please do not start with the faulty grammar arguments again.
There's nothing faulty about antecedents. You said you received A's in English. Your course(s) must have included antecedents.
Upvote
0
please do not start with the faulty grammar arguments again.
It does not say spirit of antichrist in 1John2:18.That is not referring to an individual Antichrist. That is referring to the spirit of antichrist that is in all of the many antichrists and was already in the world in John's time.
Yes. And Messiah the Prince is not the antecedent of the prince who shall come.There's nothing faulty about antecedents. You said you received A's in English. Your course(s) must have included antecedents.
Where did I say that the physical temple was holy in 70 AD? I did not.
It was still holy at the time Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse, so that's why He could still call it "the holy place" at that time.
But, it would no longer be holy and no longer be a place where God would meet with His people shortly after that when He died on the cross and the veil of the temple was torn in two to signify the end of the old covenant and ushering in of the new covenant.
Tell me, do you understand that the temple buildings that the disciples were marveling at were the actual physical temple buildings that were standing at that time? Do you understand that Jesus had just left one of the actual physical temple buildings before the disciples marveled at them?
Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
The context here is clearly regarding the actual physical temple buildings that were standing at that time. Obviously, Jesus didn't depart from the spiritual temple and the disciples were clearly not marveling at the spiritual temple of God. You get that, right?
You do know that Jerusalem and the temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD, don't you?
It showed how Jesus knew the future and knew exactly what He was talking about which is something to celebrate.
Now, this is where the preterists get things wrong, though. They think Jesus was only asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed, but He wasn't. He was also asked about His coming and the end of the age, which have not yet occurred. So, He talked about both events.
The prince who shall come will be of those people.If it was talking about some future Antichrist it wouldn't make sense to call people who lived almost 2,000 years ago his people.
Yes. And the prince who shall come is not the antecedent of Messiah the Prince.
Messiah the Prince is in verse 25. Messiah cutoff is in verse 26. The prince who shall come is after the Messiah has been cutoff. And will be a Roman.
Yes. And the prince who shall come is not the antecedent of Messiah the Prince.
Messiah the Prince is in verse 25. Messiah cutoff is in verse 26. The prince who shall come is after the Messiah has been cutoff. And will be a Roman.
Oh, so grammar isn't important to you? Noted. Without giving any consideration to grammar, you can make scripture say whatever you want, so it's not surprising that you wouldn't care about proper grammar.please do not start with the faulty grammar arguments again.
No big deal. Just another example of you missing something obvious.okay, I stand corrected. You did refer to John.
And here you are denying the obvious again. The concept of interpreting scripture with scripture is truly lost on you. It's why you are wrong about everything.It does not say spirit of antichrist in 1John2:18.
Them John was speaking to were already aware that antichrist singular was coming.
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
When did I say the city killed the prophets? Stop wasting your time making straw man arguments, TribulationSigns!Christ did not say that. He already considered the city desolate.
Mat 23:37-38
(37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
(38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
The city did not kill the prophets. It's PEOPLE, Spiritual Jew!
No, I don't. Jesus was clearly speaking of the earthly city of Jerusalem where He was and of the physical temple buildings standing at that time. You probably don't even recognize that He was speaking of the people of earthly Jerusalem being killed and of that city being destroyed in Luke 19:41-44, but He clearly was.Not accurate. God will not meet with the Jews later to destroy a physical city. You got the timing and temple wrong.
What in the world are you talking about? Why are you not specifically addressing anything I said? Let me try again. Please stop going off on tangents and specifically address what I'm saying for once.Yeah after Christ told the Jews to destroy the temple when they thought He was talking about the physical temple that they need to rebuild in 46 years. That was what disciples thought too!
It doesn't take much spiritual discernment to see that it was the physical temple that Jesus went out of and the physical temple that the disciples were marveling at and the physical temple that Jesus said would be destroyed. You're just trying too hard to show how spiritual you are. You can't just spiritualize every verse in scripture. I know Premils take too much literally and I've pointed that out to them many times, but you go too far the other way and take too much in a spiritual sense even when it's literal.Of course, like Christ's disciples before the filling with the Holy Spirit, the natural man would look at this and think that God was speaking about a physical temple building...
You don't need to explain to me the concept of the spiritual temple of God as if you're my teacher, which you are not. I already understand all of that. I just happen to not believe that the Olivet Discourse is about that. But, plenty of other scripture is about that and I don't deny it....Let me explain... with TONS of Scripture so consider wisely...
Oh brother. You went from being overly spiritual before to overly literal here. You share something in common with Premils in that way....but the spiritual man knows God speaks of the congregation as a temple and those within it as the stones of that Temple. That's not something I made up, that's a Biblical fact. And as far as the prophecy, and despite suppositions to the contrary, our Lord was very specific saying not only that "not one stone would be left standing one upon another of it, but further amplified it by saying they (the stones one upon another) would all (BAR NONE) be thrown down! Even by using the vaunted secular history books we know of a certainty that more than one stone was left standing one upon another after AD 70.
Too many people are ignorant of the hyperbolic language that is sometimes used in scripture that isn't meant to be interpreted in a hyper literal fashion like you're doing.Moreover, there were (and let's not forget this) many stones of the physical city Jerusalem left standing one upon another. Again, the qualifying prophecy was that "not one stone would be left standing one upon another. Too many people want to "ignore" this qualification because it doesn't fit or conform to their personal/private interpretations of this prophecy taking place in AD 70.
LOL! You have to be kidding me here. Yes, people like the Pharisees and chief priests were enemies of Jerusalem, but so were the Romans! Why do you act as if it can't be both? How can you deny that the Romans were their enemies? Do you somehow not know that the Romans oppressed the Jews in those days? Of course the Romans were their enemies.I will quote again...so please read carefully:
Luke 19:41-46
Today, many Christians refuse to hear the part where Christ unambiguously says the city shall be laid even with the ground and her children within her. It's very willfully convenient to leave that part out. Tell me, WHO TRULY were the enemies of Jerusalem and how were they compassed round about her? Who truly brought the city to desolation? Was it the Romans, or was it those who would smite the Shepherd? Which one? Only by comparing scripture with scripture will we ever know the "TRUE" answer to that. No, it's NOT the Romans!
- "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
- Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
- For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
- And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
- And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
- Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."
They are related, but 1John2:18 is referring to the person of antichrist.1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
So, these say that they heard antichrist would come and that spirit of antichrist would come. There is no basis for thinking that these verses aren't directly related.
Do you know what you are ignoring? That the Jews are looking for their messiah, someone other than Jesus. They are also desiring to rebuild their temple.But, you just completely ignore all of that.
Why was the spirit of antichrist already in the world almost 2,000 years ago if the actual antichrist wouldn't come until at least about 2,000 years later? That makes no sense. You're just denying the obvious here and not taking everything that John said about the term "antichrist" into account and there's nothing anyone can do to stop you from being ignorant about this.They are related, but 1John2:18 is referring to the person of antichrist.
1John4:3 is referring to the spirit of antichrist, that will characterize the person of antichrist the singular person.
Why does that matter? Scripture matters. There's nothing about that in scripture other than it does say that false Christs would come around. But, there's nothing about unbelieving Jews building a temple.Do you know what you are ignoring? That the Jews are looking for their messiah, someone other than Jesus. They are also desiring to rebuild their temple.
The spirit of antichrist was in the world already 2000 years ago because Jesus the Christ had come, and was being denied by them who had departed being among believers.Why was the spirit of antichrist already in the world almost 2,000 years ago if the actual antichrist wouldn't come until at least about 2,000 years later?
It matters because the 70 weeks are determined upon Daniel's people, the Jews, and upon Jerusalem.Why does that matter? Scripture matters. There's nothing about that in scripture other than it does say that false Christs would come around. But, there's nothing about unbelieving Jews building a temple.
And there were many of them, as he said. Regardless of whether or not they heard or believed that only one antichrist was coming, the fact is that many antichrists came already in John's day and there have been many ever since. John simply did not teach anything about the coming of a singular Antichrist.The spirit of antichrist was in the world already 2000 years because Jesus the Christ had come, and was being denied by them who had departed being believers.
1John2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
An antichrist as John described were at one time believers, who went out from being believers.
The 70 weeks are already fulfilled. Jesus confirmed the new covenant with His blood long ago which put an end to the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings.It matters because the 70 weeks are determined upon Daniel's people, the Jews, and upon Jerusalem.
Do you believe this future sanctuary that you believe will be built would be a temple that God ordains?The daily sacrifice can only take place, and stopped, when there is a temple standing.
The little horn - vision which John saw, to take place at the time of the end - the sanctuary will be trodden under foot.
Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
John was likening them to the coming singular antichrist, who will be anointed the King of Israel coming in his own name.And there were many of them, as he said. Regardless of whether or not they heard or believed that only one antichrist was coming, the fact is that many antichrists came already in John's day and there have been many ever since. John simply did not teach anything about the coming of a singular Antichrist.