Featured The Sovereign Dispensations of God

It's an inference from God's promise to David that he would have a king sit on his throne who would rule the entire land, which has never happened. You're right, there is not a verse. I studied dispensationalism for years, and overall found that the Millenial reign of Christ on earth, on David's throne, is supportable. Although Acts 15:13-18 almost say that the Kingdom has started, which some say means that the Kingdom is entirely spiritual. I say that the promises in 1 Kings 11:36 and 2 Kings 8:19 guarantee a physical king.

36 Yet to his son I will give one tribe, that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name.

19 Yet the Lord was not willing to destroy Judah, for the sake of David his servant, since he promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever.

 

Are you one of those that say when something is 'at hand', it actually means 'thousands of years and still waiting'? Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 10:7 (if so, there's a whoooole bunch of 'at hand's in the Bible I'd like for you to show that it really means 'thousands of years and still waiting')

 

Well, yea, it's not of this world, it can't be seen with the eye, it can't be touched with the hand, but it can be made abundantly available to us now. 2 Peter 1:2-11; Romans 14:17

 

"God hath made him both Lord and Christ". Acts of the Apostles 2:25-36; Matthew 28:18

 

No. I believe that there are close references and far references to some prophecies. The things in Matthew 24 could not all have happened in AD70. The language is the same as Paul in 2 Thess 1,2, and in 2 Thess, the "Man of Sin" must appear before these things take place. He has not appeared.

 

I believe that Jesus inaugurated the kingdom when he came, but will bring it in it's fullness when he returns.

 

So you cherry pick 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand' to be a 'far' reference (which I don't really understand what that means). What's your criteria for something to be a 'close' and a 'far' reference?

So, Jesus was mistaken. Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32

Lol, I've read some very convincing arguments that the 'man of sin' is long come and gone.

...meaning that if you can't touch it with your hand, or see it with your eye, it ain't there. It could also mean you've never experienced it.

 

Historically, who was he?

 

Historically, who was he?

 

I've read that he was John of Gischala (expand the quote(s) and scroll). I've read that Titus fills the bill for a 'man of sin'. I've wondered why the 'man of sin' couldn't be a multiplicity, a body of men (as in Ephesians 2:15) like the murderous Zealots who caused so much grief to 'that generation' and eventually occupied the temple and inflicted carnage on those inside the walls during the siege.

 

The Man Of Sin

Another compelling case.

 

Very good job done here on the 1,000 years:
The 1,000 Years of Revelation 20 – CPRC

excerpt:
"Revelation 20 is a battleground. It is a battleground for two different reasons.

"First, it describes the largest and the most important battle in the history of the world.
You could call it the battle of all battles or the war to end all wars, for with its conclusion the world, with all its fighting, ends.

"Second, Revelation 20 is a battleground between the various views of the last days.

"All the different schools of thought on eschatology have their own distinctive interpretations of Revelation 20.

"In fact, the four main views derive their names from Revelation 20: amillennialism, premillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennial dispensationalism.

"Revelation 20 is the only passage in the Bible that speaks of a “thousand years,” and it is from the Latin word for a thousand (mille) that we derive our English word “millennium,” a key component in the names of the four main eschatological schools."

The tree picture was an operator error...

 

Sorry, bro. The man of sin, will sit in the temple of God claiming to be God. The early church writers say correctly that refers to the Church. John said antichrists came out from us, i.e. they were apostate Christians. The Reformers got it correct, the Papacy is Antichrist.