Can the day or hour be known?

Can the day or hour be known prior to Christ's second coming?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • No

    Votes: 23 95.8%

  • Total voters
    24

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you believe their eschatology, you are one. Btw, we believe the 2nd coming is in the future. What label should we wear?

You contradict yourself. Out of one side of your mouth you claim you believe Jesus' 2nd coming is still future. Out of the other side you say believing like the pre-tribbers do that Jesus' 2nd coming is still future makes you one of them.

Make up your mind, do you believe Jesus' 2nd coming is still future or not???

I believe in a POST-TRIBULATION 2ND COMING of Jesus Christ. So how does that make me one of the pre-trib crowd?!@?! :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You contradict yourself. Out of one side of your mouth you claim you believe Jesus' 2nd coming is still future. Out of the other side you say believing like the pre-tribbers do that Jesus' 2nd coming is still future makes you one of them.
There is some confusion here. Above you seem to accuse me of believing the 2nd coming is in the future and then accuse me of talking out of both sides of my mouth by saying the second coming is in the future. Looks like one mouth and one side.
Make up your mind, do you believe Jesus' 2nd coming is still future or not???
As above ..future.
I believe in a POST-TRIBULATION 2ND COMING of Jesus Christ. So how does that make me one of the pre-trib crowd?!@?! :scratch:
You denied being dispensational.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So you didn't really read my post?

Look at Luke 4 where Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61:1-2 at the start of His Ministry.

He stopped reading right before He got to that "day of vengeance" phrase, but instead closed the Book and said what He read was right then fulfilled. He didn't read that last part of Isaiah 61:2 "day of vengeance" because that is about His 2nd coming.
Wrong. He stopped because that day would be 40 years later well after the gospel had spread. Peter preached this on the day of Pentecost about the fire and smoke as the time had changed.
Thus the "days of vengeance" of Luke 21 is about Jesus' FUTURE 2nd coming, and that last part of Luke 21:22 proves that timing as well.
No it does not.
Continued reading there in Luke 21 gives even more evidence that the time there is about His 2nd coming, which is still future to us.
No, it is about the coming judgement described as in verses 20 and 21. It is solely about Jerusalem, clearly not anywhere else and certainly not the whole world. Pretty silly to think you’re supposed to flee Jerusalem when the whole world becomes unsafe. Where are those fleeing supposed to when big bad Antichrist takes over every country??
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The following terms are synonymous:

The Wrath of the Lord = the Lord's Wrath
The Mercy of the Lord = the Lord's Mercy
The Vengeance of the Lord = The Lord's Vengeance
The Grace of the Lord = the Lord's Grace

And,
The Day of the Lord = the Lord's Day

If we were to say the Day of the Lord is NOT the same thing as the Lord's Day, then we would likewise have to say the Mercy of the Lord is NOT the same as the Lord's Mercy... or Grace, Vengeance, Wrath... and so on...


Can't say I ever thought of it like that, but that still still doesn't mean the day of the Lord and the Lord's day in Revelation 1, that these are referring to the same thing. A lot of people, including me, tend to think what is meant by the Lord's day in that context is that it is meaning the Sabbath day, either Saturday or Sunday. Apparently, John was already in this day before he ever encountered any visions.

And no, even if the Lord's day is meaning the Sabbath rather than the day of the Lord, that hardly means "then we would likewise have to say the Mercy of the Lord is NOT the same as the Lord's Mercy... or Grace, Vengeance, Wrath... and so on..." That is an unconvincing argument in my opinion, in this particular case anyway, thus a weak argument, or better yet, an argument not worthy of further consideration.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your claim is that the prince in Daniel 9:26 is antichrist.
There is only one individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9. He is Messiah (Daniel 9:25).
Christ, the Messiah, is identified explicitly, specifically, and unequivocally as a prince in multiple instances in both the OT and NT: Isaiah 9:6; Daniel 9:25; Acts 3:15; Acts 5:31; Revelation 1:5.
Antichrist is identified explicitly, specifically, and unequivocally as a prince nowhere in Scripture.
Modernist dispensational futurism's antichrist is a figment of its delusion.

Sorry but you fail at understanding grammar.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

Yes Jesus is called The Prince in verse 25.

The he in verse 27 has to refer back to its nearest antecedant which is the prince of the people who shall come and destroy the sanctuary. This is the antichirst (one of his many names).

Yes Jesus is referred to as Prince in many many passages, but many other people are also called prince in SCriptures! Context, context, grammar grammar.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Where does he say that is antichrist? Even John himself, who was the only one to use the term, never mentions antichrist in Revelation. Not once. Actually John says there are many antichrists.

I know the eschatology and it ASSUMES one man antichrist which was obviously not in the mind of John when he wrote Revelation.

The antichrist is only name or title for the man of sin who rules the world in the last 7 years! He is also the eleventh horn, etc.

Just like Jesus is also known as The angel of the Lord,
Jehovah, Prince of Peace
Father of Eternity
Son of God
God the Son
Christ
Messiah
Savior. All different names referring to one person!

That’s an assumption. It is more likely writers are referring to different men at different times and places. Only one relatively new eschatology turned them into one bogey man.

Well that is your opinion. But what is your biblical evidence to support your position?

And as the Study of Eschatology is fairly new in terms of doctrinal studies- yes!

But the eleventh horn rules the world,
The beast rules the world
The eighth who is of the 7 rules the world.

Are you saying we are going to have three world rulers in the future who are all evil?
 
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The antichrist is only name or title for the man of sin who rules the world in the last 7 years! He is also the eleventh horn, etc.
I know the eschatology. It’s wrong. There will never come an evil man to rule the world. The Lords Jesus’ kingdom will not surrender. The theology is wrong.
Just like Jesus is also known as The angel of the Lord,
Jehovah, Prince of Peace
Father of Eternity
Son of God
God the Son
Christ
Messiah
Savior. All different names referring to one person!
God also has many names. Satan does too. Men do not. The many antichrists and the man of sin are different men.
Well that is your opinion. But what is your biblical evidence to support your position?
It’s too much to put into a post.
And as the Study of Eschatology is fairly new in terms of doctrinal studies- yes!
Not at all. Matt 24 shows it was a study 2020 years ago.
But the eleventh horn rules the world,
The beast rules the world
The eighth who is of the 7 rules the world.
Will never happen.
Are you saying we are going to have three world rulers in the future who are all evil?
No, none. The beast is long dead. The end of that age came.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The he in verse 27 has to refer back to its nearest antecedant which is the prince of the people who shall come and destroy the sanctuary. This is the antichirst (one of his many names).

The antecedent of prince in verse 26 is Messiah the Prince in verse 25. Check with any competent non-modernist non-dispensational non-futurist grammarian.

One who can correctly spell "antecedant".

Messiah was the prince in supreme command and control of the Roman armies, who were His people to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction upon the unbelieving nation of Israel.

many other people are also called prince in SCriptures!

Antichrist isn't one of them.

Context, context, grammar grammar

You have just unwittingly described one of the most fundamental reasons for modernist dispensational futurism's many egregious misinterpretations of the Word of God.

Context is subjective in nature.
Grammar, by contrast, encapsulates the objective rules and disciplines which govern every developed language.

Context cannot be determined with maximum certainty until the objective rules and disciplines of grammar are first applied to maximize clarity and comprehensibility.

Thus, your "Context, context, grammar grammar" is an erroneous reversal of the proper hierarchy.

"Grammar, grammar, context, context" is the hierarchy which must be followed, but which modernist dispensational futurism denies and rejects.

Resulting, predictably, in the interpretive chaos which it attempts to impose upon Daniel 9.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A lot of people, including me, tend to think what is meant by the Lord's day in that context is that it is meaning the Sabbath day, either Saturday or Sunday.

Al lot of people tend to think a lot of different things, (speaking of weak and unconvincing arguments, "a lot of people tend to think X, therefore X must be true.." has got to be among the weakest)... my question is where does the Bible teach it? Where does scripture teach you to equate the Biblical term "The Lord's Day" with any other day besides "the Day of the Lord"? You mentioned it had to do with the context... what Context? Seems to me the Context of the occasion of John receiving visions about the Day of the Lord in the Revelation only support my assertion. What "context" were you referring to that indicates to you it meant Sunday? (or Saturday)?

Apparently, John was already in this day before he ever encountered any visions.
I agree. The Day had come. John is testifying nothing less than its then present arrival nearly 20 centuries ago. We know such does not preclude him receiving visions of events still yet to occur in "That Day" for He is told to write down the things which he HAD seen(past), the things which ARE(present), and the the things that were "about to take place" (soon thereafter), (Revelation 1:19) all in the context of the Day of the Lord, all happening, as John testifies, on the Lord's Day, which had indeed arrived...

And no, even if the Lord's day is meaning the Sabbath rather than the day of the Lord, that hardly means "then we would likewise have to say the Mercy of the Lord is NOT the same as the Lord's Mercy... or Grace, Vengeance, Wrath... and so on..." That is an unconvincing argument in my opinion, in this particular case anyway, thus a weak argument, or better yet, an argument not worthy of further consideration.

What scripture(s) convince you they are not the same?
And, if it's as weak an argument as you insist, then what scripture (if any) would you say prevents us form similarly concluding that the Vengeance of the Lord is something entirely, Biblically different from the Lord's Vengeance?
Where is the "strong" argument that convinces you, and therefore should convince me, that those terms are synonymous?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Word trinity never appears in the bible

True, however the difference is I can demonstrate the BIBLICAL TEACHING of the Triune Godhead, Father/Son/Spirit, from myriad scriptures, while you can not demonstrate that Paul's man of Sin (or AoD, Beast, Little Horn, etc..) and antichrist of 1 and 2 John are the same entity, for ZERO scriptures teach such. There is Not even one scripture you can point to that teaches anything of the sort. Why that wouldn't give any Christian pause is a mystery...

It doesn't appear, but I assume that unless you have lived in a cave, the term antichrist is a common term to describe th eone who has about 20 or so monikers in SCripture!

Common term? yes?
But it is used an the total and complete absence of ANY biblical instruction to do so.
Such is derived solely from pure assumption, speculation and man made tradition alone.

Not one single scripture teaches any of these entities (Beast, man of Sin, son of Perdition, Little Horn, Abomination of Desolation, etc..) is equated in any way with antichrist of 1 and 2 John.

I know of no other EXPLICIT scriptural teaching that is more wholly disregarded by Christians than the explicit teaching on the nature and identity of antichrist.

So many favor their favorite traditions and personal biases over the explicit, apostolic teaching on this topic... so much so that people have convinced themselves that their favorite 'antichrist tradition' IS a biblical teaching, even though they can not demonstrate it exists in the pages of scripture. Which is a real shame.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What scripture(s) convince you they are not the same?
And, if it's as weak an argument as you insist, then what scripture (if any) would you say prevents us form similarly concluding that the Vengeance of the Lord is something entirely, Biblically different from the Lord's Vengeance?
Where is the "strong" argument that convinces you, and therefore should convince me, that those terms are synonymous?

Isaiah 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

Should I assume you disagree that the sabbath, where this verse calls it the LORD's holy day, that can't add up to that the sabbath is the Lord's day? If the sabbath is not the Lord's day according to this verse, what is the sabbath according to this verse? Not the LORD's day, not His holy day?
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I know the eschatology. It’s wrong. There will never come an evil man to rule the world. The Lords Jesus’ kingdom will not surrender. The theology is wrong.

Maybe you should have corrected Jesus and Paul and John! They all speak of an evil ruler dubbed the antichrist who will rule the world for a time! He does have many many titles thourghout Scripture.

God also has many names. Satan does too. Men do not. The many antichrists and the man of sin are different men.

Biblical proof or just opinion? I would like to see the bible you base this opinion on.

It’s too much to put into a post.

Well sorry, but a prosecutor making allegations without evidence is a lousy attorney! If you are not prepared to defend yoiur positions like a Christian should with Scripture why do you utter them?

Not at all. Matt 24 shows it was a study 2020 years ago.

That would make Jesus speaking the Olivet Discourse when he was about 5 years old!


Will never happen.

Then you disagree with the plain normal reading of SCripture for something more fanciful then.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Maybe you should have corrected Jesus and Paul and John! They all speak of an evil ruler dubbed the antichrist who will rule the world for a time! He does have many many titles thourghout Scripture.
Please find where Jesus and Paul used “antichrist” in their communications. Include him ruling the whole world while you’re at it.
Biblical proof or just opinion? I would like to see the bible you base this opinion on.
God is called El Shaddai, Eloyhim, Ancient of days. Those are from memory. If I look them up I’ll find more.
Well sorry, but a prosecutor making allegations without evidence is a lousy attorney! If you are not prepared to defend yoiur positions like a Christian should with Scripture why do you utter them?
Youre badgering the witness!
That would make Jesus speaking the Olivet Discourse when he was about 5 years old!
My mistake. Was told by Jesus during his teaching years.
Then you disagree with the plain normal reading of SCripture for something more fanciful then.
No actually I believe it as written.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The antecedent of prince in verse 26 is Messiah the Prince in verse 25. Check with any competent non-modernist non-dispensational non-futurist grammarian.

One who can correctly spell "antecedant".

Messiah was the prince in supreme command and control of the Roman armies, who were His people to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction upon the unbelieving nation of Israel.

So was Jesus ion Supreme Command of Nazi Germany as well?

Make you a deal, I will use spell check more if you learn grammar and how to find an antecedant.

Jesus never (even with you who loves to allegorize scriptures) confirm a 7 year treaty with Israel. Ever!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Please find where Jesus and Paul used “antichrist” in their communications. Include him ruling the whole world while you’re at it.

Well they do not use that specific term, but they do call Him by other names

Man of Lawlessness, Man of sin, Abominsation of Desolation, Gen 3. Seed of the serpent, antichrist, eleventh horn, the eigth who os of the seven, the king of fierce countenance, the beast amongst many others! They all describe the Son of Satan who will rule the Word before Jesus returns.

Antiochrist is just simply using one term many recognize for the many different names and activities the man of sin (beast) does in the last days during the tribulation 7 years!
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So was Jesus ion Supreme Command of Nazi Germany as well?

Make you a deal, I will use spell check more if you learn grammar and how to find an antecedant.

Jesus never (even with you who loves to allegorize scriptures) confirm a 7 year treaty with Israel. Ever!

In which bible did you find Nazi Germany?

Deal accepted. I found the antecedent of the prince. He is Messiah the Prince.

You didn't.

Jesus confirmed the New Covenant in His Blood with many (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 26:28) during the 70th week.

Modernist dispensational futurism's denial and rejection of Daniel's Calvary Covenant Confirmer; and substitution of a delusional blasphemous antichrist; means that modernist dispensational futurism is still in its sin.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In which bible did you find Nazi Germany?

Deal accepted. I found the antecedent of the prince. He is Messiah the Prince.

You didn't.

Jesus confirmed the New Covenant in His Blood with many (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 26:28) during the 70th week.

Modernist dispensational futurism's denial and rejection of Daniel's Calvary Covenant Confirmer; and substitution of a delusional blasphemous antichrist; means that modernist dispensational futurism is still in its sin.

Well if Jesus is supreme commander of the pagan Roman Legions, it only makes sense that He is supreme commander of the nazi armies.

And no, you did not find the antecedantr if you think it is the Messiah.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

The antecedant of he in verse 27 is the prince of the people that shall come. Not Messiah the prince.

But as you wish to call me a denier- what 7 year covenant did Jesus confirm with Israel? Whatr did he do in the middle of that 7 year period to cause the sascrificial system to cease? And at teh end of that 7 year period How did everlasting righteousness come in, how did Israels sin cease and trangressions finish? Are you saying that israelis never sin anymore?
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is some confusion here. Above you seem to accuse me of believing the 2nd coming is in the future and then accuse me of talking out of both sides of my mouth by saying the second coming is in the future. Looks like one mouth and one side.
As above ..future.

You denied being dispensational.

OK, right, I don't adhere to Darby's Dispensationalism, nor a pre-trib rapture. The reason is because John Nelson Darby added the false idea that the Church is raptured before the trib to Heaven, and reigns with Jesus in Heaven during the Millennium while the nation of Israel is re-established on earth. That idea of course is not written in God's Word.

What is written, is that Jesus returns only one time, and it's back to this earth where He ascended to The Father from, written in Acts 1 and Zechariah 14. In the process of His coming He gathers His Church, the asleep saints He brings with Him, and then He gathers up His saints that are still alive on earth at that point. Then He and they all... go to Jerusalem to live and reign over the nations, on earth. We aren't going into Heaven where The Father is. We are staying on the earth, BUT... the Heavenly dimension is going to be revealed to all, upon the earth.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DavidPT
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Wrong. He stopped because that day would be 40 years later well after the gospel had spread. Peter preached this on the day of Pentecost about the fire and smoke as the time had changed. No it does not.
No, it is about the coming judgement described as in verses 20 and 21. It is solely about Jerusalem, clearly not anywhere else and certainly not the whole world. Pretty silly to think you’re supposed to flee Jerusalem when the whole world becomes unsafe. Where are those fleeing supposed to when big bad Antichrist takes over every country??

One tries... to help another, but some just want to argue, even against the Scriptures...


Jesus goes into the temple and reads from Isaiah 61:1-2:

Luke 4:16-21
16 And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up: and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

17 And there was delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written,

18 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,


19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.'


20 And He closed the book, and He gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him.

21 And He began to say unto them, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."
KJV



The lazy can guess what the rest of the Isaiah 61:2 verse is that He closed the Book before He got to it and didn't read.
 
Upvote 0