Search results

It's not whether I would consider 14 years to be near, but whether the original audience considered it to be near relative to the time given by Christ. On the other hand, I would consider a 2,000 gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th Weeks to be an unreasonably long time - but I seriously digress...

Meaning, it really doesn't make sense for Jesus to say that some of them would still be alive a week from then. If His point was that some of them would see the Transfiguration, He would have said something entirely different. Not really all that long, since they had already been given a...

The transfiguration was only a week later, so this doesn't really make sense. I believe the context shows that Caiaphas would see it in his lifetime. Audience relevance shows that the end of the ages had come upon his original readers - not an audience at an undetermined period far off in the...

That's gotta be rough. God bless you both. The Beast wasn't only Nero, but also Rome itself. We clearly do not understand the prophecies of the OD and Revelation in the same way. While I have read a lot from Preterist authors like DeMar and Gentry, I read from a lot of "futurist" authors...

Thank you. Definitely nothing to take chances with, and I appreciate your genuine concern. Obviously, it's the same genuine concern that drives you to "correct" those who you believe have been deceived into a false view of eschatology. You are a good man, Brother Roby. You are only trying to...

Matthew 16:27-28 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father...there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom". Matthew 26:64 "Jesus said to him (Caiaphas)...you will see the Son of Man sitting at...

In Matthew 23, we see that Jesus was in the Temple, where He had pronounced "woes" upon the Jewish leaders. Then He lamented over Jerusalem. At the beginning of Matthew 24, as He came out of the Temple, the disciples wanted Him to elaborate. So, yes, this is all in the same context. Some...

Of course, I can turn that statement around. You can try to fit your doctrine into the Scriptures, but that doesn't make it true. Still, it's quite obvious neither of us is ever going to budge. On another note, I took a turn for the worse over the weekend. Remembering what you said about...

As I've mentioned earlier, the Beast is both Nero and Rome. The 70th week has already been fulfilled, as I explained earlier. On a slightly different note, I'd like to ask a question to you Futurists. Where is the 7 years of tribulation in Revelation? While we see different phrases for 3...

Why is it a separate issue? Chapter and verse divisions didn't come around for many centuries, so it's all in the same context. I disagree regarding whether "you" is a generic term in this context. He is telling His immediate audience what to expect. We have similar occurrences elsewhere in...

Somehow, the definition of terms like "you", "soon", "at the door", etc. change their meaning when you need to make it fit the "futurist" view. Any other time, these words mean just what they say. To state the obvious, our views or whether or not these events have occurred are why we are...

Thank you, Brother John. I appreciate that. I was surprised that my perspective on the "time statements" is not a typical preterist view. In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces 7 "woes" upon the Scribes and Pharisees - "woe to you". He tells them "your house is being left desolate" (v. 38)...

Thank you, Roby. I appreciate that. I'm also praying that my wife doesn't come down with this. She has a weakened immune system from chemo several years ago. Long story. Nero was the 6th "king" of Rev 17:10. The "Beast" was both Rome and Nero. The Roman Empire contained 10 provinces, and...

My apologies for the delayed response - I thought I was over this bronchitis, but not quite yet. Also, I apologize for going off on rabbit trails. I'm not sure how I wound up with the "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. Guess it's easy for a discussion regarding the "End Times" to go...

I'm finally back after a bout with bronchitis and the flu, and I'm trying to catch up on some responses. In the Olivet Discourse, the "time references" are more along the line of "when you see these things happening". Anyway, I don't see where preterists have any problems with the time statements.

Actually, there are no scriptures that prove a gap.

Thank you. Turned out to be bronchitis and a touch of the flu, but I'm finally on the mend. The reason I still believe Rome / Nero was the Beast is because it makes sense. The prophecies were fulfilled exactly.

To @John of Japan, @asterisktom, @robycop3, et al on this post - I not feeling well, so I won't be responding any more today. Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I might be back tomorrow. Seems to be a bad chest cold. Anyway, I'm signing off for now.

Jesus said that "you will see", and they did. This gives a time reference for the "soon". To flip this around, many "futurists" have no problem with a 2,000 year "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. Preterists fail to understand that kind of logic. What is your view on that, if I may ask?

As I've been discussing with @John of Japan, the millennium is probably not a literal 1K years. Still, that is splitting hairs, as we will agree that it will be a long time. You are inferring that Jesus will reign on Earth, but the passage doesn't specify that. Or I could suggest that you...