Jerusalem will be trampled by the nations until the Gentile Times are Fulfilled. — Luke 21:24

by Fisherman in

jerusalem will be trampled by the nations until the gentile times are fulfilled.

— luke 21:24 .

the bible book of luke records jesus prophecy of the last day with his parousia including the verse about the gentile times.

Vanderhoven7

The Time Of The Gentiles

Dan Delagrave

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." (Luke 21:24)

There has been much misunderstanding in the modern Church concerning "the times of the Gentiles." The correct interpretation must be consistent with both the immediate context and the greater weight of scripture.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32)

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh . . . and Jerusalem shall be trodden down (pateho) of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." (Luke 21:20, 24)

The times of the Gentiles referred to the treading down, or desolation, of first century Jerusalem, which Jesus called "the days of vengeance". In other words, it was God's mission for the Gentiles to bring judgment upon Jerusalem. This is consistent with past judgments upon Israel, when God brought Gentiles armies into their land to desolate it.

The whole controversy centers on the duration of the treading down of Jerusalem. The Greek for "trodden" is pat-eh'-o (#3961 in Strong's Concordance), and it means "to trample down underfoot". The parallel to Lk.21:24 is seen in Revelation 11:2, which says:

"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot (pateho) forty and two months." Rev 11:2

Could it be any plainer? The times of the Gentiles, or treading down of Jerusalem, entailed no more than a forty two month period of time, the exact duration of the Jewish-Roman War. This is in perfect harmony with Daniel 12:7, where the defining characteristic of "the time of the end" is said to be "the scattering of the power of the holy people", which we are told would be accomplished during "a time, times, and a half", or forty two months.

Furthermore, when we consider the mountain of evidence for a pre-70 dating of Revelation, in addition to the statements of imminence in the book itself (1:1, 3; 22:6, 7, 10, 12), then the forced conclusion is that the forty two months was fulfilled in the 66-70 A.D. Jewish-Roman War.

In the ancient Near East, the ultimate image of triumph over an enemy was the positioning of the enemy "under the feet" of the conqueror. Jerusalem's first century desolation represented the time when Christ put his enemies (see I Thessalonians 2:15-16)“ under his feet. This was accomplished during a forty two month period which Jesus called "the times of the Gentiles".

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

Vanderhoven7

Taking in blood products in any form is wrong in God's eyes.

I wonder if Orthodox Jews would agree with you...especially those who store their own blood for later transfusions, or those who find cattle that have died in their fields overnight. Too late to bleed the animal so I guess they have to go through the ordeal of taking a shower in the evening.

When the blood comes out of the body, it needs to be disposed of. End of story.

Really, where did Peter say that in Acts 15???? I thought that was only for Jews who actually did the killing. You are adding to the word E.P.

27

Selena Vertolomo "The Mower" and her sister Sherrie call into The Six Screens TIME STAMP 2:53

by RESPECTFUL OBSERVER in

jw
friends

selena vertolomo, former jehovah's witnesses who was sexually abused in watchtower, went to visit tony morris in north carolina.

selena and her sister call in and explain their position.

callers dial in from around the world and ask plenty of questions.

Vanderhoven7

What I did not get from either sister was what exactly they are accusing Tony Morris of. He is directly and personally responsible for what? ignoring CSA??? promoting CSA??? participating in CSA??? covering up CSA??? all of the above???

Was anything made clear to you?

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

Vanderhoven7

The point that you do not want to admit, as evidenced by your unwillingness to answer the question being asked is just this.

The doctor would not be upset with the patient for disobeying his instruction to abstain from meats, because the patient did not disobey that instruction by having a liver transplant.

Simple as that.

But what he did do by having that transplant, was receive billions of white blood cells from the organ donor.

So am I to gather that you also believe Jehovah is against organ transplants?

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

Vanderhoven7

@E.P.

Do you believe a doctor who told a patient to abstain from meat would be upset if he found out his patient later had a liver transplant?

"Whether that particular doctor in your illustration gets upset probably depends on whether the insurance provider was willing to completely pay him for the surgery or not"

This is not a joking matter E.P.

Why do you think the doctor would not be upset to learn his patient had a liver transplant? Could it be because his patient did not disobey his instructions? Do you think the patient disobeyed his instructions?

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

Vanderhoven7

@EP

Here are some direct answers to my questions

1. Should Christians ask conscience questions at a feast hosted in the home of a pagan who regularly eats meat previously sacrificed to idols?

Correct answer: No, unless there is a brother with a weak conscience present.

;

2. Should Christians ask conscience questions at a feast hosted in the home of a pagan who was known to enjoy eating things strangled?

Correct answer: No, unless there is a brother with a weak conscience present.

;

3. Did Jehovah allow Jews under the law to eat unbled meat if they found one of their flock or herd had died in their field?

Correct answer: Yes, provided they washed and changed their garments. Obviously not a serious defilement that would result in being cut off from God's people.

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

Vanderhoven7

Hi E.P.

"Keep abstaining from blood."

It seems you know alot about how God feels about this subject. Here are 6 questions I'd like clarification on.

1. Do you believe blood is always sacred to God? If a Jew had bled some blood from an animal without killing the animal, would the extracted blood have been acceptable as a sacred sacrifice to God?

2. Do you believe a doctor who told a patient to abstain from meat would be upset if the patient later had a liver transplant?

3. Do you believe a blood transfusion would be acceptable to Jehovah if it was the person's own blood that was stored for transfusion? If not, why not?

4. Do you believe Jehovah is against blood tests? Why or why not?

5. Do you believe Jehovah is against dialysis? Why or why not?

6. Do you believe Jehovah is against hemophiliacs using blood clotting fractions VIII and IX which are derived from the donated blood of others?

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

Vanderhoven7

Hi E.P.

Not all of the meat sold in the shambles was from the temple of idols. You don't think pagans had a taste for bloody meats. Should Christians have asked conscience questions at a feast hosted by a pagan who was known to enjoy things strangled?

Do you agree that it was alright for early Christians to eat meat even if it had previously been sacrificed to idols? If Acts 15:29 was a command, was that command rescinded...or was that simply wise instruction given to facilitate fellowship between Jew and Gentile believers, i.e., not stumbling a Jewish brother.

Do you agree that Jews could eat unbled meat if they found one of their flock or herd had died in their field?

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

Vanderhoven7

Hi E.P.

1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

1Co 10:24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.

1Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

1Co 10:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles - In the market. The meat of animals offered in sacrifice would be exposed there to sale as well as other meat. The apostle says that it might be purchased, since the mere fact that it had been offered in sacrifice could not change its quality, or render it unfit for use. They were to abstain from attending on the feasts of the idols in the temple, from partaking of meat that had been offered them, and from celebrations observed expressly in honor of idols; but lest they should become too scrupulous, the apostle tells them that if the meat was offered indiscriminately in the market with other meat, they were not to hesitate to purchase it, or eat it."

Asking no question for conscience’ sake - Not hesitating or doubting, as if it might possibly have been offered in sacrifice or strangled. Not being scrupulous, as if it were possible that the conscience should be defiled. This is a good rule still, and may be applied to a great many things.

So do you agree that it was alright for early Christians to eat meat even if it had previously been sacrificed to idols? If Acts 15:29 was a command, was that command rescinded...or was that wise instruction given to facilitate fellowship between Jew and Gentile believers, i.e., not stumbling a Jewish brother.

Do you agree that Jews could eat unbled meat if they found one of their flock or herd had died in their field?

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

Vanderhoven7

8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

10¶And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Matthew 11:8-11

Why did Paul say not to ask questions of

conscience when eating in the home of a pagan?

Vanderhoven7

Posts by Vanderhoven7

The Time Of The Gentiles