Luke 21:24 shows it is future

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #28:

2 Peter 3:10-13 says that the New Heavens and New
Earth appear at the Second Coming, not 1000 years
later.

Actually, 2 Peter 3:10-13 doesn't require that the
new heaven and new earth will appear immediately at
the second coming, for Peter had just finished
showing how a "day" to the Lord could last a thousand
years (2 Peter 3:8). The Day of the Lord could start
after the tribulation, at the second coming
(1 Corinthians 1:7-8) and then last through the
millennium and attack of Gog and Magog (Revelation
20:7-9), all the way up to the great white throne
judgment, which is when the current heaven and earth
will vanish (Revelation 20:11). They will be replaced
by a new heaven and earth after the great white
throne judgment (Revelation 21:1).

NILLOC posted in message #28:

Death is destroyed at the Second Coming
(1 Cor. 15:26), not 1000 years later

Death will be destroyed for those in Christ at the
second coming (1 Corinthians 15:22-23), when the
first resurrection will occur (Revelation 20:4-6).
It won't be until after the millennium and the
attack of Gog and Magog (Revelation 20:7-9) that
the first, temporary death will be destroyed at the
great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:14a). But
the second, eternal death of the lake of fire
(Revelation 20:14b) will never be destroyed
(Revelation 20:10,15, 14:10-11, 21:8, Matthew
25:41,46, Mark 9:45-46).

 

[Nilloc]

Hello Bible2.

The 42 months during which Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles in Revelation 11:2b is the same 42 months as the reign of the Antichrist in Revelation 13:5b, and the 1,260 days of the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3.

This is an assertion without proof.

The 42 months during which Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles in Revelation 11:2b

There’s absolutely no reason to think that the Jerusalem being talked about here is one two thousand years in the future—it’s talking about first century Jerusalem and the then standing Temple.

42 months as the reign of the Antichrist in Revelation 13:5b,

There is no ‘Antichrist’ mentioned in Revelation, thus there is no ’42 month reign of the Antichrist.’ But there is the forty-two months the Beast was allowed to act, which refer to the persecution of Christians by Nero Caesar (666), which did last forty-two months.

The myriad events of Revelation chapters 13 and 11 (like 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Daniel 11:31,36) have never been fulfilled, and so Luke 21:24 hasn't yet been fulfilled.

All of these Scriptures can be shown to have had a historic fulfillment in either A.D. 70 or some other time (as is the case with Daniel 11).

Revelation 11:2b, 13:5b, and Luke 21:24 also show that the 42-month reign of the Antichrist is part of the times of the Gentiles.

Once again, there is no ‘Antichrist’ mentioned in Revelation.

Luke 21:27 wasn't fulfilled in A.D. 70,

Jesus said it was (Luke 21:32). In order to understand what Jesus meant when He said: “Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory” you have to read it like first century Jews would have. Please read post #126 in the thread entitled: “Fulfillment of Math 24:14?”, I explain what Jesus meant.

Luke 21:27 is an abbreviated version of Matthew 24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27, which are the same event as 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, and 1 Corinthians 15:22-23,52-53. None of these passages have been fulfilled yet.

The Olivet Discourse has nothing to do with 1 Thess. 4:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, 52-53 (which is still future), nor does the discourse have anything to do with the Second Coming, but the coming of Christ in judgment against apostate Jerusalem (which is the entire context of the discourse). Also, 2 Thess. 2 was talking about an event within time-space history, not one that would end it (vs. 2).

None of these passages have been fulfilled yet.

Yeah they have.

Revelation chapters 6-22 didn't happen in 70 A.D., but their fulfillment in the future will still be "soon" or "shortly" (Revelation 1:1) from the point of view of God, for whom a thousand years are as a single day (2 Peter 3:8).

LOL. It never says anywhere that the ‘soon’ or ‘shortly’ passages that it’s from ‘God’s time’, it’s just something futurists have to put in there to complicate the plain words of John. If you’re trying to use what 2 Peter 3:8 says about a day is like a thousand years, then you have to apply it everywhere in Revelation, which would make the thousand years in Revelation 20 only twenty-four hours long.

The two witnesses of Revelation 11 were not first-century churches, for no first-century churches fulfilled Revelation 11:5-13.

If you understand the symbolic language, then it fits fine. It’s only when futurists apply their woodenly literal hermeneutics that Revelation and the rest of prophecy becomes difficult.

The two witnesses will be two individual prophets who will prophesy, do miracles, be killed, and then be resuscitated and taken into heaven after 3.5 days.

LOL. That’s definitely not how the first century Christians would have read it, they would have understood John’s symbolic language.

Matthew 24:34 doesn't require that the tribulation and second coming and rapture of Matthew 24:4-31 was fulfilled in the first century

Matthew 24 says nothing about the Second Coming or any ‘rapture’.

for Matthew 24:34 could be referring to the generation that saw the rebudding of the fig tree in Matthew 24:32,

No it isn’t. ‘This generation’ always meant Jesus contemporaries (which other futurists admit, except for Matt. 24:34). Look how Jesus uses it in Matt. 23:36, which futurists admit it talking about A.D. 70.

restoration of the state of Israel by U.N. Resolution in November, 1947.

Which has nothing to do with Bible prophecy or the Second Coming.

so Jesus could fulfill Matthew 24:29-31 in 2016.

It ain’t gonna to happen.

Matthew 24 is the same prophecy of the coming tribulation as Luke 21,

Yep.

which shows (like Matthew 24:7,9)

Nero’s persecution.

that it will indeed be global in scope (Luke 21:25-26,35).

Symbolic and hyperbolic language. And ‘whole world’ must be understood in its ancient context to mean the Roman world (Christians persecution throughout the empire).

The Old Covenant age ended at the death of Jesus on the cross

Hebrews says that it became obsolete, but had not passed away yet, but soon would (Heb. 8:13). So your assertion that the OC age ended at the death of Jesus is wrong.

some Orthodox Jews will rebuild the temple and re-start the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices,

Which is unlikely to happen, because the Scriptures never say it will and there are to many political issues that make it near impossible to have the Temple rebuilt.

which after a few years will be stopped by the Antichrist when he commits the abomination of desolation (Daniel 11:31,36, 9:27).

None of these verses say anything about any future Antichrist, but all have a historic fulfillment.

Actually, 2 Peter 3:10-13 doesn't require that the new heaven and new earth will appear immediately at the second coming,

It actually does, which is why Premillennialism is false.

for Peter had just finished showing how a "day" to the Lord could last a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8).

Which has nothing to do with the Millennium.

The Day of the Lord could start after the tribulation,

Day of the Lord is a Biblical term that means a judgment of God, not a long period of time.

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Hello Bible2.

Hello.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

The 42 months during which Jerusalem will be trampled
by the Gentiles in Revelation 11:2b is the same 42
months as the reign of the Antichrist in Revelation
13:5b, and the 1,260 days of the two witnesses in
Revelation 11:3.

This is an assertion without proof.

By saying that, is one asserting the contrary, that
the 42 months during which Jerusalem will be trampled
by the Gentiles in Revelation 11:2b is not the same 42
months as the reign of the Antichrist in Revelation
13:5b, and the 1,260 days of the two witnesses in
Revelation 11:3?

If so, when has that assertion been proven? Or if it
can't be proven, what reason is there to even surmise
that during his 42-month reign the Antichrist won't
trample Jerusalem, just as he will trample the temple
in Jerusalem and the area surrounding Jerusalem
(Judaea) when he commits the abomination of desolation
(Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15-16) at the start of
his 42-month reign?

And why would one even surmise that the 42 months of
Revelation 11:2b are not the same as the 1260 days of
Revelation 11:3, which are the same 1260 days as
Revelation 12:6, which will occur at the same time as
Matthew 24:15-16?

Clearly, these are all referring to the same time
period, the 42-month reign of the Antichrist which
will begin at the abomination of desolation, just as
the time, times, and half a time of Revelation 12:14
and Daniel 12:7, 7:25 are referring to that same
reign.

If one wants us to think that these are not all the
same time period, one will have to at least provide
some reasons for us to think that, even if one has no
proof whatsoever that they aren't.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

The 42 months during which Jerusalem will be trampled
by the Gentiles in Revelation 11:2b ...

There’s absolutely no reason to think that the
Jerusalem being talked about here is one two thousand
years in the future--it’s talking about first century
Jerusalem and the then standing Temple.

Actually, there’s absolutely no reason to think that
the Jerusalem being talked about in Revelation 11:2
is one two thousand years in the past, when the rest
of Revelation 11, not to mention the rest of
Revelation chapters 6-18, wasn't fulfilled two
thousand years in the past, indeed, hasn't been
fulfilled even to this day, but could begin to be
fulfilled in the near future, in 2010.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

... 42 months as the reign of the Antichrist in
Revelation 13:5b ...

There is no ‘Antichrist’ mentioned in Revelation,
thus there is no ’42 month reign of the Antichrist.’
But there is the forty-two months the Beast was
allowed to act, which refer to the persecution of
Christians by Nero Caesar (666), which did last
forty-two months.

The Antichrist who "shall come" (1 John 2:18) is the
same man called "the beast" in Revelation 13:4-18,
and "that man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

Nero Caesar didn't fulfill Revelation 13:4-18; indeed,
it has never been fulfilled to this day.

It hasn't been shown that "Nero Caesar" adds up to
666 using the normal spelling of his name in the first
century, as opposed to a variant spelling possibly
intentionally jiggered around until it added up to 666.

One will also have to show how Nero Caesar (as the
purported "beast" of Revelation) fulfilled each verse
of Revelation 13:4-18 (don't skip over any verses),
as well as how he fulfilled each verse of Revelation
16:2,10,13, Revelation 17:8-17, and Revelation 19:19-20.

One will also have to show how Nero fulfilled
2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Daniel 11:21-45.

It will be found that no man in history has ever
fulfilled the Biblical prophecies regarding the
Antichrist (the beast, the man of sin). So we must be
wary of his future appearance. He (and Satan) would
love nothing more than for everyone to think wrongly
that he already appeared 2000 years ago, for then who
will think that he is the Antichrist when he actually
appears in the future? Who will be wary of him? Who
will not be deceived by him?

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

The myriad events of Revelation chapters 13 and 11
(like 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Daniel 11:31,36) have
never been fulfilled, and so Luke 21:24 hasn't yet
been fulfilled.

All of these Scriptures can be shown to have had a
historic fulfillment in either A.D. 70 or some other
time (as is the case with Daniel 11).

Saying something "can" be done and actually doing it
are two different things. Please show exactly how each
verse (don't skip over any verses) of Revelation
chapters 13 and 11, as well as 2 Thessalonians 2:4,
Daniel 11:31,36, and Luke 21:24 were all fulfilled in
70 AD or some other time after they were spoken (in
the case of Daniel 11:31,36, it will also have to be
after the time that Matthew 24:15 was spoken).

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

Revelation 11:2b, 13:5b, and Luke 21:24 also show
that the 42-month reign of the Antichrist is part of
the times of the Gentiles.

Once again, there is no ‘Antichrist’ mentioned in
Revelation.

Once again, the Antichrist who "shall come" (1 John
2:18) is the same man as the beast in Revelation
13:4-18, and the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

Luke 21:27 wasn't fulfilled in A.D. 70 ...

Jesus said it was (Luke 21:32).

In Luke 21:32, Jesus didn't say or mean that Luke
21:27 was fulfilled in 70 AD, for Luke 21:32 is the
same as Matthew 24:34, which could refer to the future
generation that would see the rebudding of the fig
tree (Matthew 24:32-33), where the fig tree could
represent Israel (Hosea 9:10) and its rebudding could
represent the re-establishment of Israel in November,
1947 by U.N. Resolution. A generation could "pass"
(Matthew 24:34) after 70 years (Psalms 90:10), so
that the tribulation and second coming of Matthew
24:4-31 may have to be completed by 2016.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

In order to understand what Jesus meant when He said:
"Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD
with power and great glory" [Luke 21:27] you have to
read it like first century Jews would have. Please
read post #126 in the thread entitled: "Fulfillment
of Math 24:14?", I explain what Jesus meant.

That won't be necessary, for it would have been clear
even to first century Jews that Luke 21:27 is the same
second coming as Matthew 24:30-31, Mark 13:26-27,
Psalms 50:3-5, Revelation 1:7, Revelation 19:11-20:6,
1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, and 1 Corinthians
15:22-23,52-53, none of which verses were fulfilled
in 70 AD or any time since.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

Luke 21:27 is an abbreviated version of Matthew
24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27, which are the same event
as 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, and
1 Corinthians 15:22-23,52-53. None of these passages
have been fulfilled yet.

The Olivet Discourse has nothing to do with 1 Thess.
4:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, 52-53 (which is
still future), nor does the discourse have anything
to do with the Second Coming, but the coming of
Christ in judgment against apostate Jerusalem (which
is the entire context of the discourse).

The Olivet Discourse has everything to do with
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, just as the the Olivet
Discourse has everything to do with 2 Thessalonians
2:1-8, for both 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 and
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 are referring to the same
coming of Christ and gathering together of the Church
as Matthew 24:30-31 and Mark 13:26-27.

Similarly, Revelation 19:7-20:6 has everything to do
with 1 Corinthians 15:22-23,52-53, for both passages
are referring to the same coming of Christ and
resurrection of the Church.

The entire context of the Olivet Discourse is not
the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, for that
destruction didn't even fulfill Matthew 24:2, Mark
13:2, and Luke 21:6 (or Luke 19:44), because it
spared the Wailing Wall. Nor did the 70 AD
destruction of Jerusalem fulfill the abomination
of desolation of Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36,
and 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Instead, the entire context of the Olivet Discourse,
just as the entire context of Revelation, is how the
Church might know the true second coming of Christ
to the Church (Matthew 24:3b-5,23-31,42-51, Mark
13:5-6,21-27,34-37, Luke 21:8,27-28, Revelation 1:7,
19:7-20:6, 22:20) after a worldwide tribulation
(Matthew 24:7, Mark 13:8, Luke 21:10-11,25-26,35,
Revelation chapters 6-18).

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Also, 2 Thess. 2 was talking about an event within
time-space history, not one that would end it (vs. 2).

When was it said that 2 Thessalonians 2 is talking
about an event that would end time-space history?

2 Thessalonians 2:1 is referring to the same future
coming of Christ and gathering together of the Church
as Matthew 24:30-31, Mark 13:26-27, and 1 Thessalonians
4:15-17.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 is referring to the same future
coming of Christ and destruction of the Antichrist
(the beast, the man of sin) as Revelation 19:20.

So 2 Thessalonians 2, the Olivet Discourse, and
Revelation are all talking about the same future
second coming of Christ. There's absolutely no
scriptural or historical reason to think otherwise,
except the reason of fear: the fear of having to
go through the horrors of the coming tribulation of
Revelation chapters 6-18.

This is where partial preterists and pre-tribbers
become bedfellows: they both cannot endure the
sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:2-4) of the scriptures
showing that the Church will have to suffer and die
during the coming tribulation (Revelation 13:10,
14:12-13, 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13). So they each devise
a way to think that the Church won't have to.

The partial preterists think "Ah-hah! If we say it all
happened in 70 AD, then we don't have to face it in
the future". And the pre-tribbers think "Ah-hah! If we
say it will happen only to the Jews, then we won't have
to face it, but can all be raptured into heaven before
it ever happens".

And so both partial preterists and pre-tribbers, by
turning to these fables, leave themselves woefully
unprepared to face the coming tribulation with patience
and faith, unto the end (Revelation 13:10, 14:12-13,
20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), and leave themselves open to
becoming "offended" that they and their little ones
will have to suffer so grievously (Matthew 13:21,
24:10-12), to where some of them may even fulfill the
awful prophecies of people in the Church rejecting and
cursing God during the tribulation (Isaiah 8:21-22,
1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Thessalonians 2:3).

But we in the Church can prepare ourselves ahead of
time. We can reject the weakening fables of the
partial preterists and pre-tribbers, and stick with
the sound doctrine of the scriptures. Through the
Olivet Discourse and Revelation, we can know
beforehand everything that we will have to face (Mark
13:23, Revelation 1:1, 22:16), so that when the
tribulation begins (possibly in 2010) we won't think
that some strange thing is happening to us, but that
we are partakers of Christ's sufferings, so that when
his glory shall be revealed we may be glad also with
exceeding joy (1 Peter 4:12-13).

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

Revelation chapters 6-22 didn't happen in 70 A.D.,
but their fulfillment in the future will still be
"soon" or "shortly" (Revelation 1:1) from the point
of view of God, for whom a thousand years are as a
single day (2 Peter 3:8).

LOL. It never says anywhere that the ‘soon’ or
‘shortly’ passages that it’s from ‘God’s time’, it’s
just something futurists have to put in there to
complicate the plain words of John.

It doesn't complicate the plain words of John to
read Revelation 1:1 in the plain light of 2 Peter 3:8,
but makes perfect sense. For we aren't to think that
God has been slack in fulfilling His promise (2 Peter
3:9) of a "soon" second coming of Revelation 1:1,7,
19:11-20:6, 22:20, as some men count slackness
(2 Peter 3:9), but must remember that to God a
thousand years are as a single day (2 Peter 3:8).

But boy how one has to complicate the plain words of
John in Revelation chapters 6-18 to try to get them
all to fit into 70 AD. So what partial preterists have
to do is basically ignore Revelation chapters 6-18,
saying that they're just highly symbolic in ways that
no one really understands, so why bother trying to
explain how each verse of Revelation chapters 6-18
was fulfilled in 70 AD?

What's really funny is how the partial preterists
insist with all their might that the one word "soon"
(or "shortly") in Revelation 1:1 has to be taken
totally literally, but that almost all of the rest
of Revelation chapters 6-18 mustn't be taken literally
at all.

Futurists, on the other hand, take the much more
sensible course of reading the one word "soon" (or
"shortly") in Revelation 1:1 in the plain light of
2 Peter 3:8-9, which makes perfect sense, and then
take almost all of John's other plain words in
Revelation chapters 6-18 literally.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

If you’re trying to use what 2 Peter 3:8 says about a
day is like a thousand years, then you have to apply
it everywhere in Revelation, which would make the
thousand years in Revelation 20 only twenty-four
hours long.

Actually, 2 Peter 3:8 doesn't have to be applied
everywhere in Revelation, but only where Peter
himself applied it: where some men might count God
slack in fulfilling prophecy (2 Peter 3:9), such as
based on the "soon" (or "shortly") in Revelation 1:1.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

The two witnesses of Revelation 11 were not first-
century churches, for no first-century churches
fulfilled Revelation 11:5-13.

If you understand the symbolic language, then it fits
fine. It’s only when futurists apply their woodenly
literal hermeneutics that Revelation and the rest of
prophecy becomes difficult.

Actually, it's the exact reverse. It is very difficult,
nay, it's impossible, to try to fit Revelation 11:5-13
onto some first-century churches, just so one can try
to fulfill one's woodenly literal hermeneutic of the
single word "soon" (or "shortly") in Revelation 1:1.

But, on the other hand, a literal, futurist reading of
Revelation 11:5-13 is quite easy. The same holds true
for almost all of the rest of Revelation chapters 6-18.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

The two witnesses will be two individual prophets who
will prophesy, do miracles, be killed, and then be
resuscitated and taken into heaven after 3.5 days.

LOL. That’s definitely not how the first century
Christians would have read it, they would have
understood John’s symbolic language.

To the contrary, the first century Christians would
know better than anyone that Revelation 11:5-13 was
never fulfilled in their time.

Nothing requires that there is any symbolism at all
in Revelation 11:5-13, except for the single phrase
which is specifically indicated as symbolic by the
word "spiritually" (Revelation 11:8b).

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

Matthew 24:34 doesn't require that the tribulation
and second coming and rapture of Matthew 24:4-31 was
fulfilled in the first century

Matthew 24 says nothing about the Second Coming or
any ‘rapture’.

Matthew 24:30-31 (like Mark 13:26-27) refers to the
same coming of Christ and gathering together (rapture)
of the Church as 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, and
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. There's absolutely no
scriptural or historical reason to think otherwise.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

... for Matthew 24:34 could be referring to the
generation that saw the rebudding of the fig tree in
Matthew 24:32 ...

No it isn’t. ‘This generation’ always meant Jesus
contemporaries (which other futurists admit, except
for Matt. 24:34). Look how Jesus uses it in Matt.
23:36, which futurists admit it talking about A.D. 70.

Nothing requires that "this generation" in Matthew
24:34 is referring to Jesus' contemporaries, just as
nothing requires that "this generation" in Matthew
23:36 is referring to Jesus' contemporaries, for
Jesus' contemporaries didn't slay Zacharias
("whom YE slew" -- Matthew 23:35b, cf. Luke 11:51,
2 Chronicles 24:20-21), nor did they see the
abomination of desolation and second coming and
rapture of the Church of Matthew 24:15,30-31
fulfilled.

"This generation" in Matthew 24:34 could refer to the
generation that would see the endtime re-establishment
of the state of Israel (the rebudding of the fig tree,
Matthew 24:32), while "this generation" in Matthew
23:36 could refer to the figurative generation of
the wicked of all times (Luke 16:8, Proverbs 30:11-14,
Deuteronomy 32:5), just as "generation" can also
refer elsewhere to the figurative generation of the
righteous of all times (1 Peter 2:9, Psalms 24:6,
112:2).

Employing the figurative meaning of the generation of
the righteous of all times in Matthew 24:34 could make
sense in light of what Jesus had just finished saying
in Matthew 24:22. Matthew 24:34 could include the
meaning that the figurative generation of the
righteous elect will not perish from the earth before
the tribulation and second coming occur. This would
be in line with Proverbs 10:30.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

... restoration of the state of Israel by U.N.
Resolution in November, 1947.

Which has nothing to do with Bible prophecy or the
Second Coming.

The restoration of the state of Israel by U.N.
Resolution in November, 1947 could have quite a lot
to do with Bible prophecy and the second coming,
as it could have been an endtime fulfillment of
the "commandment to restore" in Daniel 9:25,
sixty-nine "weeks" after which the second coming
could happen (Daniel 9:25). The Hebrew word translated
as weeks is derived from a word which means "to be
complete", so that 69 "weeks" could mean 69 "to be
completed", which could mean 69 years to be
completed. So the second coming could occur in 2016.

The restoration of the state of Israel by U.N.
Resolution in November, 1947 could also have fulfilled
the rebudding of the fig tree in Matthew 24:32, as
the fig tree could represent Israel (Hosea 9:10). If
the generation that saw the restoration of the state
of Israel won't "pass" until the tribulation and
second coming are completed (Matthew 24:34), and a
generation passes after 70 years (Psalms 90:10), then
Jesus would have to return in 2016.

So Daniel 9:25 and Matthew 24:32-34 could be two
different witnesses (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:1b) pointing
to 2016 as the date of the second coming of Christ,
based on the prior restoration of the state of Israel
by U.N. Resolution in November, 1947.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

... so Jesus could fulfill Matthew 24:29-31 in 2016.

It ain’t gonna to happen.

Jesus very well could fulfill the second coming of
Matthew 24:29-31 in 2016. And if He does, that means
that the tribulation preceding His second coming would
have begun in 2010 and that we had to suffer through
the seven years of 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015,
and most of 2016.

So we may not have much time left to get prepared for
the coming tribulation.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

... which shows (like Matthew 24:7,9)

Nero’s persecution.

There's no proof that Nero’s persecution fulfilled
Matthew 24:9, much less Matthew 24:7, much less
Revelation 13:4-18.

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

... that it will indeed be global in scope
(Luke 21:25-26,35).

Symbolic and hyperbolic language. And ‘whole world’
must be understood in its ancient context to mean the
Roman world (Christians persecution throughout the
empire).

Nothing requires that Luke 21:25-26,35 isn't literal,
just as nothing requires that almost all of Revelation
chapters 6-18 isn't literal.

Nor does anything require that the idea of ‘whole
world’ in still-unfulfilled prophecies such as the
Olivet Discourse and Revelation chapters 6-18 must be
understood in its ancient context to mean just the
Roman world. It could very well mean the whole world
as understood at the time of their endtime
fulfillment, just as even partial preterists would
have no problem understanding any second-coming
references to the "world" as meaning "world" as
understood at the time of the endtime fulfillment of
the second coming.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

The Old Covenant age ended at the death of Jesus on
the cross

Hebrews says that it became obsolete, but had not
passed away yet, but soon would (Heb. 8:13). So your
assertion that the OC age ended at the death of Jesus
is wrong.

Not at all, for Hebrews 8:13 is referring to the Old
Covenant being ready to vanish away as soon as
Jeremiah 31:31 was spoken, not as soon as Hebrews 8:13
was spoken; and the Bible expressly states that the
Old Covenant had already been abolished on the cross
(Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 7:18-19),
which is when Jesus replaced it with the New Covenant
(Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17).

Partial preterists make fun of full preterists for
trying to make 70 AD more important than the cross,
when partial preterists try to do the very same thing.

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

... some Orthodox Jews will rebuild the temple and
re-start the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices ...

Which is unlikely to happen, because the Scriptures
never say it will and there are to many political
issues that make it near impossible to have the
Temple rebuilt.

Actually, it is not only likely, but absolutely
certain that some Orthodox Jews will rebuild the
temple and re-start the daily Mosaic animal
sacrifices before it, for Daniel 11:31,36 and
2 Thessalonians 2:4 require it.

And the political issues surrounding the rebuilding
of the temple could be the very thing that kick-
starts the entire tribulation. For what could happen
is that some Orthodox Jews, inspired by a miracle-
working Orthodox Jewish "Messiah", could blow up
the Islamic Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in
Jerusalem to (as they could say) "clear the site for
Messiah's rebuilding of the Temple".

This action could start an Islamic holy war against
Israel that will result in the destruction of Israel.
What could happen is that by the time the Dome of the
Rock is blown up (possibly in 2010), the U.S. could
have built up a huge Iraqi Army to invade Iran and
(as it could say) "finally remove Iran's nuclear
menace and extremist regime from the Middle East".

But when the Islamic Iraqi Army sees the Dome of the
Rock blown up, it could turn on its heels and, instead
of conquering huge Iran, conquer tiny Israel instead,
in revenge for (as it could say) "the Zionists' vile
desecration of Islam's second-most holy site".

The huge Iraqi Army could stream westward into Israel,
and be joined by the Syrian Army on its way through
Syria. Syria and Iran could also launch large numbers
of missiles onto Israel's air bases and major cities.
And hordes of screaming armed civilian Muslims could
swarm over every mile of Israel's borders with
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. And Hizbullah and
Hamas could fire off everything they've got at Israel
from Lebanon and Gaza. Faced with all of these things
coming at them at the same time, the poor Israeli
Defence Forces could become completely overwhelmed,
so that Israel will be defeated (as in Daniel 11:15-16)
and completely replaced by "Palestine".

While the Israeli Defence Forces are totally tied
up trying to keep the Muslims at bay, the well-armed
Orthodox Jews could focus all of their firepower in
completely taking over just the walled Old City of
Jerusalem, which contains the Temple Mount on which
they will build their temple. They could throw out all
the Christians and Muslims and non-Orthodox Jews and
proclaim the Old City of Jerusalem as the new (city-)
state of Israel, which will be a theocracy whose law
will be the Mosaic law.

The Orthodox Jews could ring the tops of the walls of
the Old City of Jerusalem with thousands of their own
soldiers all armed with machine guns, so that when the
Muslim armies reach the Old City, they'll be kept at
bay, unable to defeat the Orthodox Jews. The leader of
the Muslim armies could get fed up with the fight and
leave a token force to "lay siege" to the Old City
while he moves on south to take over Egypt (as in
Daniel 11:15-16). For the leader of the Muslim armies
could be a General of the Iraqi Army who is a Baathist
(the Hebrew word translated as "daughter" in Daniel
11:17 is "bath"), and the Baathists want to rid the
Arabs from all Western hegemony and unite all Arab
nations from Dubai to Morocco into one Arab
confederation, one massive United Arab States.

The Baathist Iraqi General could so rail against (what
he could call) "the Western puppet-regime" ruling
Egypt, that he could convince the rank and file of the
Egyptian Army to lay down their arms and (as he could
say) "join with me in restoring the dignity and power
and unity of the Arab nation, free from all Western
hegemony". The Egyptian Army could see no reason to
fight against a fellow Arab, especially when all he is
trying to do is further their own interests, and
especially when all Arabs will be hailing him as (what
they could call) "the Great Hero who threw Israel into
the sea".

And so the Baathist Iraqi General could succeed in
uniting Iraq, Syria (including "Palestine", i.e. a
defeated Israel) and Egypt into a Baathist
confederation, which could later be handed over to
the Antichrist (Daniel 11:21) after the Baathist Iraqi
General suddenly disappears from the scene (Daniel
11:19).

And all of this could have been kick-started by some
Orthodox Jews blowing up the Dome of the Rock so that
they could rebuild the temple and re-start the daily
Mosaic animal sacrifices before it.

These sacrifices will then be stopped two or three
years later by the Antichrist when he commits the
abomination of desolation (Daniel 11:31,36, cf.
Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

... which after a few years will be stopped by the
Antichrist when he commits the abomination of
desolation (Daniel 11:31,36, 9:27).

None of these verses say anything about any future
Antichrist, but all have a historic fulfillment.

Daniel 11:31,36, and 9:27 refer to what Jesus said
in Matthew 24:15 had not yet happened, and has not
happened since Jesus said Matthew 24:15.

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

Actually, 2 Peter 3:10-13 doesn't require that the
new heaven and new earth will appear immediately
at the second coming,

It actually does, which is why Premillennialism is
false.

Actually, 2 Peter 3:10-13 doesn't require that the
new heaven and new earth will appear immediately
at the second coming, for the day of the Lord will
last for over a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8), so
pre-millennialism isn't false at all.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

... for Peter had just finished showing how a "day"
to the Lord could last a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8).

Which has nothing to do with the Millennium.

2 Peter 3:8-13 does include the millennium because
the millennium won't begin until after the second
coming (Revelation 19:11-20:6), and the day of the
Lord will begin at the second coming (1 Corinthians
1:7-8), and heaven and earth won't pass away until
sometime after the millennium (Revelation 20:7), at
the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11,
cf. 21:1). So the day of the Lord will stretch all
the way from the second coming, through the
millennium, and up to the great white throne judgment.

NILLOC posted in message #42:

Posted by Bible2:

The Day of the Lord could start after the tribulation ...

Day of the Lord is a Biblical term that means a
judgment of God, not a long period of time.

The day of the Lord that will stretch from the second
coming, through the millennium, and up to the great
white throne judgment, will be one long period of time
of judgment from God. It will begin with the judgment
of the second coming (Revelation 19:11-21), extend
through the judgment of the millennium (e.g.
Zechariah 14:19, Revelation 2:26-29), then include
the judgment on Gog, Magog, and Satan after the
millennium (Revelation 20:7-10), and then end with
the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).

 

[Nilloc]

Hello Bible2.

By saying that, is one asserting the contrary, that the 42 months during which Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles in Revelation 11:2b is not the same 42 months as the reign of the Antichrist in Revelation 13:5b, and the 1,260 days of the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3?

There is no ’42 month reign of the Antichrist’.

If so, when has that assertion been proven? Or if it can't be proven, what reason is there to even surmise that during his 42-month reign the Antichrist won't trample Jerusalem, just as he will trample the temple in Jerusalem and the area surrounding Jerusalem (Judaea) when he commits the abomination of desolation (Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15-16) at the start of his 42-month reign?

The abomination of desolation has already been fulfilled. There were two that were told to happen; one by Antiochus Epiphanies that happen during the Maccabean period and the other by the Roman Armies in A.D. 70.

Actually, there’s absolutely no reason to think that the Jerusalem being talked about in Revelation 11:2 is one two thousand years in the past, when the rest of Revelation 11, not to mention the rest of Revelation chapters 6-18, wasn't fulfilled two thousand years in the past, indeed, hasn't been fulfilled even to this day, but could begin to be fulfilled in the near future, in 2010.

Revelation is a symbolic book full of apocalyptic language and was not to be taken literally. Much of the book symbolically and hyperbolically describes the first century Temple’s destruction and once that is understood, it’s easy to how it was fulfilled.

The Antichrist who "shall come" (1 John 2:18) is the same man called "the beast" in Revelation 13:4-18, and "that man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

No it isn’t. Futurists always take any passage that talks about any evil dude and just assume that that’s talking about the ‘Antichrist’, but when you look for there historic fulfillment, it becomes unlikely that these are all talking about the same guy.

Nero Caesar didn't fulfill Revelation 13:4-18; indeed, it has never been fulfilled to this day.

The Beast of Revelation corporately represents the Roman Empire, but personally Nero, in the same way that ‘Body of Christ’ can mean personally Christ’s literal flesh body, or corporately the Church. Because of this, Nero doesn’t have to do everything in the prophecy, but could have been fulfilled by another Emperor or the Empire.

It hasn't been shown that "Nero Caesar" adds up to 666 using the normal spelling of his name in the first century, as opposed to a variant spelling possibly intentionally jiggered around until it added up to 666.

It does add up to 666 if you translate Nero Caesar into Hebrew.

One will also have to show how Nero Caesar (as the purported "beast" of Revelation) fulfilled each verse of Revelation 13:4-18 (don't skip over any verses), as well as how he fulfilled each verse of Revelation 16:2,10,13, Revelation 17:8-17, and Revelation 19:19-20.

As I mentioned above, the Beast does not always represent an individual, but the whole Roman Empire, so not everything said about the Beast had to be fulfilled by Nero personally.

One will also have to show how Nero fulfilled 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Daniel 11:21-45.

This is again assuming that any passage that talks about a bad guy is talking about some future ‘Antichrist.’ 2 Thessalonians 2 is talking about the leader of Zealots (can’t think of his name right now), who took over the Temple during the Rome-Jewish War A.D. 66-70. And Daniel 11 is describing Antiochus Epiphanies; even the Dispensationalist admits that.

It will be found that no man in history has ever fulfilled the Biblical prophecies regarding the Antichrist (the beast, the man of sin).

This is because futurists pour all of these passages into one person at the end of time, which exegetically is ridiculous.

Please show exactly how each verse (don't skip over any verses) of Revelation chapters 13 and 11, as well as 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:31,36, and Luke 21:24 were all fulfilled in 70 AD or some other time after they were spoken (in the case of Daniel 11:31,36, it will also have to be after the time that Matthew 24:15 was spoken).

Hopefully I can do this sometime in the future, because I start school on Wednesday and am pretty busy trying to get ready for that.

Once again, the Antichrist who "shall come" (1 John 2:18) is the same man as the beast in Revelation 13:4-18, and the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

Once again, it isn’t.

where the fig tree could represent Israel (Hosea 9:10) and its rebudding could represent the re-establishment of Israel in November, 1947 by U.N. Resolution.

The Israel that was established in 1948 has nothing to do with Bible Prophecy, nor is it the same ancient nation that was descended from Jacob, but a secular state of Palestine. And, from what I can tell, the Jews that live there are not descended from Judah or Jacob, but are just descended from converts to Talmudic Judaism.

That won't be necessary, for it would have been clear even to first century Jews that Luke 21:27 is the same second coming as Matthew 24:30-31, Mark 13:26-27, Psalms 50:3-5, Revelation 1:7, Revelation 19:11-20:6, 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, and 1 Corinthians 15:22-23,52-53, none of which verses were fulfilled in 70 AD or any time since.

Did you read my post from the other thread? In case you didn’t, I’ll just briefly explain why the Olivet Discourse is not describing the Second Coming. In Matthew 24:30, Jesus quotes from Daniel 7:13. And in that passage the Son of Man is not descending to earth, but is instead ascending up to the Ancient of Days. This makes it impossible for the Olivet Discourse to be the Second Coming, when the Lord Himself descends from Heaven (1 Thess. 4:16).

The Olivet Discourse has everything to do with 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, just as the the Olivet Discourse has everything to do with 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, for both 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 are referring to the same coming of Christ and gathering together of the Church as Matthew 24:30-31 and Mark 13:26-27.

2 Thess. 2 cannot be describing the same event as 1 Thess. 4:16-17. 2 Thess. 2 was talking about an event that could have already passed (2 Thess. 2:2) i.e. a historic event that, although terrible, was not the end of the cosmos. Where as when 1 Thess. 4:16-17 (which describes the Resurrection/Redemption of our bodies) occurs, the New Heavens and New Earth will appear (Rom. 8:18-25).

The entire context of the Olivet Discourse is not the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, for that destruction didn't even fulfill Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, and Luke 21:6 (or Luke 19:44), because it spared the Wailing Wall.

Read the proceeding chapters of Matthew and it becomes clear that A.D. 70 is the context. Chapter 23 is all about the corrupt Pharisees who were to be punished that generation (Matt. 23:36). And Matthew 21:33-46, which Dispensationalists have said refer to A.D. 70, even calls that event a coming of God (vs. 40). And about the Wailing Wall; it was not part of Herod’s Temple, but was probably part of Herod’s fortress that was built close to the Temple. So Matt. 24:2 was fulfilled then just like Jesus said it would.

Nor did the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem fulfill the abomination of desolation of Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

The abomination of desolation was fulfilled in A.D. 70, when the Roman Armies carried there eagle signs and performed sacrifices in the city; Luke certainly interpreted the Roman Armies having to do with the desolation (Luke 21:20). Daniel 11 is talking about Antiochus Epiphanies, not A.D.70, and definitely not some twenty-first century Antichrist.

When was it said that 2 Thessalonians 2 is talking about an event that would end time-space history?

I explained this earlier in this post.

So 2 Thessalonians 2, the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation are all talking about the same future second coming of Christ.

They are all indeed talking about the same coming of Christ, but no the Second Coming.

There's absolutely no scriptural or historical reason to think otherwise

Yeah there is.

 

[Nilloc]

except the reason of fear: the fear of having to go through the horrors of the coming tribulation of Revelation chapters 6-18.

The tribulation was coming back then Rev. 1:1-3. There may be a tribulation coming, but if there is one, it’s no foretold in Scripture.

This is where partial preterists and pre-tribbers become bedfellows: they both cannot endure the sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:2-4) of the scriptures showing that the Church will have to suffer and die during the coming tribulation (Revelation 13:10, 14:12-13, 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13).

Christians did die in the tribulation; they were horribly persecuted by the Jews and Nero. I’m not an Orthodox (Partial) Preterist because I’m scared of the tribulation; I’m an Orthodox Preterist because I believe it is closest to what the Scriptures teach.

So they each devise a way to think that the Church won't have to.

The Church already has.

The partial preterists think "Ah-hah! If we say it all happened in 70 AD, then we don't have to face it in the future".

LOL. I know of no Orthodox Preterist who believes the tribulation is in the past because they’re afraid of the tribulation.

And so both partial preterists and pre-tribbers, by turning to these fables, leave themselves woefully unprepared to face the coming tribulation with patience and faith, unto the end (Revelation 13:10, 14:12-13, 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), and leave themselves open to becoming "offended" that they and their little ones will have to suffer so grievously (Matthew 13:21, 24:10-12), to where some of them may even fulfill the awful prophecies of people in the Church rejecting and cursing God during the tribulation (Isaiah 8:21-22, 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Thessalonians 2:3). But we in the Church can prepare ourselves ahead of time. We can reject the weakening fables of the partial preterists and pre-tribbers, and stick with the sound doctrine of the scriptures. Through the Olivet Discourse and Revelation, we can know beforehand everything that we will have to face (Mark 13:23, Revelation 1:1, 22:16), so that when the tribulation begins (possibly in 2010) we won't think that some strange thing is happening to us, but that we are partakers of Christ's sufferings, so that when his glory shall be revealed we may be glad also with exceeding joy (1 Peter 4:12-13).

No, instead, we try to do the Lord’s work and believe that the world can become a better place, rather than as the futurists do, say that there’s no point in trying to make the world a better place since it’s gonna just get screwed up by the Antichrist soon.

But boy how one has to complicate the plain words of John in Revelation chapters 6-18 to try to get them all to fit into 70 AD. So what partial preterists have to do is basically ignore Revelation chapters 6-18, saying that they're just highly symbolic in ways that no one really understands, so why bother trying to explain how each verse of Revelation chapters 6-18 was fulfilled in 70 AD?

We don’t ignore Revelation, we just understand that prophetic literature is difficult to interpret, and that we cannot always find it’s exact fulfillment. We also understand that the book uses extreme that should not be taken literally.

What's really funny is how the partial preterists insist with all their might that the one word "soon" (or "shortly") in Revelation 1:1 has to be taken totally literally, but that almost all of the rest of Revelation chapters 6-18 mustn't be taken literally at all.

The first three chapters of Revelation are clearly not symbolic, but are very straight forward when Jesus is talking to the seven churches (which futurists make into ‘church ages’). The apocalyptic imagery does not really start until chapter 4.

Actually, it's the exact reverse. It is very difficult, nay, it's impossible, to try to fit Revelation 11:5-13 onto some first-century churches

The two witnesses are called lamb stands and are spoken of in the present tense (Rev. 11:4), just like the seven churches which are in Asia ((Rev. 1:4) meaning that they cannot be ‘church ages’ like futurists say)) and are called lambstands (Rev. 1:20). It’s not a coincidence.

But, on the other hand, a literal, futurist reading of Revelation 11:5-13 is quite easy. The same holds true for almost all of the rest of Revelation chapters 6-18. To the contrary, the first century Christians would know better than anyone that Revelation 11:5-13 was never fulfilled in their time.

Except that Revelation was written to the seven churches and describing a tribulation that was already going on (Rev. 2:9-10). Jesus promises the Church at Philadelphia that He is coming quickly (Rev. 3:11) and to hold on to their faith. Just image what the first century Christians would think reading that back then. If the futurists are right, Jesus was being deceptive.

Nothing requires that there is any symbolism at all in Revelation 11:5-13, except for the single phrase which is specifically indicated as symbolic by the word "spiritually" (Revelation 11:8b).

Revelation was signified (symbolized) it to John (Rev. 1:1). The Greek word used for signified is eshmanen, which means: “a mark” according to Strong’s notes. So yes Revelation is full of symbols.

Matthew 24:30-31 (like Mark 13:26-27) refers to the same coming of Christ and gathering together (rapture) of the Church as 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. There's absolutely no scriptural or historical reason to think otherwise.

I already explained why the Olivet Discourse is not the Second Coming earlier in this.

Nothing requires that "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 is referring to Jesus' contemporaries, just as nothing requires that "this generation" in Matthew 23:36 is referring to Jesus' contemporaries,

LOL. All of Matthew 23 is about the corrupt Pharisees, you really think Jesus just wanders off into some tribulation two thousand years away? It makes no sense.

for Jesus' contemporaries didn't slay Zacharias ("whom YE slew" -- Matthew 23:35b, cf. Luke 11:51, 2 Chronicles 24:20-21),

The Zechariah that Jesus mentions here cannot be the one killed in Chronicles (though many think that it is). They can’t be the same, because the Zechariah in Chronicles father’s name is Jehoiada, but the Zechariah Jesus speaks of had a father named Berechiah. The only Zechariah son of Berechiah mentioned in Scripture is the prophet Zechariah who wrote the Book of Zechariah, but there is no proof that he was murdered between the Temple and the altar. The Zechariah that is being spoken of here is probably John the Baptists father, who was a priest (which would explain why he would have been murdered between the Temple and the altar). It would also explain why the Pharisees would have killed him, since he would have been close to Jesus. So when Jesus says: “whom ye slew” he meant his contemporaries.

nor did they see the abomination of desolation and second coming and rapture of the Church of Matthew 24:15,30-31 fulfilled.

The ‘rapture’ and Second Coming are not foretold in the Olivet Discourse.

as it could have been an endtime fulfillment of the "commandment to restore" in Daniel 9:25,

This is obviously talking about the restoration after the Babylonian Exile, even the Dispensationalists agree.

sixty-nine "weeks" after which the second coming could happen (Daniel 9:25). The Hebrew word translated as weeks is derived from a word which means "to be complete", so that 69 "weeks" could mean 69 "to be completed", which could mean 69 years to be completed. So the second coming could occur in 2016.

The Second Coming is not talked about in the 70 weeks; this is prophesying about the first coming of Christ.

There's no proof that Nero’s persecution fulfilled Matthew 24:9, much less Matthew 24:7, much less Revelation 13:4-18.

Sure there is. Nero was the leader of the nations (the Roman Empire) who persecuted the Christians (which is how the nations hated the disciples). Verse 9 is describing the civil wars that occurred in the sixties A.D. Rev. 13 is may be difficult, so maybe I’ll get to it another time.

 

[Nilloc]

Not at all, for Hebrews 8:13 is referring to the Old Covenant being ready to vanish away as soon as Jeremiah 31:31 was spoken, not as soon as Hebrews 8:13 was spoken;

The writer of Hebrews speaks of the OC still not having disappeared in the second part of the verse; he speaks of the OC ready to disapper in his time. And the NC was still over six hundred years away when Jeremiah was written, so it cannot be ‘soon’ to disappear like Hebrews says.

and the Bible expressly states that the Old Covenant had already been abolished on the cross (Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 7:18-19), which is when Jesus replaced it with the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17).

Yes the Cross made the OC obsolete, but the outward elements had not yet passed away, until the Temple was destroyed.

Partial preterists make fun of full preterists for trying to make 70 AD more important than the cross,

They do.

when partial preterists try to do the very same thing.

No we don’t. We don’t say the Second Coming happened then, we don’t say that the Resurrection was then, we don’t say death was destroyed then, we don’t say that God became all in all then, we don’t say that Christ put all of His enemies under His feet then, we don’t say that we reached the unity of the faith then, we don’t say that our bodies were redeemed then, we don’t say that the righteous inherited the earth then, and we don’t say that Satan was thrown into the lake of fire then. Full preterists say that all of those things happened then, so they do make the most important event in history.

Daniel 11:31,36 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 require it

Daniel is talking about Antiochus Epiphanies and 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled in A.D. 70.

 

[Nilloc]

And the political issues surrounding the rebuilding

of the temple could be the very thing that kick-
starts the entire tribulation. For what could happen
is that some Orthodox Jews, inspired by a miracle-
working Orthodox Jewish "Messiah", could blow up
the Islamic Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in
Jerusalem to (as they could say) "clear the site for
Messiah's rebuilding of the Temple".

This action could start an Islamic holy war against
Israel that will result in the destruction of Israel.
What could happen is that by the time the Dome of the
Rock is blown up (possibly in 2010), the U.S. could
have built up a huge Iraqi Army to invade Iran and
(as it could say) "finally remove Iran's nuclear
menace and extremist regime from the Middle East".

But when the Islamic Iraqi Army sees the Dome of the
Rock blown up, it could turn on its heels and, instead
of conquering huge Iran, conquer tiny Israel instead,
in revenge for (as it could say) "the Zionists' vile
desecration of Islam's second-most holy site".

The huge Iraqi Army could stream westward into Israel,
and be joined by the Syrian Army on its way through
Syria. Syria and Iran could also launch large numbers
of missiles onto Israel's air bases and major cities.
And hordes of screaming armed civilian Muslims could
swarm over every mile of Israel's borders with
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. And Hizbullah and
Hamas could fire off everything they've got at Israel
from Lebanon and Gaza. Faced with all of these things
coming at them at the same time, the poor Israeli
Defence Forces could become completely overwhelmed,
so that Israel will be defeated (as in Daniel 11:15-16)
and completely replaced by "Palestine".

While the Israeli Defence Forces are totally tied
up trying to keep the Muslims at bay, the well-armed
Orthodox Jews could focus all of their firepower in
completely taking over just the walled Old City of
Jerusalem, which contains the Temple Mount on which
they will build their temple. They could throw out all
the Christians and Muslims and non-Orthodox Jews and
proclaim the Old City of Jerusalem as the new (city-)
state of Israel, which will be a theocracy whose law
will be the Mosaic law.

The Orthodox Jews could ring the tops of the walls of
the Old City of Jerusalem with thousands of their own
soldiers all armed with machine guns, so that when the
Muslim armies reach the Old City, they'll be kept at
bay, unable to defeat the Orthodox Jews. The leader of
the Muslim armies could get fed up with the fight and
leave a token force to "lay siege" to the Old City
while he moves on south to take over Egypt (as in
Daniel 11:15-16). For the leader of the Muslim armies
could be a General of the Iraqi Army who is a Baathist
(the Hebrew word translated as "daughter" in Daniel
11:17 is "bath"), and the Baathists want to rid the
Arabs from all Western hegemony and unite all Arab
nations from Dubai to Morocco into one Arab
confederation, one massive United Arab States.

The Baathist Iraqi General could so rail against (what
he could call) "the Western puppet-regime" ruling
Egypt, that he could convince the rank and file of the
Egyptian Army to lay down their arms and (as he could
say) "join with me in restoring the dignity and power
and unity of the Arab nation, free from all Western
hegemony". The Egyptian Army could see no reason to
fight against a fellow Arab, especially when all he is
trying to do is further their own interests, and
especially when all Arabs will be hailing him as (what
they could call) "the Great Hero who threw Israel into
the sea".

And so the Baathist Iraqi General could succeed in
uniting Iraq, Syria (including "Palestine", i.e. a
defeated Israel) and Egypt into a Baathist
confederation, which could later be handed over to
the Antichrist (Daniel 11:21) after the Baathist Iraqi
General suddenly disappears from the scene (Daniel
11:19).

And all of this could have been kick-started by some
Orthodox Jews blowing up the Dome of the Rock so that
they could rebuild the temple and re-start the daily
Mosaic animal sacrifices before it.

There are more problems than just the Dome of the Rock. They need to spread the ashes of a red heifer where the Temple will be, but the breeders have not been able to get the heifer the right color and just three white hairs would disqualify the heifer from being used. They also need to find a Levite boy in order to perform a ceremony where the Temple will be. But they have never been able to find a Levite because all of the lineage records are destroyed and even if they did find a Levite, there are certain things that would disqualify him i.e. if he is ceremonially unclean.

The day of the Lord that will stretch from the second coming, through the millennium, and up to the great white throne judgment, will be one long period of time of judgment from God. It will begin with the judgment of the second coming (Revelation 19:11-21), extend through the judgment of the millennium (e.g. Zechariah 14:19, Revelation 2:26-29), then include the judgment on Gog, Magog, and Satan after the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10), and then end with the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).

This is completely unbiblical. Read how ‘Day of the Lord’ is used in the OT. It’s not referring to the Millennium, it’s a way of talking about a judgment of God on a nation. There are many days of the Lord talked about in the OT.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There are more problems than just the Dome of the Rock. They need to spread the ashes of a red heifer where the Temple will be, but the breeders have not been able to get the heifer the right color and just three white hairs would disqualify the heifer from being used. They also need to find a Levite boy in order to perform a ceremony where the Temple will be. But they have never been able to find a Levite because all of the lineage records are destroyed and even if they did find a Levite, there are certain things that would disqualify him i.e. if he is ceremonially unclean.

This is completely unbiblical. Read how ‘Day of the Lord’ is used in the OT. It’s not referring to the Millennium, it’s a way of talking about a judgment of God on a nation. There are many days of the Lord talked about in the OT.

Greetings bro! You might take a look at my thread on Reve 6:6. Why would Denari, wheat and barley be mentioned in that verse?

I am also of the view that OC Jerusalem/Judea is being shown in Revelation. Thoughts?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7245861

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Deut 8:8 Land of wheat/grain/02406 chittah and barley/08184 s@`orah and vine and fig and pomegranate land of olive of oil and honey.

Joel 1:11 Farmers are shamed, they howl ones been vineyard-dressers over wheat/grain and over barley that harvest of field perishes

Reve 6:6 And I hear as a sound in midst of the four living ones, saying: "choinex of grain/wheat/sitou <4621> of denarius and three choinex of barleys/kriqhV <2915> of denarius, and the olive-oil/elaion <1637> and the wine/oinon <3631> no you should be injuring".

Reve 18:13 and cinnamon, and ginger, and incenses, and attar, and frankincense, and wine/oinon <3631>, and olive-oil/elaion <1637>, and fine-flour, and grain/siton <4621>, and cattle/beasts, and sheep, and of horses, and of chariots, and of bodies and souls of men.

 

[Nilloc]

Hi LLOJ.

Greetings bro! You might take a look at my thread on Reve 6:6.

Interesting connection you made with the parable in Matt. 20.

Why would Denari, wheat and barley be mentioned in that verse?

Didn't Josephus mention the price of wheat and barely in Jerusalem at the time was one Denari? . . . or maybe I'm thinking of something else . . .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There are more problems than just the Dome of the Rock. They need to spread the ashes of a red heifer where the Temple will be, but the breeders have not been able to get the heifer the right color and just three white hairs would disqualify the heifer from being used. They also need to find a Levite boy in order to perform a ceremony where the Temple will be. But they have never been able to find a Levite because all of the lineage records are destroyed and even if they did find a Levite, there are certain things that would disqualify him i.e. if he is ceremonially unclean.

Greetings. The Jews will not know the significance of the Red Heifer unless they read the Christ-ian NT/NC. Here is an very good commentary on it and Hebrews 9:13 is the only place this word is used in the NT/NC. Thoughts?

Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of he-goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer/damalewV <1151> sprinkling the ones being commoned/contaminated, is hallowing toward the of the flesh, purity..........

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/ashes/ashes1.htm
ASHES OF THE RED HEIFER

...............Numbers 19 is a most unusual chapter in the Old Testament. All the offerings in the Bible are bullocks and rams, but here there is an exception - a heifer, a female cow whose never given birth. All the offerings in the Old Testament are slaughtered and offered to God, but this offering of the red heifer, though killed and burned, is very different from the rest.

While all others are offered to God to meet current claims - that is, the sin-offering, the burnt offering, or the peace offering according to the need of the day - the red heifer alone was not for the present need. It was offered to meet future needs. The ordinance of the red heifer stands alone. While other sacrifices are often brought before us, this recorded in no other part of Israel's history...........

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Hello Bible2.

Hello.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

There is no &#8217;42 month reign of the Antichrist&#8217;

The 42-month reign of Revelation 13:5,7 will be that
of the Antichrist who "shall come" (1 John 2:18).

NILLOC posted in message #51:

The abomination of desolation has already been
fulfilled. There were two that were told to happen;
one by Antiochus Epiphanies that happen during the
Maccabean period and the other by the Roman Armies
in A.D. 70.

The abomination of desolation (Matthew 24:15, Daniel
9:27, 11:31,36, 12:11-12; 2 Thessalonians 2:4) hasn't
been fulfilled yet. It wasn't fulfilled by Antiochus
Epiphanes or by the Roman armies in 70 AD.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Revelation is a symbolic book full of apocalyptic
language and was not to be taken literally. Much of
the book symbolically and hyperbolically describes
the first century Temple&#8217;s destruction and once that
is understood, it&#8217;s easy to how it was fulfilled.

Revelation is a literal book. The few symbolic parts
of it are usually explained afterward (e.g. Revelation
1:20). Revelation nowhere describes the first-century
temple&#8217;s destruction. None of Revelation chapters 6-22
was fulfilled in 70 AD.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

The Antichrist who "shall come" (1 John 2:18) is the
same man called "the beast" in Revelation 13:4-18,
and "that man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

No it isn&#8217;t. Futurists always take any passage that
talks about any evil dude and just assume that that&#8217;s
talking about the &#8216;Antichrist&#8217;, but when you look for
there historic fulfillment, it becomes unlikely that
these are all talking about the same guy.

There was no historical fulfillment of the Antichrist
who "shall come" (1 John 2:18), just as there was
no historical fulfillment of "the beast" in Revelation
13:4-18, just as there was no historical fulfillment
of "that man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. They
all refer to same future individual.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

The Beast of Revelation corporately represents the
Roman Empire, but personally Nero, in the same way
that &#8216;Body of Christ&#8217; can mean personally Christ&#8217;s
literal flesh body, or corporately the Church.
Because of this, Nero doesn&#8217;t have to do everything
in the prophecy, but could have been fulfilled by
another Emperor or the Empire.

Neither the Roman Empire, nor Nero, nor any other
Roman emperor ever fulfilled Revelation 13:4-18.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

It hasn't been shown that "Nero Caesar" adds up to
666 using the normal spelling of his name in the
first century, as opposed to a variant spelling
possibly intentionally jiggered around until it added
up to 666.

It does add up to 666 if you translate Nero Caesar
into Hebrew.

It hasn't been shown that the Hebrew translation of
Nero Caesar which adds up to 666 was the usual
translation, and not one where the spelling was
intentionally altered until it added up to 666.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

One will also have to show how Nero Caesar (as the
purported "beast" of Revelation) fulfilled each verse
of Revelation 13:4-18 (don't skip over any verses),
as well as how he fulfilled each verse of Revelation
16:2,10,13, Revelation 17:8-17, and Revelation
19:19-20.

As I mentioned above, the Beast does not always
represent an individual, but the whole Roman Empire,
so not everything said about the Beast had to be
fulfilled by Nero personally.

Neither Revelation 13:4-18, nor Revelation 16:2,10,13,
nor Revelation 17:8-17, nor Revelation 19:19-20 was
ever fulfilled by the Roman Empire or Nero.

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

One will also have to show how Nero fulfilled
2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Daniel 11:21-45.

This is again assuming that any passage that talks
about a bad guy is talking about some future
&#8216;Antichrist.&#8217; 2 Thessalonians 2 is talking about the
leader of Zealots (can&#8217;t think of his name right
now), who took over the Temple during the Rome-Jewish
War A.D. 66-70. And Daniel 11 is describing Antiochus
Epiphanies; even the Dispensationalist admits that.

The leader of the Zealots didn't fulfill
2 Thessalonians 2:4 in 66-70 AD, and Antiochus
Epiphanes didn't fulfill Daniel 11:21-45. Matthew
24:15 is referring to Daniel 11:31.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

It will be found that no man in history has ever
fulfilled the Biblical prophecies regarding the
Antichrist (the beast, the man of sin).

This is because futurists pour all of these passages
into one person at the end of time, which exegetically
is ridiculous

It isn't exegetically ridiculous to understand the
Biblical prophecies regarding the Antichrist (the
beast, the man of sin) to be referring to the same
future individual, for the Biblical prophecies
regarding the Antichrist (the beast, the man of sin)
have never been fulfilled.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

Please show exactly how each verse (don't skip over
any verses) of Revelation chapters 13 and 11, as well
as 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:31,36, and Luke
21:24 were all fulfilled in 70 AD or some other time
after they were spoken (in the case of Daniel
11:31,36, it will also have to be after the time that
Matthew 24:15 was spoken).

Hopefully I can do this sometime in the future, because
I start school on Wednesday and am pretty busy trying
to get ready for that.

It will never be able to be shown how all the verses of
Revelation chapters 13 and 11, as well as
2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:31,36, and Luke 21:24
were fulfilled in 70 AD or some other time after they
were spoken, for none of them have been fulfilled yet.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

Once again, the Antichrist who "shall come" (1 John
2:18) is the same man as the beast in Revelation
13:4-18, and the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

Once again, it isn&#8217;t.

The unfulfilled Antichrist who "shall come" (1 John
2:18) will be the same man as the unfulfilled beast
in Revelation 13:4-18 and the unfulfilled man of sin
in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

The Israel that was established in 1948 has nothing
to do with Bible Prophecy, nor is it the same ancient
nation that was descended from Jacob, but a secular
state of Palestine. And, from what I can tell, the
Jews that live there are not descended from Judah or
Jacob, but are just descended from converts to
Talmudic Judaism.

The Israel that was re-established by U.N. Resolution
in November, 1947 could have something to do with
Bible prophecy, as its re-establishment could have
been the fulfillment of the re-budding of the fig tree
in Matthew 24:32-34, and the U.N. Resolution which
restored the state of Israel could have been an
endtime fulfillment of the "commandment to restore"
in Daniel 9:25.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Did you read my post from the other thread? In case
you didn&#8217;t, I&#8217;ll just briefly explain why the Olivet
Discourse is not describing the Second Coming. In
Matthew 24:30, Jesus quotes from Daniel 7:13. And in
that passage the Son of Man is not descending to
earth, but is instead ascending up to the Ancient of
Days. This makes it impossible for the Olivet
Discourse to be the Second Coming, when the Lord
Himself descends from Heaven (1 Thess. 4:16).

Matthew 24:30-31 is describing the same second coming
of Jesus and gathering together of the Church as
2 Thessalonians 2:1 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

The original Hebrew of Daniel 7:13 doesn't require
that it isn't referring to the Son of Man descending
to earth, but is instead referring to Him ascending
up to the Ancient of Days. It doesn't even require
that Jesus Himself isn't the Ancient of Days.

 

[Bible2]

NILLOC posted in message #51:

2 Thess. 2 cannot be describing the same event as
1 Thess. 4:16-17. 2 Thess. 2 was talking about an
event that could have already passed (2 Thess. 2:2)
i.e. a historic event that, although terrible, was
not the end of the cosmos. Where as when 1 Thess.
4:16-17 (which describes the Resurrection/Redemption
of our bodies) occurs, the New Heavens and New Earth
will appear (Rom. 8:18-25).

2 Thessalonians 2:1 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
refer to the same second coming of Jesus and
gathering together of the Church.

2 Thessalonians 2 wasn't talking about an event
which could have already passed, for it has never
been fulfilled, and nothing in 2 Thessalonians 2:2
changes that fact.

Romans 8:18-25 doesn't say that the new heaven and
earth will appear at the resurrection of the Church.
No scripture says that, for the new heaven and earth
of Revelation 21 won't appear until Revelation
chapters 6-20 have been fulfilled, and they have
never been fulfilled.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

The entire context of the Olivet Discourse is not
the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, for that
destruction didn't even fulfill Matthew 24:2, Mark
13:2, and Luke 21:6 (or Luke 19:44), because it
spared the Wailing Wall.

Read the proceeding chapters of Matthew and it
becomes clear that A.D. 70 is the context. Chapter
23 is all about the corrupt Pharisees who were to
be punished that generation (Matt. 23:36). And
Matthew 21:33-46, which Dispensationalists have said
refer to A.D. 70, even calls that event a coming of
God (vs. 40). And about the Wailing Wall; it was not
part of Herod&#8217;s Temple, but was probably part of
Herod&#8217;s fortress that was built close to the Temple.
So Matt. 24:2 was fulfilled then just like Jesus
said it would.

Nothing in the proceeding chapters of Matthew says
or requires that 70 AD has anything to do with
Matthew 24, not even Matthew 23:36 or Matthew
21:33-46. The Wailing Wall was an integral part of
"all these things" (Matthew 24:2) related to the
temple, as it was (just as it still is) a wall which
holds up the Temple Mount. This is why the Jews
revere the Wailing Wall so much. It had nothing to do
with Herod&#8217;s fortress. Matthew 24:2 wasn't fulfilled
because the Wailing Wall still stands.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

The abomination of desolation was fulfilled in A.D.
70, when the Roman Armies carried there eagle signs
and performed sacrifices in the city; Luke certainly
interpreted the Roman Armies having to do with the
desolation (Luke 21:20). Daniel 11 is talking about
Antiochus Epiphanies, not A.D.70, and definitely not
some twenty-first century Antichrist.

The abomination of desolation wasn't fulfilled in 70
AD; the Roman armies never fulfilled Matthew 24:15,
Daniel 9:27, 11:31,36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Likewise, Antiochus Epiphanes never fulfilled Daniel
11:31-45.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

So 2 Thessalonians 2, the Olivet Discourse, and
Revelation are all talking about the same future
second coming of Christ.

They are all indeed talking about the same coming of
Christ, but no the Second Coming.

Neither 2 Thessalonians 2, nor the Olivet Discourse,
nor Revelation 19 foretold any coming of Christ
which has already happened; they all remain
unfulfilled.

NILLOC posted in message #51:

Bible 2 posted:

There's absolutely no scriptural or historical reason
to think otherwise.

Yeah there is.

No scriptural or historical reasons have been given
to think that 2 Thessalonians 2, the Olivet Discourse,
and Revelation 19 have been fulfilled.