Rev. 9:10: Historical Facts vs. Futurist Fiction

[37818]

Either that or I am missing what you are saying. You see the Disciples asking different questions about different topics, and Jesus giving separate answers. I see them asking one question and Jesus answering only that question.

What is asked are three different questions. Jesus answers the second two. Matthew 24:2-3. . . . The answer in Luke 19:44 Jesus tells Jerusalem, ". . .thou knewest not the time . . . ."

 

[robycop3]

Robycop, I "did a little research". I did a lot of it. I used to believe exactly as you did for around twenty years, giving money to Jews for Jesus, etc. Looking forward to that Third Temple. But at some point, among other red flags, some one pointed out to me just how would it be possible for any future temple to have an abomination on it. An abomination, biblically, is a violation of God's Law. How can this supposed temple be abominated when it in itself would be an abomination. The very building of it would be an abomination.

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)" - Matt. 24:15

"The Holy Place". That is a real problem for your view. There are no more holy places. So there cannot be any more abominations done in it, or to it.

Maybe you should've checked what else was on your flagpole.

Jesus said the AOD will occur, so it MUST occur. It did NOT occur in the old temple. Titus was NOT the 'man of sin"; he failed to meet many of the Scriptural criteria for that man. He worshipped the Roman pantheon, while the antichrist won't recognize any god but himself. He had no miracle-working false prophet sidekick. He didn't issue any marka the beast. He didn't set up a statue of himself in that temple if he even entered it at all. And he was not the big kahoona; he was willingly subservient to his father Vespasian. And he was not cast alive into the LOF. he died of illness, commonly called a "fever".

Paul wrote in 2 Thess.2: 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

So, the AOD MUST be future, in a new temple. Rev. 13 provides more detail, mentioning he will be accompanied by the false prophet & they'll set up a statue of the big shot in the temple, in replication of Antiochus Epiphanes' first AOD in the 160s BC, the model for the one Jesus prophesied. None of that occurred in the old temple, but it's prophesied in Scripture, so it MUST occur!

As for "the holy place", the new temple will be as much of a dupe of the old temple as possible. Since the ark is in the heavenly temple, out of Indiana Jones' reach, I don't know what the Jews will place in it. And I also don't know what fire they'll use to light their altar.

I agree it won't really be a temple of God, as Jesus won't be worshipped in it. But the world will view it as such, & it'll have an area the Jews will call "the holy place" in it, & they & much of the world will believe it is!

So please check your flagpole again !

 

[Yeshua1]

It is interesting that dispensationalists almost always go to Matthew 24 for their text, hardly ever Mark or Luke. The reason might be twofold. First, the question at the beginning of that chapter is in three phrases, easy for them to cast them as three supposedly very separate questions. Secondly, the ordering of verses makes it easier for them to mark off what they consider is still future.

But the other two Synoptics show the events in a different order. And there are no three questions asked from the disciples - although Christ, in those other two books, answered the question as posed in Matthew 24.

So - there really was only one question.
And there really was one event described in all three of those Synoptics (and in the extended Olivet DIscourse of John - AKA the book of Revelation). That event was the coming of Christ in "this generation" meting out retribution and reward, respectively, to enemies and saints.

So when did all of the living saints back then get glorified bodies?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:25 PM Pacific.

 

[robycop3]

I believe once again we've proven preterism false.

 

[asterisktom]

As for "the holy place", the new temple will be as much of a dupe of the old temple as possible. Since the ark is in the heavenly temple, out of Indiana Jones' reach, I don't know what the Jews will place in it. And I also don't know what fire they'll use to light their altar.

I agree it won't really be a temple of God, as Jesus won't be worshipped in it. But the world will view it as such, & it'll have an area the Jews will call "the holy place" in it, & they & much of the world will believe it is!

So please check your flagpole again !

The issue is not whether the Jews would call it the holy place, the problem (for your view) is that Jesus did call it the Holy Place.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand - Matt. 24

14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, 16 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 17 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Mark 13

Notice that Jesus is also assuming legitimacy to the temple He is referring to. "Where he ought not" implies that the person is in a place where he should not be. Now why would God even care about where this (hypothetical) future person should go. After the work of Christ there are no more holy places (See John 4).

Matthew 24 adds another detail:

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Once again, just like there are no holy places, neither are there Sabbath days. That all passed away with the other Commandments of the Decalog.

 

[asterisktom]

I believe once again we've proven preterism false.

I do not think so. But I will let others read and judge.

 

[atpollard]

He even writes as if the Temple was still standing.

Where does John write about the Temple in Jerusalem?

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not think so. But I will let others read and judge.

In what history was the physical resurrection of the dead and alive in Christ recorded down AD 70?

 

[robycop3]

The issue is not whether the Jews would call it the holy place, the problem (for your view) is that Jesus did call it the Holy Place.
Now, if He would've said, "a place the Jews shall call holy", that wouldn't've meant much to the disciples..

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand - Matt. 24

14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, 16 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 17 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Mark 13

Notice that Jesus is also assuming legitimacy to the temple He is referring to. "Where he ought not" implies that the person is in a place where he should not be. Now why would God even care about where this (hypothetical) future person should go. After the work of Christ there are no more holy places (See John 4).
The temple will SEEM legitimate to most of the world. Jesus wanted it to be known where the AOD will occur. And a gentile enterein that temple will be a terrible affront to the Jews. Perhaps God wants it to be profaned on purpose because of the Jews' view of it.

Matthew 24 adds another detail:

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Once again, just like there are no holy places, neither are there Sabbath days. That all passed away with the other Commandments of the Decalog.

Yes, there ARE still sabbaths! God commanded Israel to keep them FOREVER. And most of the Decalogue is still in force. (You shall not murder, steal, commit adultery, etc.)

And this does NOT account for the fact that the AOD did NOT occur in the old temple. The beast hasn't come yet. I showed you that neither Titus nor any of the Romans met the Scriptural criteria for the beast. There was no miracle-working false prophet nor any talking statues. The event simply HASN'T YET HAPPENED.

 

[robycop3]

I do not think so. But I will let others read and judge.

Sure. You've presented nothing to support it while I've presented plenty of proofs that it's false.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:25 PM Pacific.

This thread is closed.