• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.
  1. jgr

    jgr Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,809
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Get it right, and we'll give it a rest.
     
  2. Douggg

    Douggg anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

    +2,624
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Okay, I went back and fixed my post 123. Are you satisfied now?
     
  3. jgr

    jgr Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,809
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I'm always satisfied when error is corrected. Thanks.
     
  4. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,699
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    No, John did not liken them to any one coming singular antichrist. You are adding things to the text that are not there. He made it clear that all who deny Christ are antichrist and he never singled out just one Antichrist.

    That is not true. But, if it was, then that would mean the singular antichrist was already in the world in John's day since he said the spirit of antichrist was already in the world in his day (1 John 4:3).

    The spirit of antichrist is not the spirit of one singular antichrist. It is a spirit that influences all antichrists. You never understand the context of what you're reading.

    1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

    John is not speaking here of one evil spirit of antichrist that will eventually possess "the Antichrist", as you believe. Instead, he's saying that the spirit of the antichrist is "every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus". The spirit of antichrist influences all the false prophets/antichrists that have gone out into the world who do not acknowledge Jesus. And that was already starting to happen in John's day.

    2 John 1:7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

    In this verse, John makes it very clear that anyone who denies Christ "is the deceiver and the antichrist". John clearly never singled out one deceiver and false prophet as "the Antichrist", but rather repeatedly indicated that ALL of the many deceivers/false prophets out there who denied Christ were the antichrist.

    You can try to say that he singled out one Antichrist, but all the verses where he mentioned the term antichrist talk about how there are many of them and not just one. He never singles one out the way you do. A singular Antichrist is a figment of your imagination.
     
  5. Douggg

    Douggg anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

    +2,624
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    The kjv has it right. Not the antichrist, but "an" antichrist.

    7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

    No, I never said the spirit of antichrist would "possess" the Antichrist.

    The spirit of antichrist is a frame of mind, an attitude, that Jesus is not come in the flesh, implying that Jesus is not God.
     
  6. Douggg

    Douggg anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

    +2,624
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Since we are the parable of the fig tree generation and the 6000 years since Adam are very close to an end (2033), it will not be very long (sometime before 2026 likely) before the person emerges in the EU.
     
  7. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,699
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Regardless, he indicated that all who deny Christ are antichrists and NEVER singled out one supposed Antichrist.

    Okay. The spirit of antichrist was already in the world back then in John's day so if there was going to be a singular Antichrist, why would there not have been one back then?

    I'm amazed that you were able to discern that. I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you on something. Which means I need to rethink if I'm interpreting that correctly. I'm kidding.

    But, again, that spirit of antichrist/attitude that led many to deny who Christ is was already in the world in John's day. So, it makes no sense to think that a supposed Antichrist wouldn't even show up until at least about 2,000 years after the spirit of antichrist was already in the world.

    More importantly than all that, though, is that John never talked about a singular Antichrist and instead always spoke about the many antichrists that were already in the world back then and there's obviously still many antichrists in the world now. And they all have that spirit of antichrist which denies Christ.

    I completely disagree. Where does scripture indicate that there would be 6000 years of history leading up to the return of Christ?
     
  8. Douggg

    Douggg anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

    +2,624
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Because to become the Antichrist the person has to be anointed the King of Israel, coming in his own name. No-one has ever fulfilled that role - yet.

    There is not a specific passage that says so that I know of.

    But it appears that will be the case, because the parable of the fig tree generation is the current generation by Israel a nation again back in the land, and Jerusalem back in the hands of the Jews.
    Which is the setup for the infallible timeline framework in Ezekiel 39.

    And the time of the end is characterized by an increase in travel and knowledge.

    4000 years from Adam to Christ - 4 days in the 1000 years is as a day to God.
    2000 years from Christ to the Second Coming - 2 days in the 1000 years is as a day to God.
    1000 years from the Second Coming to the end of the millennium - 1 days in the 1000 years is as a day to God, which will be the Sabbath day of rest for humanity.

    The last days are the 2000 years from Christ to the Second Coming with the parable of the fig tree generation being the time of the end generation.
     
  9. Douggg

    Douggg anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

    +2,624
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    @Spiritual Jew It will be possible to know who that person is who will become the Antichrist, by him becoming the leader of of the EU (as the little horn) and over ten other EU leaders. He will be a Jew.

    Which should be (not a guarantee) within the next four years.
     
  10. jgr

    jgr Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,809
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Married
    There is not one scintilla of Scripture to support your claims.

    The Reformation identified the little horn antichrist long ago.

    History confirmed it.

    You can neither identify nor confirm anything.

    Nor will you or anyone else be able to.

    The trademark of interpretation by imagination.
     
  11. Douggg

    Douggg anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

    +2,624
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Your post was easy to read, I will admit that much.

    The reformers were wrong on the issue of the Antichrist. And were reacting to the pressures of the time.

    The pope and papacy are still around, proving them wrong, because the little horn, Antichrist, beast person will be destroyed during his lifetime.
     
  12. jgr

    jgr Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,809
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Married
    God commissioned and empowered the Reformation to liberate His true Church from the spiritual bondage and oppression of the Dark Ages antichrist. Identification and declaration of that antichrist was integral and indispensable to the success of the Reformation.

    Explain how God was wrong.
     
  13. Douggg

    Douggg anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

    +2,624
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    The reformers were wrong about the Pope and papacy being the Antichrist for the same reason I stated in my previous post #191.
     
  14. jgr

    jgr Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,809
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Married
    God commissioned and empowered the Reformation messages identifying and exposing the apostasized papal antichrist which had spiritually oppressed and enslaved His Church during the centuries of the Dark Ages.

    Explain how God was wrong.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2021
  15. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,699
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That you for confirming that your belief is only based on speculation and not any clear scripture.

    If you actually look at the "parable of the fig tree generation" passage itself, the context has nothing to do with Israel being a nation again or "Jerusalem being back in the hands of the Jews."

    Matthew 24:32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

    Jesus clearly explained what He meant by what He said in verse 32 in the very next verse. He said "when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door". What were "these things" that He was talking about there? Obviously, He was referring to things that He had just been talking about before that.

    Where did He say anything about Israel being a nation again or Jerusalem being back in the hands of the Jews in Matthew 24:1-31? Nowhere that I can see. So, how can those things be among "these things" that He said would be signs that the end was near? That makes no sense. You're reading that into the text.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2021
  16. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,699
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Why are you telling me this when you know that I don't even believe in a singular Antichrist? What you said here means nothing to me since I don't even believe in the appearance of a future Antichrist.
     
  17. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,541
    United States
    Christian
    Married

    My arguments are based on what these things would have to mean if the 2nd temple is meant in Matthew 24:15. IOW, I'm taking things to their logical conclusions. It's not just Amils who think the 2nd temple is meant in Matthew 24:15. There are some Premils that think that as well. My point then has to do with, not Amil so much, but with anyone who insists the 2nd temple is meant in Matthew 24:15, be they Premil or Amil. I'm not arguing that Amils are claiming the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD. I'm arguing that that is what their interpretation of Matthew 24:15 tends to suggest if true. No strawman argument on my part then. You simply don't understand my argument nor grasp how I oftentimes argue things. The way I tend to argue things a lot of the times is like such. I argue what these things would have to mean if true. If the 2nd temple is meant in Matthew 24:15, this is what it would have to mean then--thus my arguments.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2021
  18. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,541
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I assumed that would one would get you all riled up, lol.

    One reason I said that though is because Amils are noted for discerning when things are spiritual while Premils are usually noted as taking things literal that might be meaning spiritual instead. And here I am, a Premil, taking Matthew 24:15 spiritually rather than literal, and here you are, an Amil, taking Matthew 24:15 literally rather than spiritually. You don't interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in the literal sense, though. Why not treat Matthew 24:15 in the same sense? That way your interpretation doesn't have Jesus meaning the 2nd temple was still holy all the way up until 70 AD.

    If Jesus could accurately predict the future, then He obviously already knew that once He dies and rises, the 2nd temple would no longer be holy at that point. To argue that because Jesus predicted this before His death and resurrection, thus the 2nd temple was still holy at the time He predicted Matthew 24:15, therefore He was meaning the 2nd temple, is an unconvincing argument. Once again, as if Jesus could predict the future but that He would be clueless about what actually happens in the future until these events take place first, is ludicrous. He couldn't have possibly meant the 2nd temple in Matthew 24:15 because He already knew good and well that that temple would not still be holy in 70 AD.

    Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

    Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

    Notice here, in both accounts, it is unbelieving Jews, not Christians, that are insisting the 2nd temple is still a holy place post Christ's death and resurrection. When Jesus was giving His Discourse, He was giving it to the church not to unbelieving Jews instead.

    Seriously, in 70 AD, what kind of abomination could have taken place in a temple that was no longer holy? And for what reason? Is that the reason the temple was destroyed, because an abomination took place in it? Is that what one is to believe, that in a temple that was no longer holy, an abomination took place in it, therefore, it needed to be destroyed and was destroyed?
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2021
  19. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,699
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    In my view they are only based on what you THINK these things would have to mean if the 2nd temple is meant in Matthew 24:15.

    You're taking things to their logical conclusions based on your own human wisdom and understanding. Is that how Paul said that we come to understand the things that are taught in scripture?

    1 Corinthians 2:2 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

    What are you using to draw your conclusions, David? Your own human wisdom or what the Holy Spirit is teaching you? I don't believe I'm judging you by saying it appears that you are only using human wisdom. To me, that is what it means when you say you are taking things to their logical conclusions. You're taking things to the logical conclusions that human wisdom would come to, but that isn't the way we are supposed to interpret scripture. We are supposed to rely completely on the Holy Spirit for understanding and not human wisdom and supposed "logical conclusions".

    Human wisdom tells you that "the holy place" that Jesus referenced would have to still be considered "the holy place" at the time the abomination of desolation occurred. That is your "logical conclusion". But, you're not considering the alternative possibility that He was only speaking of the temple's status at the time He was speaking so that the ones He was talking to would know what place He was talking about and He was not implying that it would still be considered "the holy place" when the abomination of desolation occurred there.

    But, that is not what I believe (that the temple would still be holy in 70 AD) and you were talking to me. When you're talking to me, can you please discuss what you and I believe in particular rather than what other premils or amils might believe?

    In terms of what I believe, it was.

    Are you willing to be a bit flexible in the way you argue things when talking to me and make arguments that relate to what I believe instead of what others believe, please? I don't think I'm asking too much here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2021
  20. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,699
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    So, you were purposely trying to rile me up? That doesn't seem very nice.

    Yes, exactly! This illustrates the problem with Premils like yourself. You are often not able to discern what is literal and what is figurative, so you often take figurative things literally and take literal things figuratively. There's no magic formula that tells us which is which in any given scripture passage. We need discernment from the Holy Spirit in order to determine that.

    Because they have a completely different context. In Matthew 24:15-22 Jesus was answering a question regarding when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and 2 Thess 2:4 has nothing to do with that.

    My interpretation does not have Jesus meaning the 2nd temple was still holy all the way up until 70 AD. This is what I was talking about David. You continue to make these strawman arguments. Stop wasting your time doing that.

    At the time Jesus was giving His Olivet Discourse to the disciples, the temple was still "the holy place" and His disciples would have understood exactly what He was referring to. There is nothing that demands it would still have to be considered the holy place once the abomination of desolation actually occurred there.

    Let's not ignore the huge problem of thinking that Matthew 24:15 will be fulfilled in the future. What "holy place" could there be in the future where the abomination of desolation could take place? It can't be a physical temple building. I've already explained why many times. And the context of the Olivet Discourse clearly relates to physical temple buildings (Matt 24:1-2) and not to the spiritual temple of God (the church). So, how exactly do you interpret Matthew 24:15-22? Please be as specific as possible.

    Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if my arguments are convincing to you or not. I believe they are. If you disagree, so be it. I can't do anything about that.

    He was talking about its status at that time so that the disciples who He was talking to at that time would know what place He was referring to.

    You continue to waste your time making a strawman argument. You're acting as if I am claiming that the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD, but I am not claiming that.

    Are you really this naive, David? Do you know why what occurred in 70 AD happened? Are you somehow not aware that what happened then was God's wrath against unbelieving Jews (see Luke 19:41-44)? The abomination that caused the desolation of Jerusalem was that the Roman armies took it over and did many shameful acts at the place that was supposed to be the holy place for the Jews. That would obviously be an abomination to God. But, what was seen as an abomination by God was not just what the Romans did there, but that it happened because of the Jews rejecting His Son.

    No! Since you are asking this question, does that mean you don't know why the temple was destroyed? If you really don't know then the reason can be seen here:

    Luke 19:41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.

    What this describes is exactly what happened around 70 AD. God used the Romans armies to bring His wrath against the unbelieving Jews because they "did not recognize the time of God's coming to" them.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2021
Loading...