More about eschatology and preterism...

Thats adding a lot to that chapter to make it fit.

A third temple, that is spoken no where in the bible. Not one verse.
Its only "implied" you can say.

A prophecy about the destruction of the second temple being somehow about the end of the world.
Because the apostles asked 3 questions They were not asking about the second coming. They didn't know he was leaving!

They were asking him when the temple was going to be destroyed, his coming into power and that would be the end of the "age". Where did they get the notion he was coming back?

How can Luke be different then Matthew and Mark? Jesus didn't give two speeches!
Its completely unbiblical to say they are talking about different things.

Was there two births of Christ since the gospels say different things in them?

And show us where "this generation" is used other then reference to the present generation he was talking to.

τομπος ἁμγιος, What verse is that in?

 

Where is the fig tree referred to as representing Israel. But it doesn't matter much as Luke gives the full version

• 29And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
• 30When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
• 31So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
• 32Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

When they saw those things, Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, etc they knew that it would happen. Christians in the city saw that and fled the city as Jesus commanded them.

Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; cannot possibly refer to Israel.

 

Was "This generation" in Matthew 23 the same as "This generation" in Matthew 24

If so, Why?

If not, Why not?

 

It's the same verse. How can YOU not understand that! He only had one discourse. Luke just explained it because his gospel went to more to gentile nations. The AOD is Jerusalem surrounded by armies. It's a parallel verse. Did Jesus speak two different discourses? Or did they just word it each different.

 

Daniel 11:34

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that makes desolate.


Most scholar's and even futurist commentaries place this at Antiochus.

You don't even know how your own side explains anything. You have your own form of misinterpretation.

 

Where does Daniel say that or even indicate "the antichrist would stop the sacrifices in the temple?"

 

Daniel 11:31 (not 11:34 as indicated above). It should be clear that there are multiple fulfilments of this prophesy. One in the time of Antiochus, one in AD 70 and one just before the Return of Christ. The latter abomination will perhaps make illegal the sacrifice of Romans 12:1.

 

Well I agree with Robycop here to a certain degree. That's twice now,

Arms shall, stand on his part, or against him. The arms were the Romans who forced him to abandon his campaign against Egypt, they were the only 'they' mentioned, it soon reverts back to 'he' when it goes back to Antiochus. Those who were to place the abomination, were the same as those who desolated Jerusalem and the temple. And Jerusalem and the temple were desolated by the Romans, the PEOPLE of the prince who was to come.

As Roby said it was still in the future when Jesus foretold it, but is isn't now. It happened under the Romans just as Jesus said it would.

Yes the Jews did try to rebuild the temple and city in the rebellion at the time of Hadrian, But it was levelled again by the Romans, renamed and Jews were forbidden to live there ever again. When Hadrian addressed the senate, he said "Hierosolyma Est Perdita", Jeruslem has fallen. The senators shouted Hurrah. Hurrah, Hurrah.. We still use an abreviated form of that when we give three cheers, 'Hep Hep Hep Hurrah',or 'Hip Hip Hip Hurray.' Hadrian also renamed the land .Jerusalem was desolated twice. Once by the Babylonians and again by the Romans.

 

I was only stating that most scholars and some Futurists commentaries Say Daniel 11:31 (sorry wrong verse) is about Antiochus, Exactly how Martin stated it.

But i do I believe there was multiple fulfillments of this as well. One with Antiochus and one in AD 70 (the 70 weeks)

So I don't know why you david think Daniel 11:31 has to be the same one as AD 70. Clearly Luke describes what the AD 70 abomination is. Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. I think a better Fulfillment is Antiochus for Daniel 11:31.
But hey we don't have to agree on everything David

 

Where in Daniel or anywhere in the Bible is "the antichrist one world ruler in a rebuilt temple"? I think they have to establish that first.

1st John 2:18
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

How do you define last hour?

Many Antichrists have already came?

1st john 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

That sounds like a few more then just one person.

 

John of Japan quoted from Polycarp & Clement.
I replied to those quotations, but John went off for the weekend without answering my points.

My comments:

Neither passage as cited says anything about a future millennium, intermediate between the present Gospel age & the NH&NE.

To answer the objection premils raise -
who are we going to reign over, if all the wicked are in hell?
Jesus spoke about reigning:
Mat. 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

In his intro to his readers, John writes:
Rev. 1:4 ..... Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

We have the status of kings and priests to His God and Fathernow, as the redeemed people of God. No need to wait until a supposed future millennium.

And Clement is writing of the return of our Lord Jesus in glory for general resurrection & judgment, as Jesus stated:

John 5:28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. ​

He has in previous verses taught a first resurrection for those who hear his Word & believe -

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.​

Notice Jesus said, "the hour is coming, and now is" so there is no question of him there referring to the future bodily resurrection, rather he contrasts conversion resurrection with bodily resurrection of the dead.

No, John, we need explicit statements about a future intermediate millennium, & those quotations from Polycarp & Clement won't do.

------------------------
John did give a link -

I read it & my comments are in the next posting.

 

Thanks for the article. It seems to rely on the circular argument that John (Apostle) taught the premil doctrine (which I would question); that Polycarp & Papias knew John personally; that Irenaeus refers to P & P as premil (without quoting their writings) therefore they held premil doctrine as taught by John.

It seems too that the writer thinks John's supposed millennial teaching overrides Paul's eschatological teaching, even though he admits that -
Ignatius ..... throughout his epistles suggest(s) an eschatology more Pauline than Johannine .....

No, John, the article is NOT convincing. And if it were robustly argued & documented, it would not override the Scriptures I quoted.