the Judaizers were trying to force the believers to live under the Law of Moses."

That is an interesting way of putting it.
Do you have any other thoughts on that, that you would want to share?
Do you see this because there was validity to old until AD 70 and therefore there was a "fulfilling of the law" in a sense?
It's a very intriguing time period in which these first century Christians find themselves in. The changeover of the ages so to speak.

Not to put you on the spot bro. just interested. :).
Barry

[Bill]

Barry,

Sorry I haven't replied to this sooner. Somehow or other I just missed your post until now.

And thanks for "putting me on the spot!" :clap2: I sincerely love being challenged. I hold my views of the scriptures very loosely and I am very open to changing my mind. This is especially true with what I have said about James. My commentaries are not the result of reading what other people have said so I think my ideas are going to be pretty unique and that means they are going to be pretty questionable as well. :o

Sooo ... you asked,


Do you see this because there was validity to old until AD 70 and therefore there was a "fulfilling of the law" in a sense?
It's a very intriguing time period in which these first century Christians find themselves in. The changeover of the ages so to speak.

One of the areas of Preterism where I still feel uncomfortable is the understanding the nature of the "changeover" period. My own (for now at least) view is that the Law of Moses lost all validity when Christ completely fulfilled its demands on the cross. In 70ad God gave a decisive demonstration in a physical way that the Law was finished. I'm not sure why He waited those 40 years. I know that it parallels Israel's earlier period of testing under Moses, so I guess this "changeover" period is one of testing also.

In the wilderness Israel was being tested concerning their freedom from Egypt. Many wanted to go back to the security of Egypt rather than rest in trusting that Yahweh would provide for them. In the same way I think that the 1st century Jewish believers were being tested concerning their freedom from the Law. Many wanted to go back to the security of the Law rather than rest in trusting the Yahweh would provide for them based on their acceptance in Christ.

Anyway, I don't think that the Old Way had any "validity" after the cross. I just don't think that the work of the cross had been clearly explained until the Scriptures had been completed and the Law had been physically, visually, and obviously destroyed in the sight of all men in 70ad.

My view of the "hybrid" law is that it is not limited to the interim period. It is alive and well today! Those who deny the completed witness of the Scriptures and the physical testimony of God in 70ad still try to mix law and grace today. I don't really see any difference between their time period and ours. I have personally been kick out of synagogues and persecuted for my beliefs by those who think they are serving the Law of God. Until people recognize the truths of 70ad I don't think we'll ever escape the changeover period.

How'd I do?

Bill

P.S. Thanks for calling me a cool cat. That made my day! :cool:

[Barry]

That is interesting Bill.
If ya don't mind Bill check out this completely outrageous thread I started called spiritual and physical. See my comments on the law.
I say that because that will give you an idea of my wacky thinking LOL.
I hold to a greater validity of the law until AD 70. It will be interesting to chat with you on these things but first if you will take a look over that thread.
It is very new this tread so I may be challenged there myself very soon :) for such wacky ideas.
This is great bro!!!
See ya soon there or here or somewhere else :)
Barry

[Amie]

Bill,

I agree that the OC law had not validity pertaining to atonement after the cross. I think that the reason for the 40 years was so the rest of God's plan would come to being. The Gospel was witnessed so the elect would be saved from accountability under the OC. After that was done, the OC law passed away completely imo. The destruction of the temple was evidence of a completion, rather than the completion itself.

I agree that people still mix law and Grace. I do not believe that those who place themselves under law will be held accountable by God by that law in the future. I'm open as well to learning new things and very interested in your thoughts on this.

Were the Gentiles of that day who placed religious laws on themselves, held accountable by God under their laws, or was there only accountability as per Mosaic laws? Why? Why were the people who choose to remain under the Mosaic law held accountable by that law? Does God hold people to their sets of laws today (ie, full immersion baptism, the sacraments, etc)?

Thanks,

Amie

[Bill]

Amie,

Those are great questions. I have much to learn from you. Please be patient with me as we explore these ideas because we seem to have very different backgrounds and perspectives and there will be lots of room for misunderstanding. :confused:

That being said, I'm even more sure that we are in substantial agreement on the things we consider most important. :biggrinbounce:

Now here's what I have to say about your questions.


Were the Gentiles of that day who placed religious laws on themselves, held accountable by God under their laws, or was there only accountability as per Mosaic laws?

My understanding is that no one will ever be held accountable by God in any way. Jesus bore our accountablity on the cross. One of my favorite bumper sticker type sayings is "Jesus is my Promise Keeper.


Why?

Since Jesus took our place on the cross it would be like double jeopardy for us to be still accountable in any way.


Why were the people who choose to remain under the Mosaic law held accountable by that law?

Ummm, they weren't held accountable by that law. That law had been abolished. They may have held themselves and each other accountable but the law didn't and God didn't and neither should we.


Does God hold people to their sets of laws today (ie, full immersion baptism, the sacraments, etc)?

No God doesn't. There is no accountablity today. Did I say that already? :D

Okay, now that I have clarified some things I'm sure you have many more questions so fire away. I know my position is extreme, and therefore extremely hard to defend, but I'll be glad to try. :fence:
I really do appreciate this opportunity to learn from you guys about the period before 70ad.

Bill

[Barry]

Hey Bill.
Here is a small portion of a book I'm writting. It deals with some of the differences between the Jew's and the Gentiles between the cross and the destruction of the temple.
Hope you don't mind. Tell me what ya think bro.

Quote:
This changeover of covenants is often overlooked by many Bible students. Many think that the Old Covenant vanished away at the death of Christ. It is indeed true that the New Covenant was initiated in some way at the cross and resurrection of Christ. This however did not finish the changeover of the covenants but began the changeover. [Nevertheless the new “age” does not officially begin until the old “age” has passed away.] Once again this is seen as veil of the temple was torn in two at Christ’s death the and not one stone of this temple was left upon another at the destruction of Jerusalem. The fact that there is a changeover taking place while the New Testament is being written is also evident in the development of the 1st century church.

In the very beginning following Pentecost (in Acts chapter 2), there were no Gentile (non Jewish) churches for several years. At this time the Gospel was being preached exclusively to the “circumcision” (to the Jews). Getting baptized into Christ pretty much meant that you were a Jew. It took a special sign from God to make the point clear that Gentiles could be Baptized without getting circumcised first (Acts 10:45-48). Latter on, the Gentiles are included, and then churches are established all over the Roman world.

In the changeover of the covenants, the Jewish Christians practiced circumcision but the Gentiles were not permitted to do so. Paul forbids the Gentiles in the churches of Galatia to accept circumcision. Concurrently Paul and James (the brother of Jesus and elder in the church in Jerusalem Acts 21:18), both agree that the Jewish Christians should “walk after the customs of Moses”, be “zealous of the law” and “circumcise their children” (Acts 21:18-24). Paul commences Jewish purification rights to make these points public to everyone. Both James and Paul are also in agreement that concerning the “customs of Moses”, the Gentiles should “observe no such things” (Acts 21:25, Gal. 3:1-4, 4:9-11).

During the changeover of the covenants, the Jews were observing the customs of Moses, and the Gentiles were for the most part, forbidden to focus their attention toward the natural things of Israel. The Gentiles were however being included in the “spiritual things” of Israel (Rom. 11:17, 15:27). These spiritual things would be fully realized for both Jew and Gentile, at the end of the Old Covenant.

There are many evidences of a Covenantal changeover taking place in the 1st century church. We have just introduced a little of the subject here so that we can begin to show some of the problems associated with denying the Covenant changeover that was then taking place. The problem with denying the changeover at the time of the writing of the New Testament is that we must then conclude that even the Jewish Christians of today, should still be walking “after the customs of Moses”, be “zealous of the law” and “circumcise their children”. To deny the changeover is really to say that everything is still the same as it was back in Acts chapter 21.

To accept that there were some changes taking place that relate to the old and new covenants, opens the door for seeing the fuller changeover of the covenants.
How could the Jewish Christians “walk after the customs of Moses” and be “zealous for the law” if the Old Covenant had already passed away? If we see the Old Covenant passing away at the end of the temple of that generation, then this settles the problem of having Christians of today, who are recognized as being Jews, still under the customs of Moses.

The Christian Jews of the 1st century were “zealous of the law” because they still saw in the practice of these natural things, which they had been entrusted with, the spiritual things that were then enfolding. They saw in the types and figures and shadows of these practices, the unfolding spiritual and permanent things that were coming in. This was their way of celebrating what was still coming in, during the changeover. The Gentiles however were not to enter into the practice of the natural elements or rudiments of the Old Covenant “world” (Gal. 4:3,9; Col. 2:8,20). Peter warned that the Old Covenant world and the “elements” and “works” “therein” were about to be “burnt up” (2 Pet. 10-12).
End quote.

Barry

PS that was a bit long eh. Sorry bro.

[davo]

hey Barry, you've got "paragraphs" -- it's great!! :biglaugha: lol

[Barry]

hey Barry, you've got "paragraphs" -- it's great!! :biglaugha: lol

I love you man!

I know that you were very busy else where doing very good things.

Can't say that I'm sorry that you have more time now.

Wouldn't want to miss you too much.

Barry

[davo]

lol Barry :) Actually the last 24hours has been crazy - I was intermittantly checking in here and posting last night while at work. Then when I got home this morning in stead of getting off to sleep I had to run my wife up to the hospital for a day procedure; then take my son who has been home since being in hospital, up to his school for some special presentation; then come home and pick up my wife from the hospital; then do a whole buch of extra running around for her - so no sleep thus far and going slightly more crazy than I was last night -- and all of that without any paragraphs :D

[Barry]

You and family are always in my prayers.
Barry

[Amie]

Bill,

I think Barry covered the interim pretty well as per my view as well. What was in the process of "passing" (Hebrew 8:13) had not yet "passed", although it was "ready to vanish".

When the Old Covenant system passed away in full, those keeping the law would pass away with it. I had always seen this as accountability, though I concede that might not be just so.

If everything was accomplished at the cross in your view, why would Jesus need to return at all?

Thanks again,

Amie

(Hoping Davo finally got some shut-eye)

[Bill]

Okay Barry,

I tried really hard to find something to disagree with in the portion of your book that you've quoted. Unfortunately I agree that there was a changeover period just as you've said. I think that the problem we run into is that there are no post-changeover writings. The Scriptures were completed at just the time the changeover ended. Because of this we have no writings about what the end of the changeover means for us.

All of the Scriptures are pre-changeover and that leaves us in the difficult posititon of not knowing what still applies post-changeover. I, personally, pretty much apply everthing post-cross to our current situation. As I've said before, I believe that the Old Covenant was done away with on the cross. This was not made perfectly clear to the Jews until the destruction of Jerusalem and all the physical remnants of the Law.

Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles as well as being a Hebrew of Hebrews made numerous concessions to his people. I think that he made these concessions due to their ignorance of the passing away of the Old Way. Once the passing away was made obvious in 70ad there was no longer any need for these concessions.

Here are some verses that talk about the need for concessions (freedom and liberty.)

1 Corinthians 8:1-13

1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.

2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know;

3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.

9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.

12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

And also

1 Corinthians 9:20-22

20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.


So what about those who are still living under the Law today. Do you know anybody like this? I contend that we are still living in a changeover of sorts because many still don't understand the message of 70ad. With those who lack understanding we should continue to be as gracious as Paul was with the ignorant in Corinth. After all, weren't we ignorant of the end of the Law at one time also? Even Peter and James had a hard time understanding what the passing away meant.

I guess what I'm saying is that the changeover is not one of the actually passing from Law to Grace but rather a passing from ignorance of grace into a full knowledge that Law had become grace. This changeover is happening to many today as they become aware of the truth of 70ad. Let us pray that we can be as gracious as Paul was with those who are still coming to understand.

Okay, now I've given you lots of areas where we can disagree and disagreement, if done well, leads to learning and knowledge.

Looking forward to your response,

Bill

[Amie]

Bill,

If everything was accomplished at the cross in your view, why would Jesus need to return at all?

1 Cor 13
12 For now we see through a mirror in dimness, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will fully know even as I also was fully known.
13 And now faith, hope, and love, these three things remain; but the greatest of these is love.

Isn't the above defining what would "remain" after the interim?

Thanks,

Amie

[Barry]

Really good points Bill.
And as always is the case, some of the apparent differences are merely in the words and terms or it is one is focusing on 12 mm (half inch) to the right of center and the other 12 mm to the left of an issue that is 1.6 km (1 mile) wide.

Wow that can be understood internationally LOL.

However ( :rofl: ), IMHO the issue of silence is to me a reason to go back and re-think everything.

There are IMO 2 possible reasons for that silence.
1) There was enough information given in the practises of the interim period to show us the way to continue on in a somewhat similar set up.
2) So much changed that silence was the only answer.

What has been called "preterism" or "full preterism" has so far leaned toward number 1.

My view is more like number 2. The new age does not officially exist until the old is fully gone. The age about to be. This is where everyone is judged according to their works and is the end of this judgment. Otherwise those who came through could not rest from their works and their reward would not have been given as their works would not have been finished.

Bill:
"All of the Scriptures are pre-changeover and that leaves us in the difficult position of not knowing what still applies post-changeover. I, personally, pretty much apply everything post-cross to our current situation. As I've said before, I believe that the Old Covenant was done away with on the cross. This was not made perfectly clear to the Jews until the destruction of Jerusalem and all the physical remnants of the Law."

Bill, I'm seeing more that the physical remnant here:
Rom. 13:11-12
Rom. 16:20
1 Cor. 2:6 "rulers of this age that are coming to nothing"
1 Cor. 7:29-31
1 Cor. 13:12 "but then, face to face"
1 Cor. 15:54-56 "then shall be brought to pass"..."The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law"
2 Cor. 3:18 "being transformed from glory to glory"
Gal. 1:4 "might deliver us from this present evil age"
Gal. 5:5 "we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness"
Eph. 1:14 "until the redemption of the purchased possession"
Phil. 3:12 "not that I have already attained, or am already perfected, but I press on"
Phil. 3:21 "who will transform our lowly body"
Heb. 9:13 "that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance"
Heb. 9:26-28 The sacrifice is not considered complete or accepted until the high priest appeared a second time to the people.
Etc, etc.

What I do then in my own thinking is look for a change in AD 70 that merits silence.
So great is the silence that the biblical record itself does not record the end but relies on secular or outside sources to do it.
This itself may have meaning. Why is it that no further record would be needed? What Christendom has done for 1900 years is look back to the interim period as a model for continuance. But look at the history of Christendom! Not a pretty sight.
Even Preterism very much tries to perform the same thing.
This is just my view bro. but I think that the change upon the face of the world was so great that silence was the only alternative.

Sorry to load you down with a pile of scriptures Bill. I know you know them all and I respect that fact greatly. Just presenting my own view for further chat about those 12 mm. :)
Barry

[Bill]

Amie,

I'm not sure I understand your questions but I'll try to say something appropriate. ;) We might have very different ways of understanding this interim period and it may take me a while to understand your view well enough to communicate fully. Please be patient with me.


Bill,

If everything was accomplished at the cross in your view, why would Jesus need to return at all?

1 Cor 13
12 For now we see through a mirror in dimness, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will fully know even as I also was fully known.
13 And now faith, hope, and love, these three things remain; but the greatest of these is love.

Isn't the above defining what would "remain" after the interim?



I think that Jesus returned in 70ad in order to present a physical object lesson to the world that the Old Covenant was finished. Now I need help with understanding your view. What else do you think His return accomplished?

Also, I think I agree that "the above is defining what would 'remain' after the interim." Did you think that I would disagree and if so why?

These are great questions and I'm sure that trying to answer them will help us to know Him better.

Bill

[Amie]

I'm not sure I understand your questions but I'll try to say something appropriate.

Any old answer will do :).


We might have very different ways of understanding this interim period and it may take me a while to understand your view well enough to communicate fully. Please be patient with me.

My new friend, I am just a student like you. It is good that our teacher is patient, since we never really graduate! haha!


I think that Jesus returned in 70ad in order to present a physical object lesson to the world that the Old Covenant was finished. Now I need help with understanding your view. What else do you think His return accomplished?

I think that Jesus began to come in the 1st century church and after his coming was completed (he then being fully present), the old system passed away. I feel that the destruction of Jerusalem evidenced that. Maybe we're just talking symmantics.

He gathered his elect that they would not suffer when the old system passed.
I'm going to think more about this though.


Also, I think I agree that "the above is defining what would 'remain' after the interim." Did you think that I would disagree and if so why?

I thought it was relevant to
Because of this we have no writings about what the end of the changeover means for us.

My upbringing wasn't the norm either and I am still learning a lot of the lingo myself. Many of these fine folks were patient with me as I figured out that a "paradigm" (pair-uh-dime) wasn't a "paradigm" (pair-uh-dig-um), hahahaha!!! Most of the words in the glossary at womenbeyond.com are there because I had to look 'em up myself and thought to save others the trouble! haha!

I also understand what it is like to ask an honest question only to be accused of trying to make a point or something, lol! I didn't experience that with any folks here though :).

Anyhow, as long as we're both working toward understanding one another, it's bound to happen sometime!

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Hi Hi,
I am just mostly lurking, but have a question. When you talk about the interim period, is that from the cross to 70 AD or after 70 AD?
And are some of you saying that the silence after this period is what is so important, because this shows that everything was indeed finished? So there isn't anything else to write about???
ps. Bill, love your blog!
Nancy:rolleyes:

[Barry]

Hey Nancy
"Bill, love your blog!"
Ain't is awesome!!! A truly excellent source of material but that's JMO :). A lot of work has gone into it.

"is that from the cross to 70 AD?"
You guessed it sis.

"And are some of you saying that the silence after this period is what is so important, because this shows that everything was indeed finished?"
That would be my take on it. The whole silence thing does get very interesting for sure. It can be looked at from several different vantage points.

Barry

[Bill]

Barry, :rofl:

I'll be happy to go back and rethink everything. I do that most everyday anyhow already. I must confess that I don't really understand what is meant by "2) So much changed that silence was the only answer."

You said,


My view is more like number 2. The new age does not officially exist until the old is fully gone. The age about to be. This is where everyone is judged according to their works and is the end of this judgment. Otherwise those who came through could not rest from their works and their reward would not have been given as their works would not have been finished.

So I take it you are saying that no one could rest from their works until after 70ad? If that is what you are saying then how do you understand ...

Hebrews 4:10

For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

You said,


Bill:
"All of the Scriptures are pre-changeover and that leaves us in the difficult position of not knowing what still applies post-changeover. I, personally, pretty much apply everything post-cross to our current situation. As I've said before, I believe that the Old Covenant was done away with on the cross. This was not made perfectly clear to the Jews until the destruction of Jerusalem and all the physical remnants of the Law."

Bill, I'm seeing more that the physical remnant here:

Okay, fine. Let me see if I can relate each verse to some sort of physical remnant.

Rom. 13:11-12

Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is near Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.

I guess you are referring to the salvation of 70ad. When all of the physical remains of the Law were destroyed the believers were saved from persecution by the unbelieving Jews who were trying to get them to obey the Law of Moses.

Rom. 16:20

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Satan was crushed by the destruction of the physical remains of the Law. Satan uses the Law to accuse believers. When the Law was destroyed he was left with no basis for accusation.

1 Cor. 2:6 "rulers of this age that are coming to nothing"

The rulers of this age lost all power when the physical remains of the Law were destroyed. There was no temple. There were no genealogies. It was obvious that the Law was done away with.

1 Cor. 7:29-31

But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.

The form of this world refers to the physical remains of the Law of Moses.

1 Cor. 13:12 "but then, face to face"

"Face to face" means that the revelation of Jesus Christ has been completed.

1 Cor. 15:54-56 "then shall be brought to pass"..."The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law"

Once the physical remains of the Law of Moses were destroyed there was no reason to fear death as a result of disobedience.

2 Cor. 3:18 "being transformed from glory to glory"

I'm not sure how this is a reference to 70ad.

Gal. 1:4 "might deliver us from this present evil age"

The destruction of the physical remains of the Law of Moses delivered us from the temptation to go back to the safety of the Law and disarmed those who used the Law to accuse us.

Gal. 5:5 "we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness"

With the fall of Jerusalem the believers were shown to be both right in there belief that the Law was done away with and also proved that righteousness only came through faith.

Eph. 1:14 "until the redemption of the purchased possession"

Redemption refers to the purchase of those who were slaves of the Law of Moses. This happened at the cross and was made publicly obvious with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad.

Phil. 3:12 "not that I have already attained, or am already perfected, but I press on"

I think this is referring to attaining full knowledge of his acceptance in Christ.

Phil. 3:21 "who will transform our lowly body"

I believe this happened in 70ad. Those who were humiliated (made low) by their failure to keep the Law of Moses were glorified by their faith in Christ's abolishing of the Law.

Heb. 9:13 "that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance"

The destruction of Jerusalem destroyed the conditional nature of the inheritance. It is no longer based on obeying the Law. It is based on faith that the Law was abolished by Christ.

Heb. 9:26-28 The sacrifice is not considered complete or accepted until the high priest appeared a second time to the people.

This one is a little over my head. You may have to explain what this verse means to you and then I will attempt an answer.

You said,


Etc, etc.

Keep 'em coming. I'll do my best to keep up.

You said,


What I do then in my own thinking is look for a change in AD 70 that merits silence.
So great is the silence that the biblical record itself does not record the end but relies on secular or outside sources to do it.
This itself may have meaning. Why is it that no further record would be needed? What Christendom has done for 1900 years is look back to the interim period as a model for continuance. But look at the history of Christendom! Not a pretty sight.
Even Preterism very much tries to perform the same thing.

I have no idea why you think "that no further record would be needed." Please help me to understand. I really don't think that "Christendom has ever looked back to the interim period as a model for continuance." I think that Christendom has looked back at the pre-interim period and has interpreted the interim period through pre-interim period glasses. We can't seem to get beyond the Law of Moses to faith in Christ.

Okay, I'm worn out for now. I'll give you a turn to speak. :eek:

Bill

P.S. How do you like my "cool cat" avatar?

[Barry]

Hey Bill, this place is keeping us kinda busy. LOL.
That's good, I like the fellowship bro.




P.S. How do you like my "cool cat" avatar?


I'm thinking of changing mine. But don't know what to put.
Is that like tiger from Winnie The Poo? (don't know the spelling).
It's really bad being called Winnie but man alive, when you're called "The Poo" on top of that!! :rofl:

I put too many scriptures up with little clarification. Oh well, my bad.

Maybe start by looking closer at one or two at a time and see where it takes us.
If I got time tomorrow, would like to post up some Hebrews stuff like on the "rest". Just a thought, I'll see tomorrow (too late tonight and will give me time to read over your points my brother).
But don't wait for me if ya got something else of interest to say, just go for it bro, or talk about your next project or writing if ya want. Enjoy your self here, got your name on it :biggrinbounce:
Barry

[Bill]

Barry,

It's not Tiger from Winnie the Pooh. It's Hobbes from Calvin and Hobbes. Calvin is the ultimate bratty little kid and Hobbes is his faithful stuffed animal who stick by him no matter what. I guess it's sort of like Winnie the Pooh but with a touch of grace thrown in. You can read more here.

http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/

Take your time responding to my points on the verses you brought up. I think that our understanding of the interim period is very, very important. It touches on just about every aspect of life. This discussion could last quite a while.

Bill

[Barry]

I think that our understanding of the interim period is very, very important. It touches on just about every aspect of life. This discussion could last quite a while.

Bill
Good point Bill.
I'll take the initiative (hope ya don't mind) and start a new thread called "The Interim Period" under Biblical Impressions. This will free this thread up for others, and other points and comments from your great blog. It will keep this thread more "Chatty" until it starts another thread idea LOL.
Also others may have many different points on the interim period and so it will open it up a bit more IMO. This is a good topic bro to have more attention brought to it (IMO too).
Barry

PS. Typical "Barry" to bring up Pooh when grace is really the topic. :)

[Bill]

Hi Nancy,

I'm glad you've been able to get something out of my blog! I think the reason for the silence is that God has finished His work in person and He has left (physically) so that we can be His hands and share in His work of transforming the world into His loving image. He has said all He needed to say and now He speaks through His body, us. :biggrinbounce:

Good questions,

Bill