When do the last days end?

[Dorothy Mae]

I take Him at His word and affirm that His Coming as a thief MUST have happened to them, then. (You do see my screen name, right?)

So he comes more than once. We agree.

Correct. The owner of the Vineyard did indeed come to the first-century husbandmen and was the stone that ground them to powder. (again... my screen name should be a dead givaway)

OK, we agree again. Nice. I have to say that so many who are dumping dispensationalism is really encouraging. Seeing the fullfilled prophesy in Revelation is so much more powerful that fear of the future. It is very freeing.

 

[ewq1938]

How is this any different from Today?

Christ hasn't returned thus none of those things are in place yet. These are all post-second coming.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Maybe we need to get on the same page here? I'm referring to a future rebuilt temple, that's what I no longer see as being reasonable. So not referring to the temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. That was a literal temple that was literally destroyed at the time.

OK, but no temple will ever be built where Solomon's temple was. The land belongs to the Moselms and I am pretty sure God gave it to them as a seal to prevent one from being built.

In any case, God will not dwell there nor is the kingdom of God to be found in Israel or Judiasm. God took the kingdom of God away from the Jews and gave to a people bearing the fruits thereof. That is what Jesus said. So nothing the Jews do has any bearing on prophesy.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Christ hasn't returned thus none of those things are in place yet. These are all post-second coming.

He said he would come to the Ephesians if they did not shape up. Since their city became uninhabited, we can assume they did not shape up and he came to them. He has threatened to come to others as well. I mean don't ask me but those are his words. "I am coming if you don't" was what he said.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Jesus only uses the word "parousia" in 1 chapter of the Gospels.....Matthew 24:

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke's Temple/Jerusalem Discourses harmonized
Mount of Olives and Titus

Matthew 24:
3
He is yet sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples toward-came to Him according to own, saying, `Tell us, when? shall these be
and what? the sign of Thy parousiaV <3952>,
and of the full-finish<sun-teleiaV <4930> of the Age?'
27
for even as the lightning/star-flashes/astraph <796> comes-out from risings, and is appearing till of west,
thus shall be the parousia <3952> of the Son of the Man;
37
For as even the days of the Noah thus shall be the parousia <3952> of the Son of the Man
39
and not they know till came the flood and took/lifted all! away.
Thus shall be also the parousia <3952> of the Son of the Man.

Mark 13
3 And of sitting of Him into the Mount of the Olives over against the Temple,
Peter and James and John and Andrew inquired<1905> of Him according to own
4 Tell to us! when these shall be being?
and what the sign whenever may be being about<3195> these.

Luke 21:7
They inquire yet of Him saying “Teacher!
when then shall these be being?
And what the sign whenever may be being about<3195> these to becoming?
=====================================

2 Thessalonians 2:
1 - And we ask you, brethren, in regard to the parousiaV <3952> of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto Him,
8 - and then shall be revealed the Lawless One, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the manifestation of His parousiaV <3952>,
2 Peter 3:4
and saying, 'Where is the promise of His parousiaV <3952>?
for since the fathers did fall asleep, all things so remain from the beginning of the creation;'
James 5
7 Be patient then brethren, till the parousiaV <3952> of the Lord;
behold the husbandman doth expect the precious fruit of the earth, being patient for it, till he may receive rain -- early and latter;
James 5
be ye patient! and stand-fast the hearts of ye,
that the parousia <3952> of the Lord has-neared/hggiken <1448> (5758);
=====================

.

Is the Greek word "parousia" your only argument for your position? You realize Jesus theatened to come again if a church did not shape up and he did. Does it really matter what word he used? He showed up in some fashion that meant business.

 

[ewq1938]

I fail to see your point because even today Jerusalem is once again standing. Therefore it could just as easily apply to Jerusalem today. There's also another possibility, Jerusalem isn't even meaning in the literal sense in Revelation where we see it still standing. And if that is the case, that, too, would debunk a 70 AD interpretation of the book of Revelation.

Plus in Rev 11, the trib is about to end and there is an earthquake that destroys 1/10th of the city which means during the GT the city was fully standing and the only damage it suffers is from an earthquake not Romans destroying the entire city. So, in Rev John never sees Jerusalem destroyed by men anywhere in the GT which matches the same lack of destruction anywhere in the olivet discourse.

 

[pasifika]

OK....


Then who are these people?:

20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the child shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.

If no one sins there and no one dies there... who are these sinners and dead children Isaiah testifies will be there? ??

Hello, what I think that last part of verse 20 in Isaiah where it mention the who dies a hundren years will be thought a mere child and the sinners who riches a hundred will be accursed... is more of challenge lay down by God for the new heavens and the new Earth that He will created if these things ever happens there than its Not a new heavens and new earth...more like a reverse way of saying a child will not die and a sinner will not live there...

verse 17 of Isaiah 65, the last part say " the former things will not be remembered nor will they come to mind in the new heavens and new Earth. ..so if people still die and sinners live there then you might say it still a former thing..no change, and we remember those things, so we might ask God what do you mean by NEW....
Again in verse 18 what God has created is to be rejoice forever and is a delight for His people...He is created a masterpiece of creation for His people as 1corins 2:9 puts it " no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no human mind has conceived the things God has prepared for those who loved Him"... this is what I call NEW

Also in verse 19 of Isaiah 65 said there is no weeping or crying will be heard...So if someone die there are the people rejoice over the death...

Thank you

 

[parousia70]

Christ hasn't returned thus none of those things are in place yet. These are all post-second coming.

Name one or two for us will ya?

 

[ewq1938]

He said he would come to the Ephesians if they did not shape up. Since their city became uninhabited, we can assume they did not shape up and he came to them. He has threatened to come to others as well. I mean don't ask me but those are his words. "I am coming if you don't" was what he said.

So you think the second coming happened in the past no one knows when it happened? That's not the second coming I have read of.

 

[parousia70]

Hello, what I think that last part of verse 20 in Isaiah where it mention the who dies a hundren years will be thought a mere child and the sinners who riches a hundred will be accursed... is more of challenge lay down by God for the new heavens and the new Earth that He will created if these things ever happens there than its Not a new heavens and new earth...more like a reverse way of saying a child will not die and a sinner will not live there...

Yeah, since one has to change the scripture to fit that view, I'll pass.
The better way is to change your view to fit the scripture.

 

[DavidPT]

Ok.... So?



But again, since it is unprovable, why do you keep pushing a post 70 argument you can't prove?

Since it can't be proven, that means a pre 70 date is at least possible, and the implications of which can't be summarily dismissed they way you hope they could, and must be dealt with actually on their merits... which is a huge thorn in the side of Futurists, who instead seem to want to hang their entire argument on "but, but, but what if...", Right?

I'm not pushing a pre or post argument one way or the other. I'm just pointing out certain things in general, basically. So it doesn't matter to me when John was given these visions. It only matters to Preterists, apparently. From my POV, even if John saw these visions prior to 70 AD, and that that was a proven fact, all this would indicate is that a 70 AD interpretation is at least possible. It would not undeniably prove it though. Also from my POV, my understanding of Revelation, whether it be right or wrong, still works regardless when John saw the visions. Preterists can only make some of their understanding of Revelation work if John sees the visions before 70 AD.

 

[parousia70]

So you think the second coming happened in the past no one knows when it happened? That's not the second coming I have read of.

When did this coming happen?
2 Samuel 22:8-16

8“Then the earth shook and trembled;
The foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken,
Because He was angry.
9 Smoke went up from His nostrils,
And devouring fire from His mouth;
Coals were kindled by it.
10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down
With darkness under His feet.
11 He rode upon a cherub, and flew;
And He was seen upon the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness canopies around Him,
Dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.
13 From the brightness before Him
Coals of fire were kindled.

14 “The Lord thundered from heaven,
And the Most High uttered His voice.
15 He sent out arrows and scattered them;
Lightning bolts, and He vanquished them.
16 Then the channels of the sea were seen,
The foundations of the world were uncovered,
At the rebuke of the Lord,
At the blast of the breath of His nostrils.


Wheres the evidence of this in the History books?

God Actually being seen Thundering from heaven, riding a Cherub, shooting arrows, igniting fire with His nostrils, laying the foundations of the whole earth bare and emptying the seas surely would have been recorded in the history books somewhere, no?

 

[parousia70]

I'm not pushing a pre or post argument one way or the other. I'm just pointing out certain things in general, basically. So it doesn't matter to me when John was given these visions. It only matters to Preterists, apparently. From my POV, even if John saw these visions prior to 70 AD, and that that was a proven fact, all this would indicate is that a 70 AD interpretation is at least possible. It would not undeniably prove it though. Also from my POV, my understanding of Revelation, whether it be right or wrong, still works regardless when John saw the visions. Preterists can only make some of their understanding of Revelation work if John sees the visions before 70 AD.

But it doesn't matter to me since it can't be proven. It's a MOOT point.
Again, the rub for you is you now HAVE to deal with the implications of a POSSIBLE pre 70 Date.

It's easy for me to deal with the implications of a post 70 AD revelation.
If it was post 70, then I'm wrong.

See? Easy Peasy.

You, not so much... since it makes no difference to your view post or pre, then have to deal with the implications of the possibility of a pre date on their merits, and can't run to the comfort of a post 70 proof that does not exist.

 

[DavidPT]

Plus in Rev 11, the trib is about to end and there is an earthquake that destroys 1/10th of the city which means during the GT the city was fully standing and the only damage it suffers is from an earthquake not Romans destroying the entire city. So, in Rev John never sees Jerusalem destroyed by men anywhere in the GT which matches the same lack of destruction anywhere in the olivet discourse.

This is a good point, especially if one thinks these things have Jerusalem in the first century in mind. Wonder where they can find in Josephus' writings anything having to do with an earthquake destroying 1/10th of the city at that time? Don't some of these people think it might be a good idea to try and think some of these things through first, before making any final determinations? Just because one or two things might seemingly fit one's theories, what about the parts that can't and don't? Just ignore those parts altogether?

 

[pasifika]

Eventuallybut not all the unsaved are killed at the second coming. Scripture speaks of Christ and his saints ruling over people after the second coming.




It literally mentions his coming so it is not before the coming abut after it.

Hello, my question is how can unsaved or sinners be able to stand the splendor and power of Lord God Almighty when He return...I don't know. Rev 6:15-17 talking about the second coming..said that kings of the earth, princes, generals, the rich, the mighty and everyone else both slave and free hid in caves, they called to the mountains and the rocks to fall on them so they can hide from the Wrath of the Lamb..I don't know if anyone can survive if a mountain fall on them..or even be spared by His Wrath..that's why in verse 17 of Rev 6 ask this question " For the great day of His Wrath has come and WHO CAN WITHSTAND IT? I doubt a sinner can withstand (sin is God's enemy ) Roman's 5 :8-10 says the only way to be spared from God's Wrath is through His Son.

Thank you

 

[ewq1938]

Hello, my question is how can unsaved or sinners be able to stand the splendor and power of Lord God Almighty when He return...

Well, many do because he and his saints will rule over them for a thousand years.

I don't know. Rev 6:15-17 talking about the second coming..said that kings of the earth, princes, generals, the rich, the mighty and everyone else both slave and free hid in caves, they called to the mountains and the rocks to fall on them so they can hide from the Wrath of the Lamb..I don't know if anyone can survive if a mountain fall on them..or even be spared by His Wrath..

Those people want rocks to fall on them because they would rather die than suffer God's wrath. That wrath kills some, but doesn't kill some as well.

 

[pasifika]

Yeah, since one has to change the scripture to fit that view, I'll pass.
The better way is to change your view to fit the scripture.

Well, many do because he and his saints will rule over them for a thousand years.




Those people want rocks to fall on them because they would rather die than suffer God's wrath. That wrath kills some, but doesn't kill some as well.

Hello I think the Wrath is for the enemies so if someone is not saved is an enemy. His Wrath destroyed all the wicked.. God will not missed in delivering His Wrath on the wicked...

Thank you

 

[DavidPT]

Hello, my question is how can unsaved or sinners be able to stand the splendor and power of Lord God Almighty when He return...I don't know. Rev 6:15-17 talking about the second coming..said that kings of the earth, princes, generals, the rich, the mighty and everyone else both slave and free hid in caves, they called to the mountains and the rocks to fall on them so they can hide from the Wrath of the Lamb..I don't know if anyone can survive if a mountain fall on them..or even be spared by His Wrath..that's why in verse 17 of Rev 6 ask this question " For the great day of His Wrath has come and WHO CAN WITHSTAND IT? I doubt a sinner can withstand (sin is God's enemy ) Roman's 5 :8-10 says the only way to be spared from God's Wrath is through His Son.

Thank you

Isn't this assuming that there are only two categories of people when Christ returns? Those that are for Him. And those that are against Him. But what if there are some that don't fit either category? The mentally challenged come to mind. Meaning someone unable to comprehend the simplest of things. If only two categories of ppl to fit in, which of these two categories would they fit in? If neither, what happens to them then when Christ returns?

 

[pasifika]

Isn't this assuming that there are only two categories of people when Christ returns? Those that are for Him. And those that are against Him. But what if there are some that don't fit either category? The mentally challenged come to mind. Meaning someone unable to comprehend the simplest of things. If only two categories of ppl to fit in, which of these two categories would they fit in? If neither, what happens to them then when Christ returns?

Hello, James 4:17 said if anyone then knows the good they ought to do and DOESN'T do it, it is sin...
I think if they unable to comprehend and knows the good and bad like little children then only God will judge them as He only can see the Heart...

 

[ewq1938]

His Wrath destroyed all the wicked.

Not all the wicked are destroyed by God's wrath. Some are left to be ruled over. Many scriptures show this to be true.