The seventh seal opened and Revelation unfolds

[Spiritual Jew]

No, Zechariah 14:11 is referring to during the millennium reign of Jesus.

LOL. What now? How does this answer my question?

Again, when it says "there shall be no more utter destruction" in Zechariah 14:11, do you believe it's saying there shall be no more utter destruction only during the millennium but Jerusalem will then be destroyed after that? If so, where is that indicated in Zechariah 14?

 

[Douggg]

LOL. What now? How does this answer my question?

Again, when it says "there shall be no more utter destruction" in Zechariah 14:11, do you believe it's saying there shall be no more utter destruction only during the millennium but Jerusalem will then be destroyed after that? If so, where is that indicated in Zechariah 14?

Zechariah 14 addresses the millennium reign. It does not address what takes place in Revelation 20:11 right before the Great White Throne judgement.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

That is the third time you just assume your ideology is sound. You have yet to even reconcile Daniel with the OD and Revelation. Daniel is way more obscure than Jesus and John.

I have, but its like someone who puts their hands over their eyes and demands show me!

Matthew 24:14-16 pins the abominations and desolations concerning the sanctuary in Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled at the first advent, not the second. The latter is the futurist position in their gap theory.

Matthew 24:14-16 completely exposes the futurist's gap theory as fuel fit for fire (1 Corinthians 3:13-15).
It supports that the little horn in Daniel and the sea-beast in the Revelation are synonymous and fulfilled by the papacy. Historicism rocks and dispensationalism erodes.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Zechariah 14 addresses the millennium reign. It does not address what takes place in Revelation 20:11 right before the Great White Throne judgement.

You can't even answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. But, your answer seems to be that you think Zechariah 14:11 is not saying there will never be any more utter destruction of Jerusalem, but just not during the millennium. Even though there is no indication of that at all in Zechariah 14.

 

[eclipsenow]

Are you aware the term "judgement" is not found in the kjv? So where are you coming up with "Judgment Day" ?

Are you aware that while I appreciate the enormous importance of the KJV to it's historical context, biblical scholarship has moved on since then and I just don't care for the practice of revering an archaic sounding and less accurate text? We know have VASTLY more historical source documents than they had - as in tens of thousands of fragments of EARLIER more accurate texts!

The KJV should be abandoned for more modern translations like the ESV for accuracy, and NIV for readability.

The trumpets and the vials are judgements of God to take place during the great tribulation.

You mean the tribulation John said he shared in in Chapter 1?
The one that was coming soon and near?
Seriously - just how callous do you think John was? His generation are about to get SMASHED by the Romans, and futurists think he turned around and said "Hey pals toughen up - you've got NOTHING to worry about! Wait till I tell you what happens in 2000 years!"

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Are you aware that while I appreciate the enormous importance of the KJV to it's historical context, biblical scholarship has moved on since then and I just don't care for the practice of revering an archaic sounding and less accurate text? We know have VASTLY more historical source documents than they had - as in tens of thousands of fragments of EARLIER more accurate texts!

The KJV should be abandoned for more modern translations like the ESV for accuracy, and NIV for readability.

His claim wasn't even true. The word "judgment" is in the KJV many times, so I don't know what he was talking about. Unless he was just saying it's not spelled "judgement" in the KJV, which would be a ridiculous thing to point out. And was he asking where you are coming up with "Judgment Day" just because that phrase isn't in the KJV? Well, the phrase "the day of judgment" is in the KJV several times. What's the difference?

 

[Timtofly]

I have, but its like someone who puts their hands over their eyes and demands show me!

Matthew 24:14-16 pins the abominations and desolations concerning the sanctuary in Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled at the first advent, not the second. The latter is the futurist position in their gap theory.

Matthew 24:14-16 completely exposes the futurist's gap theory as fuel fit for fire (1 Corinthians 3:13-15).
It supports that the little horn in Daniel and the sea-beast in the Revelation are synonymous and fulfilled by the papacy. Historicism rocks and dispensationalism erodes.

That is hardly historical. That is you in a post reality.

If the Gospel ended at the Cross, then you preach a post Gospel "ideology" of your own imagination.

Sorry, but the Gospel will end after the Second Coming.

You keep saying we exist in never never land. How is that better than dispensations? You are in your own private dispensation, if you post the Gospel ended at the Cross.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

That is hardly historical. That is you in a post reality.

If the Gospel ended at the Cross, then you preach a post Gospel "ideology" of your own imagination.

Sorry, but the Gospel will end after the Second Coming.

You keep saying we exist in never never land. How is that better than dispensations? You are in your own private dispensation, if you post the Gospel ended at the Cross.

Who said anything about the gospel ending at the cross? You like to make things up in your confusion.

And it's clear you're clueless about Historicism. Historicism predates dispensationalism by hundreds of years and its doctrine maintains the antichrist is the papacy, which has tremendous historical evidence.

And it has a tremendous scriptural foundation like Matthew 24:14-16. Matthew 24:14-16 substantiates that the little horn in Daniel 8, 9, 11, and 12 that causes the abominations of desolations wasn't Antiochus Epiphanies because Christ testified that the people of Judah in his time would see it.

Such evidence substantiates historicism and exposes the folly of futurism that teaches the antichrist is a future person. Matthew 24:14-16 substantiates the antichrist must be interpreted as a religious political system that spans centuries.

Futurism is a johnny-come-lately that was made up by a Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribera, to take the heat off the Roman church's blasphemous history.

 

[Timtofly]

Who said anything about the gospel ending at the cross? You like to make things up in your confusion.

And it's clear you're clueless about Historicism. Historicism predates dispensationalism by hundreds of years and its doctrine maintains the antichrist is the papacy, which has tremendous historical evidence.

And it has a tremendous scriptural foundation like Matthew 24:14-16. Matthew 24:14-16 substantiates that the little horn in Daniel 8, 9, 11, and 12 that causes the abominations of desolations wasn't Antiochus Epiphanies because Christ testified that the people of Judah in his time would see it.

Such evidence substantiates historicism and exposes the folly of futurism that teaches the antichrist is a future person. Matthew 24:14-16 substantiates the antichrist must be interpreted as a religious political system that spans centuries.

Futurism is a johnny-come-lately that was made up by a Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribera, to take the heat off the Roman church's blasphemous history.

You quoted this verse:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

The end of the Gospel is the end. You said the end was the first advent, no?

as fulfilled at the first advent, not the second advent

You clearly said the Gospel ended, at the first advent.

What other end is there after the Gospel goes to the whole world, the end?

Obviously you don't think the Gospel will end at the Second Coming. You said it ended at the first, not the second.

Your dispensation of the Gospel ended at the Cross. Jesus was only around for about 40 more days. That was the first advent.

Do you want to change that post, and that claim?

 

[Timtofly]

Such evidence substantiates historicism and exposes the folly of futurism that teaches the antichrist is a future person. Matthew 24:14-16 substantiates the antichrist must be interpreted as a religious political system that spans centuries.

Futurism is a johnny-come-lately that was made up by a Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribera, to take the heat off the Roman church's blasphemous history.

First off Antiochus Epiphanes was history. So Historicism denies even history itself.

There is no future AC so you can stop making that false accusation towards my post.

There will not be a repeat of history. Antiochus Epiphanes was never the AoD. Antiochus Epiphanes set up an AoD in the temple. The popes were antichrists no doubt, but there is no religious phenomenon known as the AC. The AoD is not an AC, nor even an image.

The AoD is the point Satan literally brings sheol to earth along with all the rebel angels from the pit where they are still bound, so no one has fled an AoD since Antiochus Epiphanes. If you think people left Judaea because a few popes lived in Rome Italy, that is crazy talk. There is over 1400 miles between the two locations.

Secondly Historicism became popular in the 1700's. That Jesuit dude lived in the 1500's. Your historicism is not even historically accurate. Your term is the new kid on the block. They both are humanistic garbage.

Most people accept history up to the Reformation as being part of Daniel in all eschatological groups as a basic understanding. That is not the sole proprietary claim of Historicism. The Reformation happened, and life still goes on. It was not the end of it all either.

When the NT was written every thing was future, and still is, because the Gospel is still being declared around the world. When Satan stands in front of national television, then you will know the end is soon. Unless of course the Second Coming happens first when no one is expecting it. That will certainly blow your historicism out of existence.

And you still have not explained the 2300 hundred years. Beginning or ending. The Reformation is not at the 2300 year mark. 2300 - 490 is 1810. What happened around 1800 that is so special in your 2300 years? Even Isaac Newton said it would end in 2060.

 

[Douggg]

Seriously - just how callous do you think John was? His generation are about to get SMASHED by the Romans, and futurists think he turned around and said "Hey pals toughen up - you've got NOTHING to worry about! Wait till I tell you what happens in 2000 years!"

How callous should Christians be in our generation, one to another? Our generation is about to experience the great tribulation. Yet, some Christians are saying Revelation is all in the past.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

First off Antiochus Epiphanes was history. So Historicism denies even history itself.

There is no future AC so you can stop making that false accusation towards my post.

There will not be a repeat of history. Antiochus Epiphanes was never the AoD. Antiochus Epiphanes set up an AoD in the temple. The popes were antichrists no doubt, but there is no religious phenomenon known as the AC. The AoD is not an AC, nor even an image.

The AoD is the point Satan literally brings sheol to earth along with all the rebel angels from the pit where they are still bound, so no one has fled an AoD since Antiochus Epiphanes. If you think people left Judaea because a few popes lived in Rome Italy, that is crazy talk. There is over 1400 miles between the two locations.

Secondly Historicism became popular in the 1700's. That Jesuit dude lived in the 1500's. Your historicism is not even historically accurate. Your term is the new kid on the block. They both are humanistic garbage.

Most people accept history up to the Reformation as being part of Daniel in all eschatological groups as a basic understanding. That is not the sole proprietary claim of Historicism. The Reformation happened, and life still goes on. It was not the end of it all either.

When the NT was written every thing was future, and still is, because the Gospel is still being declared around the world. When Satan stands in front of national television, then you will know the end is soon. Unless of course the Second Coming happens first when no one is expecting it. That will certainly blow your historicism out of existence.

And you still have not explained the 2300 hundred years. Beginning or ending. The Reformation is not at the 2300 year mark. 2300 - 490 is 1810. What happened around 1800 that is so special in your 2300 years? Even Isaac Newton said it would end in 2060.

This is what I wrote:

Matthew 24:14-16 pins the abominations and desolations concerning the sanctuary in Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled at the first advent, not the second.​

I “specified” that it was the “abominations and desolation concerning the sanctuary in Daniel 9:27” that was fulfilled at the first advent. The grammar or syntax does not include the “gospel being preached or the end,” period. You’re trying to put words in my mouth, which is really despicable.

Historicists acknowledge Antiochus Epiphanes is historical, they just accept Christ’s testimony that the abomination of desolation in Daniel did not happen under Antiochus because Christ testified that the people of Judah in his time would see it. This substantiates the seventieth week was fulfilled at the first advent in agreement with Daniel 9:27. Similarity Does Not Equal Identity.

Joachim of Fiore in the twelfth century identified the pope as antichrist. Of course, so did Martin Luther.

Francisco Ribera is the source of futurism, but the Protestants didn’t swallow it until John Darby. Until then Historicism was the dominant doctrine in Protestantism for hundreds of years.

I have to affirm that the dispensationalists are the ones that whitewash history. Historicists hold to it. Historicism rocks and dispensationalism drivels.

And finally, I've written a book about how the 2300 days prophecy is fulfilled. But the subject matter is the seventieth week and until you get that right you'll never interpret the 2300 days correctly.

 

[Douggg]

I have, but its like someone who puts their hands over their eyes and demands show me!

Matthew 24:14-16 pins the abominations and desolations concerning the sanctuary in Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled at the first advent, not the second. The latter is the futurist position in their gap theory.

Matthew 24:14-16 completely exposes the futurist's gap theory as fuel fit for fire (1 Corinthians 3:13-15).
It supports that the little horn in Daniel and the sea-beast in the Revelation are synonymous and fulfilled by the papacy. Historicism rocks and dispensationalism erodes.

Jerry, what is your view on the timing of Gog/Magog ?

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jerry, what is your view on the timing of Gog/Magog ?

Ezekiel 38:8 After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.
9 Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee.
​

The timing is after the 1000 years according to Revelation 20.

 

[Douggg]

Futurism is a johnny-come-lately that was made up by a Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribera, to take the heat off the Roman church's blasphemous history.

Jerry, do you know if Ribera taught that the Antichrist would (1) be anointed the King of Israel coming in his own name? And (2) that the Jews would perceive him to be the messiah? Which of course that teaching would eliminate any thoughts of a papacy antichrist concept.

What I have heard that there is a lot of talk by Ribera, but nothing available of what he actually wrote, i.e. the text of an actual manuscript. If an English version exists and is not to cumbersome to read, I would like to read it.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jerry, do you know if Ribera taught that the Antichrist would (1) be anointed the King of Israel coming in his own name? And (2) that the Jews would perceive him to be the messiah? Which of course that teaching would eliminate any thoughts of a papacy antichrist concept.

What I have heard that there is a lot of talk by Ribera, but nothing available of what he actually wrote, i.e. the text of an actual manuscript. If an English version exists and is not to cumbersome to read, I would like to read it.

I've never seen a translation either. His Latin manuscript is available. Even so, enough Protestants have read it, and its had its effect on dispensationalism, which presumes that the Church wasn't prophesied. Two House theology unmasks such a notion.

 

[Timtofly]

This is what I wrote:

Matthew 24:14-16 pins the abominations and desolations concerning the sanctuary in Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled at the first advent, not the second.​

I “specified” that it was the “abominations and desolation concerning the sanctuary in Daniel 9:27” that was fulfilled at the first advent. The grammar or syntax does not include the “gospel being preached or the end,” period. You’re trying to put words in my mouth, which is really despicable.

Historicists acknowledge Antiochus Epiphanes is historical, they just accept Christ’s testimony that the abomination of desolation in Daniel did not happen under Antiochus because Christ testified that the people of Judah in his time would see it. This substantiates the seventieth week was fulfilled at the first advent in agreement with Daniel 9:27. Similarity Does Not Equal Identity.

Joachim of Fiore in the twelfth century identified the pope as antichrist. Of course, so did Martin Luther.

Francisco Ribera is the source of futurism, but the Protestants didn’t swallow it until John Darby. Until then Historicism was the dominant doctrine in Protestantism for hundreds of years.

I have to affirm that the dispensationalists are the ones that whitewash history. Historicists hold to it. Historicism rocks and dispensationalism drivels.

And finally, I've written a book about how the 2300 days prophecy is fulfilled. But the subject matter is the seventieth week and until you get that right you'll never interpret the 2300 days correctly.

Jesus never said the Gospel ended at His advent. I never misquoted you, and you just posted it again.

The Gospel has been ongoing for 1992 years. These are the verses:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"

The abomination of desolation is the last event at the very end of the Gospel, not the first event. You only give a chapter and not even the words, then claim the AoD happened at the Cross.

Then fail to explain how. The Cross was not the AoD that made the Temple desolate. The Gospel is not the AoD that made the Temple desolate.

That is totally the opposite of what Daniel 9:27 states as well as Matthew 24. The fulness of the Gentiles is not the AoD. The Atonement Covenant made the Law of Sinai obsolete. If you claim there were 2 Covenants that makes you a dispensationalist. If you base your AoD on Herod's Temple that makes you a Judaizer, and your Temple being made desolate by an abomination ie, the first advent.

Matthew states the Words of Jesus that only one generation would see the fig tree blooming, the Second Coming, the GT, and the Aod, and in that order.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jesus never said the Gospel ended at His advent. I never misquoted you, and you just posted it again.

The Gospel has been ongoing for 1992 years. These are the verses:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"

The abomination of desolation is the last event at the very end of the Gospel, not the first event. You only give a chapter and not even the words, then claim the AoD happened at the Cross.

Then fail to explain how. The Cross was not the AoD that made the Temple desolate. The Gospel is not the AoD that made the Temple desolate.

That is totally the opposite of what Daniel 9:27 states as well as Matthew 24. The fulness of the Gentiles is not the AoD. The Atonement Covenant made the Law of Sinai obsolete. If you claim there were 2 Covenants that makes you a dispensationalist. If you base your AoD on Herod's Temple that makes you a Judaizer, and your Temple being made desolate by an abomination ie, the first advent.

Matthew states the Words of Jesus that only one generation would see the fig tree blooming, the Second Coming, the GT, and the Aod, and in that order.

Many futurist’s notions are a farce concerning the OD (Olivet Discourse). Christ is not speaking about the destruction of a future temple but Harod’s in the OD. The “opening of the OD” informs us that Christ’s dialogue concerns the destruction of Harod’s temple at the first advent, and his return, two distant phenomena.

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matthew 24:1-3)​

Christ’s testimony affirms he is talking about the stones on Herod’s temple (See ye not all these things?), not some future rebuilt temple. This is called telescoping; you might have heard of it. Telescoping is common practice among the prophets. They joined distant events in the same narration with those that were imminent. In the OD Christ is telescoping, joining distant events in the same narration with those that were imminent.

Christ is merely shifting from one advent to the other in Matthew 24 verses 14 and 15. Verse 14 pertains to his second advent, while verse 15 transitions to the first again.

The phrase “When ye therefore shall see” in verse 15, does not pertain to the defilement of some future temple; Christ knows the disciples will not be around for that. Christ is speaking to the people of his generation because they witnessed the “no stone left upon another” event with Herod's temple.

Christ is not addressing some distant future temple in Matthew 24:15, which verses 1 and 2 affirm. The prophet’s method of telescoping is clearly indicated and affirms the historicist’s interpretation. It maintains the grammatical-historical hermeneutic and exposes the futurist and preterist’s doctrine as wood, hay, and stubble.

 

[Douggg]

Christ is not addressing some distant future temple in Matthew 24:15, which verses 1 and 2 affirm.

Jerry, part of the olivet discourse is that Jesus did deal with the difficulties the disciples would have during their generation. And also there being future wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in diverse places. Agreed.

Then Jesus transitions to the end times with verse 14.

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Verse 15 -31 is end times, end of the age. Day of the Lord.

The Day of the Lord can be thought of as short term, mid term, long term.

short term (end of the age)
begins when the Antichrist goes into the temple, sits, claims to be God. includes the great tribulation. ends when Jesus returns.

mid term (millennium)
Jesus's thousand year millennium rule in Revelation 20

long term (eternity)
after the Great White Throne Judgment - eternity

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jerry, part of the olivet discourse is that Jesus did deal with the difficulties the disciples would have during their generation. And also there being future wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in diverse places. Agreed.

Then Jesus transitions to the end times with verse 14.

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Verse 15 -31 is end times, end of the age. Day of the Lord.

The Day of the Lord can be thought of as short term, mid term, long term.

short term (end of the age)
begins when the Antichrist goes into the temple, sits, claims to be God. includes the great tribulation. ends when Jesus returns.

mid term (millennium)
Jesus's thousand year millennium rule in Revelation 20

long term (eternity)
after the Great White Throne Judgment - eternity

Not according to the testimony of Christ:

And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (Matthew 24:2).​

There isn’t any literal or highly figurative language to follow to base the notion he is talking about a future temple. Verse 2 vindicates Christ is prophesizing about Herod's temple, not any future one.

Prophetic telescoping is clearly indicated.