Plain Sense Syllogisms from Acts 2

[JackRUS]

Good post Ed.

And I might add that the Preterists here are comprised of both full and partial Preterists. So they therefore disagree as well.

 

[JackRUS]

A preterist conundrum.

In 2 Thes. 2:3-4 states this:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Preterists insist that the "day of the Lord" was finalized in 70AD when Rome sacked Jerusalem and the Temple. Therefore there will be no future so-called 7 year Great Tribulation.

In these verses we have three things that Paul states will happen before the day of the Lord.

1)A falling away, or apostasy among professing Christians. (I would argue, false Christians)

2)The Anti-Christ, or "man of sin", that "son of perdition" (Wicked" in verse 8) is "revealed" to all Christians, and possibly the the Gentile world as well.

3)The Anti-Christ sits in the Temple claiming to be God.

So then, did this apostasy occur among the early church?

Exactly who was the Anti-Christ (since he was clearly revealed)? And where is there any early writings among either the Early Church Fathers, Josephus, etc. that state who he was?

Did this Anti-Christ sit in the Temple and claim to be God to the Jews before it was destroyed by Titus? And if so, when? It sure wasn't Titus who said this by record of Josephus:

Book VI, Chapter II, Section 4 (Entire)

How Titus Earnestly Laboured To Save The City And Sanctuary

4. Now Titus was deeply affected with this state of things, and reproached John and his party, and said to them, "Have not you, vile wretches that you are, by our permission, put up this partition wall* before your sanctuary? Have not you been allowed to put up the pillars thereto belonging, at due distances, and on it to engrave the Greek, and in your own letters, this prohibition, that no foreigner should go beyond that wall? Have we not given you leave to kill such as go beyond it, though he were a Roman? And what do you do now, you pernicious villains? Why do you trample upon dead bodies in this temple? and why do you pollute this holy house with the blood both of foreigners and Jews themselves? I appeal to the gods of my own country, and to every god that ever had any regard to this place, (for I do not suppose it to be now regarded by any of them I also appeal to my own army, and to those Jews that are now with me, and even to you yourselves, that I do not force you to defile this your sanctuary; and if you will but change the place whereon you will fight, no Roman shall either come near your sanctuary, or offer any affront to it; nay, I will endeavour to preserve you your holy house, whether you will or not."

So then, who was clearly regarded by all historians and Christians alike in the first century to be the Anti-Christ? I would like some samples of their writings please.

 

[Grasshopper]

Frankly it doesn't matter if the "it" is present in Mt. 11:24 since the question is if you will receive, which they in fact didn't.

The disciples did receive it, as did many Jews.

I would suggest that you read John 12:48 and Romans 11:7-11.

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Says NOTHING about the establishment of the Kingdom being conditional.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Once again, nothing about the establishment of the Kingdom being conditional.

I can only assume from your attempts that you know of no place in scripture that states the establishment of the Kingdom would be conditional on Jewish acceptance.

And I don't see where Ps. 2:1-4 supports your argument that God accepts Israel and sets up the Kingdom for them even if they reject Him?

You have now resorted to twisting my words because you cannot refute my statement that the establishment of the Kingdom was conditional.

What does Ps.2 speak of?

Matthew Henry

Psalms 2 -
As the foregoing psalm was moral, and showed us our duty, so this is evangelical, and shows us our Saviour. Under the type of David's kingdom (which was of divine appointment, met with much opposition, but prevailed at last) the kingdom of the Messiah, the Son of David, is prophesied of, which is the primary intention and scope of the psalm;

Adam Clarke

Psalms 2 -
This Psalm treats of the opposition raised, both by Jew and Gentile, against the kingdom of Christ, Psa_2:1-3 . Christ’s victory, and the confusion of his enemies, Psa_2:4-6 . The promulgation of the Gospel after his resurrection, Psa_2:7-9 . A call to all the potentates and judges of the earth to accept it, because of the destruction that shall fall on those who reject it, Psa_2:10-12.


Scofield

Psalm 2
PS 2:6 king
The second Psalm gives the order of the establishment of the kingdom. It is in six parts:
(1) The rage of the Gentiles, the vain imagination of "people" (Jews), and the antagonism of rulers against Jehovah's anointed Psalms 2:1-3. The inspired interpretation of this is in Acts 4:25-28 which asserts its fulfilment in the crucifixion of Christ.


Wesley

Psalm 2
Intro
There is nothing in this psalm which is not applicable to Christ, but some things which are not all applicable to David. Threatenings denounced against the adversaries of Christ's kingdom, ver. 1 - 6.

So if Ps 2 refers to the Kingdom which it seems most if not all commentators agree, then what does it say of those who try to thwart the will of God?

Albert Barnes

Shall laugh - Will smile at their vain attempts; will not be disturbed or agitated by their efforts; will go calmly on in the execution of his purposes. Compare as above Isa_18:4. See also Pro_1:26 ; Psa_37:13 ; Psa_59:8. This is, of course, to be regarded as spoken after the manner of men, and it means that God will go steadily forward in the accomplishment of his purposes. There is included also the idea that he will look with contempt on their vain and futile efforts.

Adam Clarke

Psa 2:4 -
He that sitteth in the heavens - Whose kingdom ruleth over all, and is above all might and power, human and diabolical. Shall laugh. Words spoken after the manner of men; shall utterly contemn their puny efforts; shall beat down their pride, assuage their malice, and confound their devices.

So how did Jewish unbelief postpone the Kingdom??

And Acts 28:20-31 has Paul explaining that Israel rejected the kingdom. SO he went instead to the Gentiles.

Yes He did. He didn’t postpone it, He gave it to another nation. My point exactly. If the Kingdom was postponed because of Jewish rejection as dispies teach, then when will it be given to the Gentiles?

I ask again, when will Matt 21:43 be fulfilled in your dispie view?

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

As for Rev. 1:1-3, the things that shortly came to pass are recorded in the first three chapters of Revelation.

Says who? Does scripture say this anywhere?

Why then after John has recorded all the things in Revelation does the angel tell him:

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Did he mean to say only the first 3 chapters are at hand?

 

[Grasshopper]

It is you that hasn't answered why Jesus said that every eye would see Him, Gentiles and Jews alike in verse 7.

But you just said the first 3 chapters were shortly to come to pass. According to your own statement Rev 1:7 has been fulfilled. Oops!
Perhaps now you can now tell me what He meant by “every eye shall see Him”.

Perhaps Adam Clarke can help us:

Rev 1:7 -
Behold, he cometh with clouds - This relates to his coming to execute judgment on the enemies of his religion; perhaps to his coming to destroy Jerusalem, as he was to be particularly manifested to them that pierced him, which must mean the incredulous and rebellious Jews.

And all kindreds of the earth - All the tribes of the land. By this the Jewish people are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state.

Even so, Amen - Yea, Amen. It is true, so be it. Our Lord will come and execute judgment on the Jews and Gentiles. This the Jews and Romans particularly felt.

Nor did you answer why the Jews that didn't die in the raid on Jerusalem in 70AD that you said all literally saw Him, were not saved.

What scripture are you referring to that says those who survive the siege by the Romans would be saved?

Anyone knows that a myriad is 10,000. And the horsemen here is not the army from China. It's demons that are released to plague the inhabitants of Earth.

Then why did you refer to a Chinese army of 200 million?

And also a 200 million man army was a ridiculous notion until present day China came along.

 

[Grasshopper]

Dan. 12:4. And you might also check out some history. Men were horse and bugy for the last 6,000 years. WHat would you say has happened to transportation in the last 150 years? (Hint, Neil Armstrong)

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.


I have already pointed out that the “knowledge” that Daniel spoke of was the knowledge of the Gospel. I see nothing about technology nor space travel in Daniel 12. That comes from the wild imaginations of Lindsey and VanImpe.

I also noticed you didn’t answer any of my questions dealing with Daniel 12:

1.Why was Daniel told to seal up his book and John was told not to seal his?

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, Do not seal the Words of the prophecy of this Book; for the time is at hand.

2.Was end that Daniel spoke of different than the one Peter spoke of?

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

A preterist conundrum.

In 2 Thes. 2:3-4 states this:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Preterists insist that the "day of the Lord" was finalized in 70AD when Rome sacked Jerusalem and the Temple. Therefore there will be no future so-called 7 year Great Tribulation.

Where does scripture state there is a 7 year tribulation? That is your conundrum.

In these verses we have three things that Paul states will happen before the day of the Lord.

1)A falling away, or apostasy among professing Christians. (I would argue, false Christians)

Ed has stated the “falling away” is the rapture. It was at this point I quit reading his posts.

The falling away is recorded many times in scripture. Jews were abandoning Christ and returning to Judeasim.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Forbidding to marry was 1st century Gnostic thought. Is verse 3 still future? That wasn’t a problem faced by Paul in his ministry?

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

This was written to Timothy. A warning to Timothy.

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Was this not applicable to Timothy?

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

More of the falling away that Paul was referring to. On a side bar, since you believe the “last days” have been going on for 2000 years, does that mean you also believe the “last hour” has been going on for that length of time as well?


Heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

2)The Anti-Christ, or "man of sin", that "son of perdition" (Wicked" in verse 8) is "revealed" to all Christians, and possibly the the Gentile world as well.

Interestingly, I don’t see “anti-Christ” mentioned anywhere in the passage.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

This person was already at work. No need to stretch him out 2000 years.

3)The Anti-Christ sits in the Temple claiming to be God.

The power of a pre-supposition. It is a constant battle isn’t it.
He refers to the one who is already at work. Again, no mention of anti-Christ anywhere.

So then, did this apostasy occur among the early church?

yes

Exactly who was the Anti-Christ (since he was clearly revealed)? And where is there any early writings among either the Early Church Fathers, Josephus, etc. that state who he was?

Doesn’t really matter for us, those to whom Paul was writing knew. I believe Josephus does record of such a man, John of Giscala.

This from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The three parties in Jerusalem now fell upon one another. John fought both with Bar Giora and with Eleazar. He repulsed the followers of the former from the colonnades of the Temple; and the missiles that the Eleazarites hurled from the Temple he stopped by machines, in the construction of which he used even the timber that had been provided for alterations to the holy house (ib. v. 1, § 5; comp. vi. 3, § 2). On the occasion of the last Passover that the Jews ever celebrated in the Temple Eleazar admitted the country people into the building; but John's followers pressed in among them with concealed weapons and attacked them (ib. v. 3, § 1). When Eleazar disappeared from the scene, John took possession of the Temple. He now had 8,400 followers, including 2,400 Zealots. They burned the part of the city lying between the forces of John and those of Simon that they might be better able to fight; and John and Simon bar Giora did not unite until the Romans were at the gate. Then they so arranged matters that the followers of John defended the part of the wall at Antonia and the northern stoa of the Temple, while the followers of Simon defended the rest (ib. 7, § 3; comp. 9, § 2).

I believe Josephus records many of the activities he carried on while in control of the temple.

So then, who was clearly regarded by all historians and Christians alike in the first century to be the Anti-Christ? I would like some samples of their writings please.

So then, who was clearly regarded by all historians and Christians alike in the first century to be the Anti-Christ? I would like some samples of their writings please.

This from Albert Barnes who quotes different theologians:


here is scarcely any passage of the New Testament which has given occasion to greater diversity of opinion than this. Though the reference seems to be plain, and there is scarcely any prophecy of the Bible apparently more obvious and easy in its general interpretation; yet it is proper to mention some of the opinions which have been entertained of it.
Some have referred it to a great apostasy from the Christian church, particularly on account of persecution, which would occur before the destruction of Jerusalem. The “coming of the Lord” they suppose refers to the destruction of the holy city, and according to this, the meaning is, that there would be a great apostasy before that event would take place. Of this opinion was Vitringa, who refers the “apostasy” to a great defection from the faith which took place between the time of Nero and Trajan.


Whitby also refers it to an event which was to take place before the destruction of Jerusalem, and supposes that the apostasy would consist in a return from the Christian to the Jewish faith by multitudes of professed converts. The “man of sin,” according to him, means the Jewish nation, so characterized on account of its eminent wickedness.
Hammond explains the apostasy by the defection to the Gnostics, by the arts of Simon Magus, whom he supposes to be the man of sin, and by the “day of the Lord” he also understands the destruction of Jerusalem.
Grotius takes Caius Caesar or Caligula, to be the man of sin, and by the apostasy he understands his abominable wickedness. In the beginning of his government, he says, his plans of iniquity were concealed, and the hopes of all were excited in regard to his reign; but his secret iniquity was subsequently “revealed,” and his true character understood.
Wetstein understands by the “man of sin,” that it referred to Titus and the Flavian house. He says that he does not understand it of the Roman Pontiff, who “is not one such as the demonstrative pronoun thrice repeated designates, and who neither sits in the temple of God, nor calls himself God, nor Caius, nor Simon Gioriae, nor any Jewish impostor, nor Simon Magus.”
Koppe refers it to the King mentioned in Dan_11:36. According to him, the reference is to a great apostasy of the Jews from the worship of God, and the “man of sin” is the Jewish people.


Now, since you seem to have an understanding of 2 Thess. 2, may I ask a question?

Paul speaking to the Thessalonians says this:

2Th 1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

they were being persecuted by the Jews.

Then he tells them when and how they will be given rest from their persecutions:

2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

So did those believers receive rest from their persecutions by the revealing of Jesus from heaven with His angels?
If not, then did Paul give them a false hope or was he just wrong? Or perhaps he gave an opinion and was not inspired at that point?

 

[JackRUS]

Grasshopper.
Why do you ask where it says that the kingdom is conditional and then answer your own question with your Mt. 21:43 reference?

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Mt. 21:42-43

Who then is the Stone that the builders (Jews) rejected? (See also Acts 4:11 & 1 Pet. 2:7)

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say,
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Mt. 23:37-39

Of course you would argue that they would see Him henceforth in 70AD when Titus destroys the city. But then Jesus would have to be a lier then wouldn't He?

And it is true that some Jews received Christ. 12 apostles and about 500 before He ascended into Heaven. That is not the whole Jewish nation though, but a remnant. So your point is moot.

As for your 1 Thes. argument. If your interpretation is true, then you should have no trouble naming the Anti-Christ since he was "revealed" to all in the first century before Jesus came. And you should also then have no trouble backing that up with historical documentation.

So then, exactly who was he?

 

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper.
Why do you ask where it says that the kingdom is conditional and then answer your own question with your Mt. 21:43 reference?

The ESTABLISHMENT of the Kingdom was not conditional. It didn't matter if the Jews accepted it or not. Their entrance into the Kingdom was conditional upon their belief. You have the two confused.

Please answer, when is Matt 21:43 fulfilled in your view?

 

[Grasshopper]

As for your 1 Thes. argument. If your interpretation is true, then you should have no trouble naming the Anti-Christ since he was "revealed" to all in the first century before Jesus came. And you should also then have no trouble backing that up with historical documentation.

So then, exactly who was he?

See above.

 

[Tim]

It seems we've gone pretty far astray from the original topic of this thread. Hope no one minds if I return to the Joel 2 and Acts 2 relationship.

Obviously, some are unwilling to accept the idea that any prophecy of the sun going dark, etc. could have all ready taken place--because the physical sun still shines in the sky, and they insist on a physical fulfillment of this prophecy.

So returning to Joel chapter 2, we have two separate references to the sun going dark, verse 10 and verse 31. Verse 31 appears in a section that begins with the phrase "and afterward" (v.28). This would seem to indicate a separate event from what is described in the earlier sections of chapter 2 (including verse 10).

So, should we again disregard the time references to hold to a physical fulfillment, or did the sun go dark once and will go dark again? Or perhaps is Joel speaking in some figures of speech here?

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Grasshopper.
Why do you ask where it says that the kingdom is conditional and then answer your own question with your Mt. 21:43 reference?

The ESTABLISHMENT of the Kingdom was not conditional. It didn't matter if the Jews accepted it or not. Their entrance into the Kingdom was conditional upon their belief. You have the two confused.

Please answer, when is Matt 21:43 fulfilled in your view? </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Grasshopper]

It seems we've gone pretty far astray from the original topic of this thread. Hope no one minds if I return to the Joel 2 and Acts 2 relationship.

We have both tried to get someone to answer the Is 13:10 question but we seem to have no takers.

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

It seems if we are to take Joel and Peter's word literally regarding this language then shouldn't we assume a literal fulfillment of Is. 13:10? Of course the problem is Is. 13 speaks of an event long long ago.

 

[Pete Richert]

Of course the problem is Is. 13 speaks of an event long long ago.

In complete ignorance, and being way to lazy to go look it up myself; what event to you propose that this was describing?

Thanks.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
Good post Ed.

And I might add that the Preterists here are comprised of both full and partial Preterists. So they therefore disagree as well.

Not only that, Ed1 does not agree with Ed2

I.E., if you want a second opinion i'll give
you one in a second post soon

 

[Grasshopper]

In complete ignorance, and being way to lazy to go look it up myself; what event to you propose that this was describing?

The destruction of Babylon by the Medes in 539BC.

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> In complete ignorance, and being way to lazy to go look it up myself; what event to you propose that this was describing?

The destruction of Babylon by the Medes in 539BC. </font>[/QUOTE]I am wondering why then God says in the next verse that He will punish the world if it was only Babylon?

You might also explain why God says in verse 20 that it will never be inhabited again after this judgement? Care to turn on the news and see if anyone is living in Iraq today?

And I'm still waiting for you to let us know who this "revealed" man os sin (Anti-Christ) was.

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Grasshopper.
Why do you ask where it says that the kingdom is conditional and then answer your own question with your Mt. 21:43 reference?

The ESTABLISHMENT of the Kingdom was not conditional. It didn't matter if the Jews accepted it or not. Their entrance into the Kingdom was conditional upon their belief. You have the two confused.

Please answer, when is Matt 21:43 fulfilled in your view? </font>[/QUOTE]I answered this question last night on the bottom of the previous page, but it somehow got edited out.

My answer is that it appears that you want to add the heresy of Replacement Theology to your Preterist heresy. I might suggest that you do a study of Romans 11 for your answer.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
...
I answered this question last night on the bottom of the previous page, but it somehow got edited out. ...

Yes, sometimes these things go into cyberspace
to never be seen again. If I had all my posts
back from cyberspace, i'd already be up
to 10,000 posts

Originally posted by JackRUS:
...
My answer is that it appears that you want to add the heresy of Replacement Theology to your Preterist heresy. I might suggest that you do a study of Romans 11 for your answer.

Amen, Brother JackRUS -- Preach it!

 

[R. Charles Blair]

JackRUS - Just a quick question: were you implying that the 120 were not saved until Acts 2?
Somehow I can't believe that was the intent of your reply re "poured out," but that is the
"literal" reading. Or do I misunderstand?

Grasshopper - Good insight on Isa. 13.

Responding to a couple of other questions: The
word "world" is used to refer to the world-
dominating nation of Babylon, the world governmental system which would be destroyed. Old Babylon is not inhabited today; the site remains a marshy swamp, not far from Baghdad but not identical. As prophesied, Arabs regard it with superstitious fear (Is. 13:20). The reference is to the capital, not to the nation.

Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

[Grasshopper]

I am wondering why then God says in the next verse that He will punish the world if it was only Babylon?

World has different meanings depending on the context. Did Caesar tax the American Indians?

Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Here is Strong’s definition:

From H2986;
the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension the globe; by implication its inhabitants; specifically a particular land, as Babylonia or Palestine: - habitable part, world.

You might also explain why God says in verse 20 that it will never be inhabited again after this judgement? Care to turn on the news and see if anyone is living in Iraq today?

Albert Barnes:
Isa 13:20 -
It shall never be inhabited - This has been completely fulfilled. It is now, and has been for centuries, a scene of wide desolation, and is a heap of ruins, and there is every indication that it will continue so to be. From Rauwolff’s testimony it appears, that in the sixteenth century ‘there was not a house to be seen;’ and now the ‘eye wanders over a barren desert, in which the ruins are nearly the only indication that it had ever been inhabited. It is impossible to behold this scene and not be reminded how exactly the predictions of Isaiah and Jeremiah have been fulfilled, even in the appearance Babylon was doomed to present, “that she should never be inhabited.”’ - (Keppel’s “Narrative,” p. 234.) ‘Babylon is spurned alike by the heel of the Ottoman, the Israelites, and the sons of Ishmael.’ - (Mignan’s “Travels,” p. 108.) ‘It is a tenantless and desolate metropolis.’ - (Ibid. p. 235; see Keith “On Prophecy,” p. 221.)

John Gill:
Isa 13:20 - It shall never be inhabited ,.... As it has not been since its utter destruction. Pausanias (p), who lived in the times of Adrian, says, Babylon, the greatest city that ever the sun saw, that then there was nothing left of it but a wall: what is now called Babylon is a new city, and built in another place:

Now lets play from your side. Verse 1 tells us who this prophecy is referring to:

Isa 13:1 The burden of Babylon , which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

Why does God say Babylon when He really means the entire world?

It is the Medes who God uses to carry out His word:

Isa 13:17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

Who are these Medes if they are not the Medes from 2500 years ago? If they destroy the world as you say, do they destroy themselves as well? And if they do survive then where will they live since you believe the world will be uninhabitable?

Isa 13:15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword .
Isa 13:18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.


Swords and Bows? What happened to Atomic warfare? At least some Cobra helicopters that Hal Lindsey predicts.


To say that Is. 13 has not occurred is laughable and contradicts history. Is it your belief that the destruction of Babylon by the Medes was just a coincidence?
It is necessary under the dispie framework to deny this obvious fulfillment, because if it were fulfilled, then verse 10 becomes the breeze that collapses the dispie house of cards. If verse 10 is allowed to be a figurative expression describing the downfall of a political system then it seems similar usage would have the same figurative meaning. If true then what will dispies do with verses like these:

Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

And of course the verse we are dealing with:

Act 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
Act 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

 

[Grasshopper]

And I'm still waiting for you to let us know who this "revealed" man os sin (Anti-Christ) was.

And I’m still waiting on about a dozen answers from you. One of which was this one, who is already at work?

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Now I will repost my answer since you are to busy to go back one page and find the answer:

John of Giscala is one possibility, here are others from Albert Barnes who quotes different theologians:


here is scarcely any passage of the New Testament which has given occasion to greater diversity of opinion than this. Though the reference seems to be plain, and there is scarcely any prophecy of the Bible apparently more obvious and easy in its general interpretation; yet it is proper to mention some of the opinions which have been entertained of it.

Some have referred it to a great apostasy from the Christian church, particularly on account of persecution, which would occur before the destruction of Jerusalem. The “coming of the Lord” they suppose refers to the destruction of the holy city, and according to this, the meaning is, that there would be a great apostasy before that event would take place. Of this opinion was Vitringa, who refers the “apostasy” to a great defection from the faith which took place between the time of Nero and Trajan.

Whitby also refers it to an event which was to take place before the destruction of Jerusalem, and supposes that the apostasy would consist in a return from the Christian to the Jewish faith by multitudes of professed converts. The “man of sin,” according to him, means the Jewish nation, so characterized on account of its eminent wickedness.

Hammond explains the apostasy by the defection to the Gnostics, by the arts of Simon Magus, whom he supposes to be the man of sin, and by the “day of the Lord” he also understands the destruction of Jerusalem.

Grotius takes Caius Caesar or Caligula, to be the man of sin, and by the apostasy he understands his abominable wickedness. In the beginning of his government, he says, his plans of iniquity were concealed, and the hopes of all were excited in regard to his reign; but his secret iniquity was subsequently “revealed,” and his true character understood.

Wetstein understands by the “man of sin,” that it referred to Titus and the Flavian house. He says that he does not understand it of the Roman Pontiff, who “is not one such as the demonstrative pronoun thrice repeated designates, and who neither sits in the temple of God, nor calls himself God, nor Caius, nor Simon Gioriae, nor any Jewish impostor, nor Simon Magus.”

Koppe refers it to the King mentioned in Dan_11:36. According to him, the reference is to a great apostasy of the Jews from the worship of God, and the “man of sin” is the Jewish people.

I answered this question last night on the bottom of the previous page, but it somehow got edited out.

My answer is that it appears that you want to add the heresy of Replacement Theology to your Preterist heresy. I might suggest that you do a study of Romans 11 for your answer.

In other words you have no answer.

You are quick to point out what you believe heresy yet refuse/cannot answer the simplest of questions. I have asked numerous questions and you ignore them. I can only assume you don’t answer because in doing so you only contradict yourself which you have already done.
As far as Replacement Theology and preterism, you don’t seem to understand either or you would not have made the statement:

it appears that you want to add the heresy of Replacement Theology to your Preterist heresy

Replacement theology is the belief that the Church replaced Israel, I do not believe this. Perhaps you fit this since you believe the Jews will someday replace the Church.