Preterism-phony as a Ford Corvette

robycop3 said:

No, it's not. There's not one "This account is true" among later references to it.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the commentators I cited who themselves cited and quoted Josephus, did not believe his account to be true??

Thanks for the guffaw du jour.

robycop3 said:

the temple the Jews will build will be viewed by tham as a temple of God, & most of the world will call it such.

Click to expand...

That means nothing. It would have to be something that Paul would consider to be the temple of God and some pointless temple built by unbelieving Jews would not qualify! Period.

Now, the event of 2 Thess.2 MUST occur, as it didn't occur in the past. Now, while the coming jewish temple may not be an actual temple of God, the AOD will occur in it, as God told Paul.

Click to expand...

This is complete nonsense! Paul did not refer to some temple that is not the actual temple of God. Stop twisting scripture to fit your doctrine. He was referring to something that is the actual temple of God or else he wouldn't have called it "the temple of God" and he would have made it clear that he was talking about some fake temple of God instead.

We are the temple of God!

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

You are not letting scripture interpret scripture for you. That's a common problem on this forum.

Hammster said:

He came on the clouds, as He said.

Click to expand...

How did the angels already gather the elect "from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven"?

robycop3 said:

The AOD did NOT occur in the old temple, but it WILL occur, & there must be a temple for it to occur in.

Click to expand...

If you understood that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 then maybe you would understand. How do you interpret Luke 21:20-24?

Not twisting Scripture at all. Here are the verses: 2 Thess.2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.(I don't use the outdated KJV.)

Click to expand...

I'm not some KJV only person in case that's what you were thinking. I try to quote scripture in whatever translation that I think the person I'm talking to uses or will accept as trustworthy so that they can see that what I'm telling them is taught even in their own preferred translation. So, I'll try to remember that you prefer the NKJV in the future and I'll quote from that instead when I quote scripture to you.

The falling away is occurring right now. "The" man of sin will be revealed shortly. The context clearly shows he will be a man, one man. He will oppose both the real God & idols alike. Now there MUST be a temple for him to sit in. That's common sense. No twisting of Scripture here.

Click to expand...

The twisting of scripture has to do with the fact that we're talking about the temple of God here. You still have not come up with any explanation for how a future physical temple built by unbelieving Jews could possibly be something that Paul would call "the temple of God". That's the problem I'm having with your interpretation. Do you understand what I'm saying or do you need me to spell it out even more?

I think you see the falling away is occurring now, with the accepting of sexual perversion, gender-benders, fornication, very weak church services, etc.

Click to expand...

Right.

so you know that's very-literal. So why should anyone not believe V4 is just-as-literal? (The verses weren't numbered in Paul's letter, so they go together.) Sorry, Mate; reason & reality is against your view.

Click to expand...

The spiritual temple of God is very literal and real, Mate. Your line of reasoning here is ridiculous. Very often scripture contains a mix of literal and figurative text. That is undeniable. So, we have to discern which is which.

You said reason and reality is against my view? Then prove it. So far you haven't come close to doing so. You have not done ANYTHING to show that some useless and meaningless temple built by unbelieving Jews could possibly be something that Paul would call the temple of God.

Ed Parenteau said:

Could you make your case using scripture, as I'm not sure how you're drawing your conclusions.

Click to expand...

2 Peter 3:10

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

God could only burn certain things or many things can be burned up as collateral damage. There are several places in Revelation where the water is turned to blood or made into a non-potable substance. This time of GT will leave the earth nearly uninhabitable in many places.

robycop3 said:

Not one of them said it was.

Click to expand...

Your post is false.

It does not begin with "This post is true".

Of course, that statement would also be false.

In addition, all of your past posts are false.

None of them begins with "This post is true".

The "Man of Sin", or the "Man of Lawlessness" (anomias) in 2 Thess. 2 was a first-century Zealot. It is a prophecy that was fulfilled long ago while Herod's temple was still standing. For Paul to call Herod's temple "the temple of God" was simply an anachronism - giving it the name that the Jews of that time were familiar with so they would recognize what Paul was talking about, even though that physical temple structure was no longer of any spiritual significance since Christ had become the foundation of the True spiritual Temple not made with hands.

Here is how to prove that the "Man of Lawlessness" was a first-century Zealot. We know that Christ was crucified between two thieves who had taken part in an insurrection against Rome, (as had the murderer Barabbas), in fulfillment of the Isaiah 53:12 prophecy, as Mark 15:27-28 (YLT) said. "And with him they crucify two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on his left. And the writing was fulfilled that is saying, 'And with lawless ones (anomon) he was numbered.' ". Those two thieves crucified beside Christ on the cross were Zealots, and Isaiah 53:12 prophesied that they would be called "lawless" ones (anomois).

The Zealot leader that was the first to make his way into the temple in AD 66, presenting himself as the "King of the Jews", was named Menahem, and he was the son or grandson of Judas the Galilean (mentioned as an insurrectionist against Rome in Acts 5:37). Judas the Galilean was "destroyed" along with his followers, as Gamaliel said. The "Man of Lawlessness" would have the title "son of destruction" in 2 Thess. 2:3 - which fit Menahem's family biography exactly. Judas the Galilean's two Zealot sons, James and Simon, were also crucified as rebels against Rome by Tiberius (Antiq. 20.5.2). Another of Menahem's relatives, the Zealot leader Eleazar, was among those rebels who committed mass suicide at Masada under the Roman siege. This was a family that was totally immersed in the Zealot cause.

For this Zealot leader Menahem to claim the title of the "King of the Jews" by standing in the temple dressed in Herod's royal regalia was for him to usurp the title that only Christ Himself was entitled to. This was the equivalent of Menahem calling himself God while inside the temple of God in AD 66. Josephus recorded this man's brief, meteoric rise to power, and his destruction after only a couple weeks in Wars 2.17.8-9.

Hammster said:

He came on the clouds, as He said.

Click to expand...

That was not the Second Coming. That was the Prince making sure of a completed job. Not the end of the NT church age by a long shot.

The Second Coming is the end of the NT not the OT. The OT ended on the Cross. 70 AD was not even the end. 70AD was the end of a rebellion.

Hammster said:

I never said it was the second coming.

Click to expand...

Maybe not you, but most preterist are forced to either be preterist or futurist. The OD and the Book of Revelation is about the Second Coming. Were the warnings headed in the first century? Yes of course. Jesus did not tell them to wait until they were dead to flee. Even today there are mass exodus from nations in the Middle East whenever war breaks out.

Hammster said:

That’s irrelevant. Jesus’ coming on the clouds statement had nothing to do with His final victorious return. It was firmly rooted in the OT. To know what He meant you must know what was meant in the OT.

Click to expand...

They asked a question: "and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Are you categorically saying Jesus avoided these questions, and gave them a homily on OT Scriptures? Jesus did not mention one single future event, but only repeated words from the OT?

It is clear that Jesus used language first century humans would relate to, but He was not just quoting Scripture. He was telling them about the future, and 98% of the OD is still future. The OD is about the Second Coming, not just words from the OT without any future references.

Even Paul acknowledged the "coming on the clouds" is the Second Coming. Why has that now changed in these last days, 1991 years after the Cross?

The change, the final harvest, and the angels are all indications of the end of Adam's 6000 years, the end of the lost tribes scattered across all nations, and the end of the body of Christ being gathered. Coming on the clouds, in the clouds, with the clouds, is tying the event with how they watched Jesus Christ leave into the clouds.

A narrow approach by preterist to claim it was done and over with in the vicinity of 70AD, is missing the whole point of the OD and the Book of Revelation.