Continuing the eschatology

Oh but I believe it has.

 

Don't be silly. Try to stay serious.

You know full "the moon turning to blood' will be its APPEARANCE, same as has been seen during lunar eclipses. Many ancient people didn't know any better.

And I'm sure you can see from Scripture that both the beast from the sea & the beast from the earth do things only a man can do.

I believe you're quite-intelligent enough to know about descriptive metaphors. For example, Hitler is often described as a "monster, but we know he was a man, same as we. But his ACTS were "monstrous". Same for the 'beasts". They'll be men, who will do "beastly" things.

 

And obviously, the time of the gentiles is still going on. Most new Christians are gentiles. Parts of jerusalem are occupied by gentiles. And there are constant parades of gentiles coming & going from Jerusalem - both the Moslems visiting their holy sites there, and Christians visiting the Christian shrines there, as well as many tourists from many nations.

Now, there were several months between the sieges of J by the Romans, first by vespasian, then by Titus, when the city was taken. People had plenty of time to flee, not with the urgency Jesus warned about. So, this must be for yet another attack against J, most-likely by the Gog-Magog army.

 

was the Man of Sin literal? Will Jesus second coming be physical and literal? Will there be literal thrones? Even metaphors and symbolic passages refer to a real lietral truth many times!

 

Jesus was answering His Apostles questions, as he foretold BOTh AD 70, and His second coming in the far future!

 

My advice would be for you to actually read the letter. Clement speaks of the Temple as if it was still standing and as the rites as still being performed. There are other indications in the letter.

 

Would you accuse Phillip Schaff of this "falsehood"? He is a well-respected Church historian who had to change his books when his view on the date of Revelation changed to the early one.

For the record, my view on an early date of Revelation came after much study. I was willing to go either way, but once I saw the flimsiness of evidence for the late date I abandoned that very view I had warmer argued for.

 

Doc, that gent sometimes pretends not to understand metaphors, as if they're limited to English. He acts as if he can't tell literal from symbolic. I believe he's deliberately being pretend-obtuse at times.

 

Unless one embraces “replacement theology” thinking, which by evidence from both prophets and Apostles is inconsistent with even basic reading of scriptures, it is not possible to show Jeremiah as fulfilled.

The “house of Israel does not at this time meet the standard of prophecy fulfillment.

Even IF one were to consider Jeremiah fulfilled in the church, the gentle fellowship has even from the beginning never been described in terms Jeremiah states.

In what manner would anyone take Jeremiah as fulfilled?

 

Apostle John wrote 1John after AD 70, and he was still expecting a literal Second Coming yet to have happened, correct?

 

Yes, the angels present when He ascended said He will return in LIKE manner, not EXACT manner. He will simply DESCEND. Difference is, He will return in great glory and power. I tend to believe He will be seated upon a horse, as described in the Revelation.

A lotta emphasis has been placed on clouds at both His departure and return. When he ascended, He vanished into a cloud, as an aircraft does now. I believe once He was outta mens' sight, He instantly "teleported" to heaven. When He returns, He will appear SUDDENLY from a cloud. The antichrist will summon his army, which, thanx to modern tech, will arrive quickly, but Jesus will destroy it with His spoken word, and the antichrist, with his deputy, the false prophet, will be cast alive into the lake of fire, as prophesied.

 

I still am looking for my copy of Clement. Is the above quote from Clements first epistle or from the pseudo-Clement second epistle? Either way your point is pointless. If it is from the first then, of course, being written before the Parousia Clement would necessarily refer to it as a future event. If the second, well, that epistle is all over the map with,strange comments and such. Much later in time. And not from Clement.

 

I would take much of Eusebius as highly agenda driven accounts.

From my own reading, the presentation of evens he gives is suspect of inaccuracy.

 

Yep! One's all I need.

They both mean the same thing. The Lord Jesus has come once; He's coming again, or returning, which means the same thing.

What coming is that? The one Paul tells the Thessalonians to ignore? Or the coming of the lawless one?

Because of sin and foolishness, I suppose. Don't worry about them; just listen to me. No, seriously, God has already decided what He's going to do, and He hasn't asked my opinion, nor yours, I suspect. Hold your opinions loosely, but be prepared (Mark 13:32-37).
[QUOTE
Off to play tennis ...[/QUOTE]
Enjoy!

 

Very easy to find, Sir!

Paul, in 2 Thess. 2. describes a "man of sin" who will sit in the temple & proclaim himself to be God. That's about as antichrist as one can get! (He's first mentioned in Daniel 9.)

Then, there's Rev. 13, describing both this same man and his deputy, a miracle-working false prophet.

Since the "abomination of desolation" didn't occur in the 2nd temple, there will hafta be a 3rd one.

As for the trib, Jesus prophesied it in Matt. 24, saying if it weren't cut short, no flesh(man or animal) would survive. I believe its allotted time is 3.5 years, but Jesus will cut it short before all that time elapses.