Preterism is the only honest way to understand bible prophecy

[Logos1]

Dear DHK,

We realize you twist, torture, and strangle Acts 1: 9 -11 to the point it is not recognizable in its original context. I’m just sorry for you that there is no actual statement about a physical return of Christ since that would no doubt make life easier for you, but since Christ didn’t choose to return that way why not accept it and move on?

No matter how you torture it—it just doesn’t equate to a physical return. Period. End of story. Acceptance can be good for one’s blood pressure.

Maybe a little more mulling is in order.

 

[lastday]

Dear DHK,

We realize you twist, torture, and strangle Acts 1: 9 -11 to the point it is not recognizable in its original context. I’m just sorry for you that there is no actual statement about a physical return of Christ since that would no doubt make life easier for you, but since Christ didn’t choose to return that way why not accept it and move on?

No matter how you torture it—it just doesn’t equate to a physical return. Period. End of story. Acceptance can be good for one’s blood pressure.

Maybe a little more mulling is in order.

Logos,
Twisting and torturing God's word regarding the "time that is short" applies to those
who will not be resurrected until the 12-Hour-Day on which Jesus comes with
"all the saints"! Zech.14:5-7; I Thess.3:13

The only honest way to interpret God's word, to which you refer, is that of including
those who are still waiting a "short time for the rest of their fellow-servants to be
killed who must be killed"!! Rev.6:9-11.

There is no way you can deny that this "short time" has already lasted for all but
22 years of the 2000 years and about two weeks (from the Feast of Trumpets to
the Feast of Tabs) that must separate the time between Jesus' birthday at 34 and His return in the days after His 2034th birthday to fulfill Hosea's prophecy!!! Hos.5:14-6:3.
Mel at www.lastday.net

 

[revmwc]

Rev,

Greetings old friend,

You have an excellent 2 post there for illustrative purposes to show everything wrong with good ol’ premil dispensational futurism.

You have posted all these verses and take little meaning from each of them so you can roll it all up in the desired fashion and get dispensationalism out of it.

Would be cruel of me to point out that in all these verses no where does it actually say any thing about a physical return of Christ or move it beyond Jesus’ generation which of course puts Christ return in 70 AD.

Tarry how long my friend, how long indeed? Obviously till 70 AD which was consistent with the first generation return.

Again can you show when all the things Christ spoke of were ALL fulfilled. Historical church documentation or Biblical proofs that all was fuflfilled.
I believe even the Early 1st to 3rd century Church fathers believed in a literal physical return of Christ and unless you feel they missed it then your teaching has flaws. Origen who lived 185 to 250 A.D. taught and argued for a form of physical ressurection he held to Chiliast. Justin Martyr again 2nd century maitained a premilillial view according to Johannes Quasten "in his eschatological views Justin shares the views of the Chiliast. Justin in Chapter 80 of his Dialogue with Trypho says this “I and others who are right-minded Christians on all points are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built… For Isaiah spoke in that manner concerning this period of a thousand years.”
Iranaeous also 2nd century in his book Against Heresies wrote "In one passage he defends premillennialism by arguing that a future earthly kingdom is necessary because of God's promise to Abraham, he wrote “The promise remains steadfast… God promised him the inheritance of the land. Yet, Abraham did not receive it during all the time of his journey there. Accordingly, it must be that Abraham, together with his seed (that is, those who fear God and believe in Him), will receive it at the resurrection of the just.” In another place Irenaeus also explained that the blessing to Jacob “belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom when the righteous will bear rule, after their rising from the dead. It is also the time when the creation will bear fruit with an abundance of all kinds of food, having been renovated and set free… And all of the animals will feed on the vegetation of the earth… and they will be in perfect submission to man. And these things are borne witness to in the fourth book of the writings of Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp.” Apparently Irenaeus also held to the sexta-/septamillennial scheme writing that the end of human history will occur after the 6,000th year." Seems these early church fathers hadn't heard Christ returned in 70 A.D. So what do you have which shows them wrong and they lived a lot closer to 70 A.D. than we do and surely they wouldn't have argued for a millinial earthly reign if Christ had come in 70 A.D.

 

[DHK]

Dear DHK,

We realize you twist, torture, and strangle Acts 1: 9 -11 to the point it is not recognizable in its original context. I’m just sorry for you that there is no actual statement about a physical return of Christ since that would no doubt make life easier for you, but since Christ didn’t choose to return that way why not accept it and move on?

No matter how you torture it—it just doesn’t equate to a physical return. Period. End of story. Acceptance can be good for one’s blood pressure.

Maybe a little more mulling is in order.

Christ never agreed to return on your time-table. That, unfortunately, puts you in the same class as Harold Camping. You are saying that he must return on your time-table.

 

[mandym]

Dear DHK,

We realize you twist, torture, and strangle Acts 1: 9 -11 to the point it is not recognizable in its original context. I’m just sorry for you that there is no actual statement about a physical return of Christ since that would no doubt make life easier for you, but since Christ didn’t choose to return that way why not accept it and move on?

No matter how you torture it—it just doesn’t equate to a physical return. Period. End of story. Acceptance can be good for one’s blood pressure.

Maybe a little more mulling is in order.

What a rude post.

 

[Logos1]

What a rude post.

Mandy

My dear fellow I don’t have a problem with you deciding to interpret the post as rude. You are perfectly free to interpret it any way you please. That is your right all day long. I do find it curious that you only find Preterist post rude and not premils and futurists.

Strange indeed my friend.

 

[Logos1]

Arguing with Christ Again!

Christ never agreed to return on your time-table. That, unfortunately, puts you in the same class as Harold Camping. You are saying that he must return on your time-table.

DHK,

That could be part of your problem with me. You don’t even realize I don’t have time table for Christ return. You simply assign one to me like you simply assign a future return to Christ.

I simply look at the inspired words of the Bible and apply them to the historical facts and ta-da there it is plain as day. 70 AD. What could be simplier. Destruction of temple, end of age, sign of Your coming. We know these events are all linked together. What could be easier to see—what is hard is to see them and deny the bible which is to argue with Christ.

 

[Logos1]

Again can you show when all the things Christ spoke of were ALL fulfilled. Historical church documentation or Biblical proofs that all was fuflfilled.
I believe even the Early 1st to 3rd century Church fathers believed in a literal physical return of Christ and unless you feel they missed it then your teaching has flaws. Origen who lived 185 to 250 A.D. taught and argued for a form of physical ressurection he held to Chiliast. Justin Martyr again 2nd century maitained a premilillial view according to Johannes Quasten "in his eschatological views Justin shares the views of the Chiliast. Justin in Chapter 80 of his Dialogue with Trypho says this “I and others who are right-minded Christians on all points are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built… For Isaiah spoke in that manner concerning this period of a thousand years.”
Iranaeous also 2nd century in his book Against Heresies wrote "In one passage he defends premillennialism by arguing that a future earthly kingdom is necessary because of God's promise to Abraham, he wrote “The promise remains steadfast… God promised him the inheritance of the land. Yet, Abraham did not receive it during all the time of his journey there. Accordingly, it must be that Abraham, together with his seed (that is, those who fear God and believe in Him), will receive it at the resurrection of the just.” In another place Irenaeus also explained that the blessing to Jacob “belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom when the righteous will bear rule, after their rising from the dead. It is also the time when the creation will bear fruit with an abundance of all kinds of food, having been renovated and set free… And all of the animals will feed on the vegetation of the earth… and they will be in perfect submission to man. And these things are borne witness to in the fourth book of the writings of Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp.” Apparently Irenaeus also held to the sexta-/septamillennial scheme writing that the end of human history will occur after the 6,000th year." Seems these early church fathers hadn't heard Christ returned in 70 A.D. So what do you have which shows them wrong and they lived a lot closer to 70 A.D. than we do and surely they wouldn't have argued for a millinial earthly reign if Christ had come in 70 A.D.

A strange but intriguing post. Numerous problems. Irenaeus was known not to be the sharpest pencil in the box. Usually takes a certain measure of desperation to use him as a source.

We know Christ said all things would be fulfilled in his generation.

We know the destruction of Jerusalem was tied to the timing of the end of the age and that to Christ's return. Ergo we know Christ has already returned since Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD.

Still no verses to support a long time far off in the future return of Christ nor any verse actually saying he would return in physical form.

Only preterism can actually claim to be backed by scripture found in the bible and it has many verses to support the soon return of Christ. Sorry rev it looks like these futurist schemes have been foiled again.

Top of the evening to you.

 

[Logos1]

Logos,
Twisting and torturing God's word regarding the "time that is short" applies to those
who will not be resurrected until the 12-Hour-Day on which Jesus comes with
"all the saints"! Zech.14:5-7; I Thess.3:13

The only honest way to interpret God's word, to which you refer, is that of including
those who are still waiting a "short time for the rest of their fellow-servants to be
killed who must be killed"!! Rev.6:9-11.

There is no way you can deny that this "short time" has already lasted for all but
22 years of the 2000 years and about two weeks (from the Feast of Trumpets to
the Feast of Tabs) that must separate the time between Jesus' birthday at 34 and His return in the days after His 2034th birthday to fulfill Hosea's prophecy!!! Hos.5:14-6:3.
Mel at www.lastday.net

Mel where have you been. I have been longing to get some more of those wonderful date filled posts of yours.

Only you can comprehend the multifaceted complexities of this posting--to the rest of us mere mortals its like space aliens have descended and are sharing knowledge way beyond our feeble minds to sort out, but we love to sit in the presence of inspired truth when it visits this universe.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Greetings Steve,

Always a pleasure to hear back from you my old friend. I look forward to reading your unique perspective on biblical events every day.

Well make the most of this one, because it will be my last on this thread. I'm afraid I find your ponderous attempts at humour a little too taxing.

I can see we are in agreement that Christ didn’t name a specific date as to his return; however, I should point out that he did give us the general time frame in very specific terms.

We see in ch 24 when the Apostles ask about the temple’s destruction and the end of the age and His coming linking all three events together that Jesus didn’t correct them and tell them they were wrong in their assumptions that these events happen at the same time.

You are making an unwarranted assumption. In Matt 24:3, the disciples asked the Lord Jesus three questions. They did not tie them together. Nor did our Lord give only a single answer.

Remember that whenever the Apostles misunderstand something that the Holy Spirit inspired bible always points out Jesus correcting them, but he didn’t correct their beliefs here—he confirms that all events happen at the same time by His answer and the fact that there was not need to correct them.

He does nothing of the sort. He did not need to correct any errors because the disciples didn't make any. He answers all three questions in His discourse. He starts by speaking of various disasters, natural and manmade, and telling them not to worry because these do not signify the end of time (vs 6-9).

Now we know the destruction of the temple occurred in 70 AD.

That bit you got right. Congratulations!

That would force the other two events to also happen in 70 AD. Jesus Further confirmed this by telling them that this generation would not pass before all these things took place.

Not at all. Our Lord continues (v15ff) by speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, and He warns the disciples not to believe at that time anyone who says, "Look! Here is the Christ" or "There." Therefore I'm not going to believe you telling me that He really was there, albeit invisibly. Because when Christ comes, it is going to be a highly visible event, like a lightening flash (v27) and the whole world is going to see it, from East to West.

He then returns to speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem, telling them that they will be able to tell the time of it before it happens. This is in contrast to His second coming which will be without warning, like 'a thief in the night' (1Thes 5:2 etc.). He finishes by telling them that the generation then living would not pass away before Jerusalem fell. Therefore the fall of Jerusalem and the second coming of Christ must be two separate events because he knew the time of the first, but not the second (Mark 13:32).

He of course affirmed it in other ways also such as in Matt. 10:23 tell them they wouldn’t finish going through the cities of Israel before his return. Of course we know the Apostles aren’t going through the cities of Israel to day so that verse alone would rule out any future return of Christ based on true biblical standards.

No again. It wouldn't have taken the Apostles forty yeas to go through the cities of Israel. So perhaps our Lord returned invisibly about 45 AD? You can't prove me wrong just because nobody saw Him, because I say it was invisible. This invisible return business is great! You can (and do) make up any old nonsense you like and no one can prove you wrong even though you don't have the slightest bit of evidence.

What you have to do is to compare Scripture with Scripture and look at Matt 24:14. 'And this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Christ will not return until all the nations have heard the Good News.

Now, how do we use the Analogy of Faith to reconcile Matt 10:23 and 24:14? If you read Hendricksen on Matthew, he suggests a number of possibilities. At the risk of upsetting DHL and others, I believe that the Lord Jesus in Matt 10 is talking of spiritual Israel, that is, all those cities throughout the world where God's elect live.

Our Lord and Savior was still pretty specific in saying when he would return without giving away the exact hour.

Oh dear! You can't even read two verses properly without messing one of them up! :BangHead: You read Mark 13:32 without looking at verse 33. "Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is."

Finally, there is not much that I agree with DHL on theologically, but he is exactly right on Acts 1:9-11. You have wriggled and turned, but you haven't begun to deal with that verse properly.

Steve

 

[revmwc]

We know Christ said all things would be fulfilled in his generation.

We know the destruction of Jerusalem was tied to the timing of the end of the age and that to Christ's return. Ergo we know Christ has already returned since Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD.

Still no verses to support a long time far off in the future return of Christ nor any verse actually saying he would return in physical form.

Only preterism can actually claim to be backed by scripture found in the bible and it has many verses to support the soon return of Christ. Sorry rev it looks like these futurist schemes have been foiled again.

Top of the evening to you.

Well now let's say the generation of Christ and the Apostles were refered to just to appease you. You still have problems with your interpretation of it. First we need to see when this occured:
Mt. 24:14 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.

I believe this never occured in 70 A.D. the gospel didn't reach the whole world, as we know America was not discovered until 1492, so the American Indians definitely hadn't heard the gospel of the kingdom before that time.
So there must be someone from Jesus generation still around.

Second we need to identify when this occured:
Mt. 24: 15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Since Christ spoke that it must occur we know it didn't occur in the time of Daniel and must therefore have occured between 33 and 70 A.D. yet nothing in history says it did, again someone from Christ generation must still be alive today in order for that generation to see it fulfilled.

Third we will need to show when this occured:
Mt. 24: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

We have seen many periods of tribulation on the earth World War 2 comes to mind and the slaughter of so many Jews. But Christ said there shall be great tribulation not seen since the beginning of the world. till that time and neither shall there be a greater one, yet we still see things occuring like the 911 attacks so someone from that generation must still be living.

Fouthly when did this occur:
Mt. 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

When did the tribulation of those days occur and the sun darkened and the moon not giving her light? When did they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven? When did the tribes of the earth mourn at His coming not just the tribes of Israel but scripture says "the tribes of the earth mourn" again I believe the American Indians are part of the tirbes of the earth and thye definitely never mourned Christ return nor do they speak of thier people seeing Christ come in the clouds? Since this has not yet occured then somoeone from that generation must still be alive.

So that leaves this to be answered:
Mt. 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

That generation had to SEE all these things to know the end was near even at the door. So the generation of Christ has someone still alive or Christ menat it metaphorically in John, Paul and Peter that we know seeing them come in visions, but still yet to be fulfilled in a future time.

Now let's look at the word quickly. Websters says:
1. not dead : living, alive

This wouldn't apply to the verse.

2: acting or capable of acting with speed: as a (1) : fast in understanding, thinking, or learning : mentally agile <a quick wit> <quick thinking> (2) : reacting to stimuli with speed and keen sensitivity (3) : aroused immediately and intensely <quick tempers> b (1) : fast in development or occurrence <a quick succession of events> (2) : done or taking place with rapidity <gave them a quick look> c : marked by speed, readiness, or promptness of physical movement <walked with quick steps> d : inclined to hastiness (as in action or response) <quick to criticize> e : capable of being easily and speedily prepared <a quick and tasty dinner>

Much of this could cover a lot. Let's see acting or capable of acting with speed. Now what was it Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
That would be what this part of quickly means, because the twinkling of an eye is a very fast action.
The number two doesn't fit Christ return. Let's see 3. Quick tempers nope doesn't fit. Then b. 1 fast in development the coming in the twinkling of eye is a quick it develops in less than a second that fits Christ return. A quick succession of events yep that ould fit the coming in the twinkling of an eye. then b/2 done with rapidity that would fit the twinklng of an eye. Everything in this sectio would fit perfectly with 1 Corinthians 15:52 as Christ return for His church as being a quik occurance in the twinkling of an eye.

3a archaic : not stagnant : running, flowing b : moving, shifting <quick mud>
4archaic : fiery, glowing
5obsolete a : pungent b : caustic
6archaic : pregnant
7: having a sharp angle <a quick turn in the road>

These don't fit yours either. Looks like you come up wanting yet again. Everything points to the Lord tarrying as the Bridegroom of His church the bride.

I see you believe the coming of the Holy Spirt to indwell all who believe on Christ while a new event and New covenant way of dealing with men did not end the age. Yet the Holy Spirit had never come and indwelt every believer in past times only after Christ ascended and on the day of Pentacost to fulfill that feast. So until you get that atraight you won't have your eschatology correct. Christ fulfilled 3 of the feast in His efficacious work on the cross and the Holy Spirit fulfilled the feast of Pentacost. There are 3 yet to be fulfilled and there was a space of time between the last 3 and the pentacost. Again more scripture that shows Christ will tarry because until the last 3 feast are fulfilled just as the first 4 were then Christ has yet to return. The ingathering has to take place, teh feast of trumpets or ingathering, teh feast of atonement, the feast of tabernacles of booths. All must be fulfilled literally just as the first four were literally fulfilled. Again your belief comes up wanting based on scripture.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

That could be part of your problem with me. You don’t even realize I don’t have time table for Christ return. You simply assign one to me like you simply assign a future return to Christ.

I simply look at the inspired words of the Bible and apply them to the historical facts and ta-da there it is plain as day. 70 AD. What could be simplier. Destruction of temple, end of age, sign of Your coming. We know these events are all linked together. What could be easier to see—what is hard is to see them and deny the bible which is to argue with Christ.

You used Scripture to assign a date to the coming of Christ. You determined that he came at 70 A.D. You don't have any proof that he came and yet you maintain he came. This is very strange. One would think that they would only put forth a "theory" as factual when they have the "evidence" to back it up. But you have none except a strange interpretation of Scripture. It is your interpretation of Scripture against the rest of Christendom.

Your time-table says 70 A.D.
Here is mine:

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (Daniel 9:26-27)

There will be another temple. It will be built in the time of the Antichrist, or before he makes himself known. He will desecrate it half way through the Tribulation Period (in the midst of the week [a period of seven years] ). But of course these events are still to come. And right at the end of that Tribulation Christ is coming in the flesh with his holy angels in the glory of his father.

 

[Logos1]

A really poor quality post

You used Scripture to assign a date to the coming of Christ. You determined that he came at 70 A.D. You don't have any proof that he came and yet you maintain he came. This is very strange. One would think that they would only put forth a "theory" as factual when they have the "evidence" to back it up. But you have none except a strange interpretation of Scripture. It is your interpretation of Scripture against the rest of Christendom.

Your time-table says 70 A.D.
Here is mine:

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (Daniel 9:26-27)

There will be another temple. It will be built in the time of the Antichrist, or before he makes himself known. He will desecrate it half way through the Tribulation Period (in the midst of the week [a period of seven years] ). But of course these events are still to come. And right at the end of that Tribulation Christ is coming in the flesh with his holy angels in the glory of his father.

Wow, so many problems for such a little post.

There is no “The Antichrist” ever mentioned in the bible. Where do you come up with this stuff—oh I know you have your handy dandy premil instruction guide that tells you all these things. LOL

The only mention of antichrist is in 1 & 2 john and each time it refers to not a single overarching antichrist, but multiple antichrists which are apostate Christians.

Your view of the 70 weeks requires a gap that is now four times as long as the 490 year period is—that is a whopper of a gap. Kinda blows the whole thing up doesn’t it.

Just like you have yet to produced even the hint of a verse that says Christ will come back bodily or anything other than a soon return—read that this generation as in 70 AD you can't find any bible verses that say there will be a gap in the 70 weeks it is a fantasy of premil dreaming to make their fantasy work. You also can't find a single verse that says there will be a one world ruler called an Antichrist.

Rebuild a temple LOL, the temple of Ezekiel has been examined and it would be impossible to build because it is not describing a building, but the new covenant—Christianity.

DJK you have gotten unusually sloppy with your posts tonight.

 

[Dr. Bob]

thankfully at 10 page limit lest this get nastier

 

[DHK]

Wow, so many problems for such a little post.

There is no “The Antichrist” ever mentioned in the bible. Where do you come up with this stuff—oh I know you have your handy dandy premil instruction guide that tells you all these things. LOL

The only mention of antichrist is in 1 & 2 john and each time it refers to not a single overarching antichrist, but multiple antichrists which are apostate Christians.

Those that are "against Christ" are anti-Christs. There will be one who will stand out against all others, otherwise known as the Beast in Rev.13. He will give to all "his mark."
In the Daniel passage I quoted to you:
HE shall confirm the covenant for one week. The he is the antichrist.
Many prophesies have double fulfillments. This is one of them. It was partially fulfilled at the coming and death of Christ. It will be completely fulfilled at the time of the Tribulation.
Note the passage speaks in terms of weeks, or groups of sevens. One "week" is one grouping of seven years.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people --490 years.

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: (69 weeks) the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (Daniel 9:25)
--Beginning from the decree that went forth for Nehemiah to rebuild the walls and the Temple (Neh.2) right until Palm Sunday, the Sunday before Christ died, was, according to the calculations of Sir Robert Anderson, 69 weeks.
70 weeks are determined upon THY people.
The passage deals with the nation of Israel, and God is not finished with them yet. There is one more week yet to come. That which is described in verse 27 has not happened. It is the 70th week, the last seven years, The Tribulation Period, the time when The Beast, The Man of Sin, The Antichrist, will desecrate the Temple in the midst of that week.
Your view of the 70 weeks requires a gap that is now four times as long as the 490 year period is—that is a whopper of a gap. Kinda blows the whole thing up doesn’t it.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4)
--This is the Antichrist. He sits in the Temple during The Tribulation, that Temple which he himself has desecrated and now rules from. He has proclaimed himself as god, and the people are so deceived that they now believe him.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)
--The lie that they believed was that the Antichrist was God.

Just like you have yet to produced even the hint of a verse that says Christ will come back bodily or anything other than a soon return—read that this generation as in 70 AD you can't find any bible verses that say there will be a gap in the 70 weeks it is a fantasy of premil dreaming to make their fantasy work. You also can't find a single verse that says there will be a one world ruler called an Antichrist.

Rebuild a temple LOL, the temple of Ezekiel has been examined and it would be impossible to build because it is not describing a building, but the new covenant—Christianity.

DJK you have gotten unusually sloppy with your posts tonight.

I think I have given you enough to chew on for awhile.
The fact that you reject Acts 1:1-10 is sad. It is irrefutable evidence of both a physical ascension and a physical return of Christ.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)
--Spirits are not seen. Christ will appear in body. We shall be like him.

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:38)
--Will you be ashamed??
He is coming physically, in the glory of his father, with the holy angels, and furthermore:

Every eye shall see him:
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7)
--It can't be more physical than this. How is this possible unless it is a physical resurrection.

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13)
A hope is unseen. When Christ appears in body, our hope will be no more. The statement would make no sense if it wasn't a physical resurrection.

Evidence to the above Scripture:
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. (Romans 8:24-25)
"Hope that is seen is not hope." Thus Christ must come physically for our hope to be realized.

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:23)
--We wait for the redemption of our bodies, that is our own resurrection which will only take place when Christ returns physically. As he physically was resurrected so will we also.

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, (2 Thessalonians 1:7)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: (2 Thessalonians 1:8)
--Is it simply a spirit that is going to take vengeance?

Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
--His presence is real, physical.

When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. (2 Thessalonians 1:10)
--He will be admired! How, if he doesn't have a body???

Enough for a while?