Featured The Abomination Of Desolation

With all due respect Brother, I completely disagree.

While we have never agreed on our views of the "end time" prophecies, I appreciate how you always back up your arguments with Scripture and history. Having said that, I have shown you historical proof many times. I can't help it if you don't consider Josephus to be a legitimate source.

You have not presented any facts that PROVE Nero was not the Beast. You have posted why you don't believe he was the Beast, but your assertions are not the same as facts. At least we agree regarding Hal Lindsey.

Wrong, Brother. Christ returned in the sense of returning in judgment. He will physically return in the future. Again, the great tribulation is past, and it was limited to Israel. In Rev 3:10, Jesus promised to keep the church in Philadelphia from the hour of testing coming upon the Roman Empire, which He must have. Therefore, that promise came to pass. I do find it interesting that the Philadelphia church does still exist, but that doesn't mean the prophecies haven't come to pass.

 

From what I read on these ONLINE Boards, I thought the AOD was Obama or Trump depending on your political leanings.

I agree with the poster that said we should put our effort into something more productive ... like hunting Bigfoot.

 

Very often in NT prophecy, "world" means the boundaries of the Roman Empire. So, no, Jesus did not mean the whole world.

The events of the Jewish Wars line up perfectly with Scripture, especially as they came to pass after Revelation was written.

 

How do you know that Jesus wasn't one to exaggerate or use hyperbole? The prophets certainly used a lot of hyperbole and symbolic language in the Old Testament. Jesus exaggerated when He said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds. Did Jesus mean for us to literally cut off our hand if we had a problem with stealing? Was Jesus literally a door, a gate, a vine, etc.? Obviously, He often employed figures of speech.

In Rev 1:7, we read that "all the tribes of the earth will mourn". "Earth" is from Strong's # G1093 (ge), which does mean "the earth", which is used 188 times in the NT. However, it is translated as "land" 42 times. For example, "ge" is used in Matthew 2:20-21, when Joseph is told to take the Christ child into the land of Israel.

Compare this with Matthew 24:14, which says the gospel will be proclaimed "in all the world". Here, the Greek word "oikumene" is used instead of "kosmos" (the world). This is "the inhabited earth", usually meaning the Roman Empire. The same word is used in Luke 2:1 when Augustus declared to tax "all the world". Scripture confirms that the gospel was proclaimed in the "oikumene" - see Rom 1:8, Rom 16:26, Col 1:6, Col 1:23, and 1 Tim 3:16. "Oikumene" (not "kosmos") is used in Rev 3:10 where Jesus promised to keep Philadelphia from the hour of testing coming upon the world. The same word is used again in Rev 12:9, where Satan deceived "the whole world". As you can see, I have valid reasons to believe Jesus did not mean the whole world in that context.

Finally, there is strong evidence that Revelation was written during the 60s during the reign of Nero. On the other hand, the support for the late date writing of Revelation is very weak.

 

How do you know for certain that Jesus did not use hype or figurative language in prophesying? After all, He used it everywhere else. "The inhabited world", in context, meant the Roman Empire. Refer back to Luke 2. The language, context, and grammar show that this points to a 1st century fulfillment.

Since when is going back to the original Greek "grasping at straws"? Speaking of Irenaeus, did you know that he also claimed that Jesus was 50 years old when He was crucified? Furthermore, his quote that supposedly supports the later date for John's writing of Revelation is very ambiguous at best. Clement, Eusebius, et al merely echo Irenaeus, so I discount them as well. There is no internal evidence for the late date of Revelation, but plenty of internal evidence for the early date (the temple was still standing, Nero is the 6th king, etc.). If you would drop your prejudice long enough to take an objective look at the text, you would at least concede the possibility of a past fulfillment.

 

Jesus used both literal language and hyperbole in the Olivet Discourse. Revelation is filled with hyperbole and symbolic language. Aside from that, you can't prove that Jesus would not have used hyperbole in prophecy, since He used it in His teachings.

In this case, I suggest that you are the one grasping at straws with this weak argument. "Oikumene", translated as "the inhabited earth", always means a limited geographical region. In the NT, it always referred to the Roman Empire. Again, this was the word used in Luke 2, when Augustus decided to conduct a census to tax "the whole world". Obviously, this does not mean the entire inhabited earth. To allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we see this example shows this is how that word was meant.

Laodicea wasn't destryoed by the earthquake until AD 68, and was rebuilt around a century later. In Rev 11:1-2, John was told to measure the temple of God and the altar. If it was already destroyed, this would have been impossible.

Rev 17:9-10 speaks of a "king", not a "kingdom". Otherwise, the angel would have said "the seven heads are seven mountains...and they are seven kingdoms, five have fallen...". Neither did the angel go on to say "the ten horns are ten kingdoms" in verse 10. You can't insist that "the inhabited world" means the whole world on the one hand, and change "kings" to "kingdoms" on the other. You are not being consistent. The 10 kings were: 1. Julius Caesar, 2. Augustus, 3. Tiberius, 4. Gaius, 5. Claudius, 6. Nero, 7. Galba, 8. Otho, 9. Vitellius, and 10. Vespasian. In that passage, we read of "ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour". This refers to the 10 imperial provinces of 1st century Rome.

So, once again, using Scripture and history, I've proven my point beyond reasonable doubt. BTW, Preston is a Full Preterist, and I don't read his material.

 

Your arguments are so weak and pathetic that it's almost laughable.

A burning mountain will be thrown into the sea, turning it to blood? A third of the stars will be darkened? We can expect scorpions that will torment people for five months? (Some say that is symbolic of helicopters.) Do you believe there will be a literal woman standing on the moon clothed with the sun with a crown of 12 stars? A literal dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns? Do I need to go on?

[/QUOTE]
Words of men inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is a weak argument. The point of the "land" argument is that it was limited in scope, not worldwide.

I stand corrected, good sir. As you stated, the earthquake was in AD 60. I agree that Revelation was not written as early as 60, so there has to be another answer. Ken Gentry provided the answer at this link - IS LAODICEA A PROBLEM FOR REVELATION’S DATE?. I will quote part of what he has to say.

"Tacitus reports that the city did not even find it necessary to apply for an imperial subsidy to help them rebuild, even though such was customary for cities in Asia Minor. As Tacitus records it, Laodicea “arose from the ruins by the strength of her own resources, and with no help from us.” (Tacitus, Annals 14:27) This is as clear a statement as necessary to demonstrate that Laodicea’s economic strength was not radically diminished by the quake. Despite the quake, economic resources were so readily available within Laodicea that the city could easily recover itself from the damage.

In addition, who is to say that the Christian community was necessarily overwhelmed by the quake in that city? After all, in the Revelation 3:17 statement it is the church that is in view, not the city. Even the horribly destructive earthquakes in Mexico City on September 19 and 20 of 1985 did not destroy every sector of the city. Perhaps, by the grace of God, the Christians were in areas less affected by the quake, as Israel was in an area of Egypt unaffected by the plagues (Exo. 8:22; 9:4, 6, 24; 10:23; 11:27). Would this token of God’s providence lead the Laodiceans to a too proud confidence in their standing as suggested in Revelation 3:17?"

Jesus did come back - in judgment on Apostate Israel. This is not the same as the 2nd Coming.

The arguments for the "futurist" view are based on fantasy and poor exegesis. Preterism is based on sound Biblical study.

 

And "futurists" accuse Preterists of not reading prophecy literally. We both recognize that Revelation is filled with things that are not meant to interpret literally.

Jesus said "oikumene", not "kosmos". Therefore, He did not literally mean the whole earth. Thus, I believe what Jesus literally said.

Agreed. However, 5 or 6 years would have given enough time to rebuild it.

And there will be only one physical return of Jesus. God "came in judgment" upon several nations in the Old Testament without literally coming to the earth. Jesus did the same thing, bringing judgment upon Israel.

From Daniel's prophecy, and from the Olivet Discourse, we know the AOD was coming within the lifetime of Christ's original audience. Since Jesus said it would occur, we know it did. Scripture does not support the view that a third temple will ever be built. Jesus told His disciples "when YOU see these things", not "when THEY see these things". I would be very careful about trying to change what Jesus clearly stated.

Finally, a 3rd temple would not have been ordained by God. Christ Jesus is the true temple, and Christians by virtue of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. No future temple could have an abomination that causes desolation since a future temple wouldn’t have any covenantal significance similar to the way earthly Jerusalem no longer has any covenantal significance.

 

Totally false.

 

Jesus used "oikumene" in Matthew 24:14 when He declared that the Gospel will be preached in all the world. Several NT passages confirm this prophecy came true in the first century. He also used "oikumene" in Luke 21:26. So, yes, it's totally true.

 

The Man of Sin (2 Thes 2:4-5) was probably Nero. Note that in verse 7 Paul says "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way". I know that you will argue that the Holy Spirit is the restrainer. I've heard it before, but I disagree. The "restrainer" was possibly the Roman civil government, or maybe Claudius, who was the Roman emperor when this was written.

Jesus told his immediate audience how to understand Daniel's prophecy, not the words of Jesus which weren't written yet. That would just leave the disciples confused. Why complicate this simple truth with these fantasies?

While it is an abomination for anyone to declare either himself or anything else as God, there was only one AOD (aside from the foreshadow of Antiochus Epiphanes' sacrifice). This happened in AD 70.

 

Matthew 24:14, ". . . And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. . . . ."
This is yet to be.