Featured Watch for the beast!

Jesus is omnipresent. No one said he was not.
The comment from Mt.18 is concerning church discipline.You are not using the verse correctly.
Two kingdom members having coffee at Dunkin donuts is not a church.

 

The abomination of desolation mentioned took place.
It was to be in the Holy Place.
Guess what...there is no more earthly Holy place. It was destroyed as Jesus said it would be.
Jerusalem was surrounded.
The people fled as Jesus told them to do.
The temple and Holy place were destroyed.

You are calling for a do over....not happening.

 

Or until you realize the truth. We could go on like this all day - actually, we have been going on this way for a couple of years.

The problem with that is that Jesus did not say "the generation that see those events". You are adding words to what He said.

Same question, same answer. Those events were in and around Jerusalem from AD 66-70. Of course you know all about the Jewish Wars. As a serious student of history, you probably know more about the Jewish Wars than I do. You fail to see how the "End Times" prophecies were fulfilled in that time period.

The only part of Rev 19 I am not entirely sure about is the passage where the Beast & False Prophet were cast alive into Hell. On the other hand, I know that the entire "futurist" view is poor exegesis and a lot of fantasy. When I understand that passage, I'll let you know. I'm sure we will still be debating this for quite some time.

 

Donald Trump is the beast...

 

You have no problem changing what Jesus said????

You contradict yourself, Brother. You sometimes refer to the Jewish Wars and the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Beast (Roman Empire) was in power when Christ came in judgment. It's possible that the Beast and False Prophet were cast into Hell, but not in the way we might expect. That doesn't really make any difference, though. I'd rather believe that Jesus and the NT writers meant exactly what they said than change what they said to fit my view of how things are supposed to play out. I would have no problem admitting it if I were wrong. After all, many years ago, I admitted I was wrong about my views that the events in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are all in our future. I was willing to research, study, and seek the Lord's guidance. Ergo, I am a Preterist.

 

So, your "facts" speak for themselves, but the very words of Jesus do not? "This generation" clearly meant the generation that Jesus was speaking to. No getting around that fact. If you are interested, Gary DeMar has a great article regarding "this generation" at this link - How Should 'This Generation' be Understood? - The American Vision. DeMar includes a list of quotes from other commentators at the end of the article.

Jack Lewis said something most interesting. "Christ’s use of the words ‘immediately after’ [in Matthew 24:30] does not leave room for a long delay (2,000 years or more before His literal second coming occurs), neither does the explicit time-scale given in Matthew 24:34. The word ‘parousia’ does not occur in this section but is prominently reintroduced in the new paragraph which begins at Matthew 24:36, where its unknown time is contrasted with the clear statement that the events of this paragraph will take place within ‘this generation” (Matthew 24:36). This section is therefore in direct continuity with what has gone before, the account of the siege of Jerusalem. Here we reach its climax.” “The language is drawn from Daniel 7:13–14, which points to the vindication and enthronement of Jesus (rather than his second coming [‘parousia’]). In this context, therefore, this poetic language appropriately refers to the great changes which were about to take place in the world, when Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed. It speaks of the ‘Son of Man’ entering into His kingship, and ‘His angels’ gathering in His new people from all the earth. The fall of the temple is thus presented, in highly allusive language, as the end of the old order, to be replaced by the new regime of Jesus, the Son of Man, and the international growth of his church, the new people of God."

Whether you accept it or not, there is no getting around the fact that Jesus and the NT writers clearly said those things would happen "soon" after they were said. 2.000 years is not "soon". The only interpretation that fits what they said is the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

No matter how many times you repeat that these events haven't happened yet, the fact remains that Jesus said they would happen within the lifetime of the generation then living. Nothing to gauge.

You are stumped by the plain words that Jesus spoke. Once Jesus physically comes, He will not leave, but that is a different topic. You are completely misinterpreting the prophecies, which is what is really behind your confusion.

Considering that a lot of people don't read material from opposing views, I can appreciate that you have taken the time to read DeMar's article. My main point remains that the "time indicators" are strong proof that these events have come to pass.

 

Scripture and actual history prove the truth of Preterism. I cannot admit what is not true. Since you keep asking when the Beast and False Prophet were thrown into the Lake of Fire (Rev 19:20), I've been studying on this. You made an excellent point that this couldn't refer to Nero, as he committed suicide. However, all the "time indicators" throughout the NT point to the Jewish Wars with a final fulfillment of AD 70. I believe this beyond a shadow of a doubt. So, this seemed to be a conundrum.

Daniel 7:11 describes the Beast destroyed and burned, and these passages are related. Since Daniel and Revelation are both filled with apocalyptic symbolism, it makes sense that these passages are also symbolic. Coherency of Scripture requires us to interpret the entire passage in the same way. Since the Beast is not a literal beast, the Lake of Fire in this passage must not be taken literally either. Earlier, Rev 18:8 said that Babylon shall be burned with fire. I believe the meaning of this passage is that of complete and utter destruction of Jerusalem and the final end of the Old Covenant system.

I do thank you for inspiring me to dig into that passage, as I now have a clear understanding of it. You will disagree with my conclusions, of course.

 

Really? So history shows we are now living in the new earth with Jesus ruling His people! Huh, I would have thought it would be significantly better than this.
As is often the case with prophecy, there is a foreshadowing in the present generation while the total fulfillment is for the future. We see this clearly in the Revelation written down by John.

 

I never said that I believe all of Revelation has been fulfilled, which is the Full Preterist view. As a Partial Preterist, I believe the "new Heaven and the new Earth" of Revelation 21 are yet in our future.

I agree that sometimes there can be a foreshadow of future events. The only one that comes to mind was the Abomination of Desolation when Antiochus IV Epiphanes sacrificed a pig on the altar around 160 BC was a "type" of the AOD that came when General Titus and his armies destroyed the temple.

I must respectfully disagree that the Jewish Wars and the destruction of Jerusalem were a foreshadow of yet another future event. Most of those events were fulfilled by AD 70.

 

My view has not changed in the least. The Beast was the Roman Empire, but it was personified in Nero.

By ignoring the "time indicators", you completely miss important clues about when the events were to take place. John was told that the events revealed to him were to take place soon, for the time is near. Many who look for these events to happen in our lifetime point to the very same phrases to argue that Jesus is coming soon. How can "soon" mean near to us and not to the original 1st Century audience? James 5 says that "the coming of the Lord is at hand...the Judge is standing right at the door". 1 Peter 4:7 says "the end of all things is at hand". We must discover what the original speaker or writer meant, and what the original audience understood. Simply repeating "these events haven't happened yet" is nothing more than sticking your head into the sand of your "futurist" views and ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you made this comment. The judgment of the Great Tribulation came upon Apostate Israel in 70 AD, so it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else in the world.

By dismissing the "time indicators", you are like someone on a jury who ignores the testimony of witnesses who heard the details of a crime being planned. The clues are right in front of you, but you have made up your mind that they don't mean what they actually say.