The Abomination Of Desolation

[Lodic]

With all due respect Brother, I completely disagree.

For the umpteenth time, please show us HISTORICAL PROOF that the eschatological events have already occurred! And I mean from a LEGITIMATE SOURCE, not the garbage those pret quack "authors" write.

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.

I posted FACTS that **PROVE** Nero was NOT the beast-HISTORICAL FACTS you CANNOT refute! But yet you still believe the garbage of Gentry, Preston, etc. which has proven as false as that of Hal Lindsey.

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.

No, Jesus has NOT yet returned in any manner. He plainly warned against believing He had returned by word of mouth because His return would be visible as lightning, seen by ALL.
And plainly, the great trib has NOT occurred, It will be WORLDWIDE, and the beast will be in power when it does occur, or else Jesus was wrong in Rev. 3:10! (Remember , the Philadelphia church STILL EXISTS ! !)

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.

 

[robycop3]

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.

...While you skip the history and use some quack's private interp of Scripture.

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.

Josephus was a PARTIALLY-legit source. His main aim was keeping Vespasian & Titus happy, in order to keep his head. And what history you've mentioned doesn't align with Scripture.

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.

MMRRPP 1 WRONG !
It's a **FACT** that Nero DIED, in front of witnesses. He had a funeral & his body was entombed. He was NOT cast alive into hell as Scripture says the REAL beast will be.

It's a **FACT** that Nero was never in Jerusalem & so couldn't've committed the AOD. And you've been plainly shown what the AOD will be.

It's a **FACT** that Nero was overthrown by General Galba, while Scripture says no man will be able to overthrow the TRUE beast.

it's a **FACT** that Nero had no miracle-working false prophet deputy. And he did not align with the Jews, nor they with him. And neither Nero nor the Jews issued any mark that was required to do business.

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.

Jesus said "THE WHOLE WORLD", not just the Roman empire. To say it won't be universal is to deny Jesus' very words! As a Christian, you don't really wanna do THAT, do you? Your gurus told you wrong again!

 

[atpollard]

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.

 

[Lodic]

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.

 

[robycop3]

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

No, Jesus wasn't one to exaggerate, especially in prophecies. When He said "whole world", He meant "WHOLE WORLD"! After all, He made the whole world!

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

They line up only for the :days of vengeance". And the Rev was written during the reign of Domitian, in the 90s AD.

 

[Lodic]

No, Jesus wasn't one to exaggerate, especially in prophecies. When He said "whole world", He meant "WHOLE WORLD"! After all, He made the whole world!


They line up only for the :days of vengeance". And the Rev was written during the reign of Domitian, in the 90s AD.

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.

 

[robycop3]

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.

Still grasping at straws. I readily admit Jesus used hype many times, but not in prophesying. And "the whole world' means "the whole INHABITED world" as you admit. And that's just what Jesus meant in Rev. 3:10. it hasn't yet happened.

As for the time the Rev was given, the evidence is OPPOSITE of what you said. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Victorinus, & Jerome all late-dated it, before any argument for an early date was made. and those men weren't trying to win any argument; they were just recording facts.

 

[robycop3]

You prets tickle me. In Daniel's vision of the beasts in Daniel 8, Alexander The Great's empire is represented by a goat, while Alex himself is represented by one large horn. When that horn is broken off (Alex's death) four more horns come forth on the goat. They represent Alex's 4 leading generals, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, & Antigones. Scripture goes on to tell of the coming conflicts between the empires ruled by Ptolemy & Seleucus; the other 2 aren't mentioned. A careful examination of Scripture & history together accurately traces the paths of those 2 dynasties Most of the time, Judea was controlled by the Seleucids, & the infamous Antiochus Epiphanes was a Seleucid. Daniel wrote that he PLACED & SET up the AOD in the temple at Jerusalem; history records he PLACED & SET UP a statue of Zeus in the temple, among other defilements he committed in it. This clearly tells us a main part of that AOD was the placing/setting up of a statue. Thus, we know what to look for in the AOD that Jesus referred to. He specifically said it was the one mentioned by Daniel, so Jesus was saying to watch for a similar event. And it didn't happen in the old temple before it was destroyed. To say it was Roman ensigns is beyond ridiculous!

Paul wrote that the man of sin (beast, antichrist) will enter the temple, that is, the new one the Jews will build in J, & proclaim himself God. (Antiochus didn't do that!) and Rev says the false prophet will command the people to make an image (statue) of the beast. This image will be placed/set up in the temple, where the FP will supernaturally, by Satan's power, make it speak, so that the people will marvel, and the FP will command all to worship the beast & the image.. All that will be the AOD.

 

[Lodic]

Still grasping at straws. I readily admit Jesus used hype many times, but not in prophesying. And "the whole world' means "the whole INHABITED world" as you admit. And that's just what Jesus meant in Rev. 3:10. it hasn't yet happened.

As for the time the Rev was given, the evidence is OPPOSITE of what you said. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Victorinus, & Jerome all late-dated it, before any argument for an early date was made. and those men weren't trying to win any argument; they were just recording facts.

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.

 

[robycop3]

How do you know for certain that Jesus did not use hype or figurative language in prophesying?

You can't show us a single prophecy by Jesus in which He used any hype.

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.

"The inhabited world" means "THE INHABITED WORLD". ALL of it. The "days of vengeance" were accomplished in the 1st century when everything that was written against the Jews UP TO THE TIME WHEN JESUS GAVE THE PROPHECY was fulfilled. The Rev certainly wasn't written while Jesus was here.

Since when is going back to the original Greek "grasping at straws"?

Making excuses to try to justify believing the pret bunk is 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.[/QUOTE]

There was no claim for an early date before the 600s AD.
Internal evidence? EASY! The church at Laodicea was described as materially rich, but Laodicea was completely leveled by an earthquake in 60 AD & hadn't completely recovered by the time Nero was ousted in 68. Nothing in the Rev says the temple was still standing. You discount those early writers only to try to support the pret myth. And I have shown you that Nero was far from the 6th king of Rome, as Rome was founded in the 700s BC.

Again, you need to toss the Gentry-Preston garbage.

 

[Lodic]

You can't show us a single prophecy by Jesus in which He used any hype.

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.

"The inhabited world" means "THE INHABITED WORLD". ALL of it. The "days of vengeance" were accomplished in the 1st century when everything that was written against the Jews UP TO THE TIME WHEN JESUS GAVE THE PROPHECY was fulfilled. The Rev certainly wasn't written while Jesus was here.

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.

Internal evidence? EASY! The church at Laodicea was described as materially rich, but Laodicea was completely leveled by an earthquake in 60 AD & hadn't completely recovered by the time Nero was ousted in 68. Nothing in the Rev says the temple was still standing. You discount those early writers only to try to support the pret myth.

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.

And I have shown you that Nero was far from the 6th king of Rome, as Rome was founded in the 700s BC.

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.

 

[robycop3]

Ah! Good ole Lodic again, sticking his finger in the dyke, trying to hold back the flood of evidence against the preterism myth! As usual, it fails!

Jesus used both literal language and hyperbole in the Olivet Discourse.

No, He used only literal pronouncements. And please don't make yourself look silly by using the old "falling stars" argument, as meteors were called falling stars by virtually everyone in that part of the world then.

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.

I can, easily. Every prophecy Jesus made that's already cometa pass has done so literally.

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.

That was the words of ordinary men, not of Jesus. Besides, the destruction of J & the temple was against the Jews alone, not the whole Roman empire.[/quote]

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.

No, it was destroyed in 60 AD, confirmed by Tacitus, who lived 56 AD to 120. As it occurred in his childhood, he would certainly have heard about it as he grew up. And it wasn't completely rebuilt for the better part of a century. Now, please don't suggest Rev was given before 60 AD, as absolutely no "early church father" has suggested such. (I have Encyclopaedia Britannica right in fronta me.)
And the temple John was told to measure was in a VISION.

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.

I gave you examples of where Scripture often used "kings" for "kingDOMS". In ancient times, just about every leader was called a king or queen. And we sometimes use he same type language today, I. E. "Yamamoto intended to capture Midway." And I told you what the past kingdome were-Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, & Greece were the 5 that had fallen, Rome was the one that "was", & the Holy Roman Empire was the 7th. The 8th will be the empire of the beast/antichrist, & it'll only remain a short time, likely less than 7 years.

And there couldn't've been7 kings & 10 kings at once for the same "beast". The 10 kings will be men, & they'll give their power & authority to the human beast. (The term 'beast' in Rev refers to both the man & his empire, depending on context.) So, actually, you haven't proven squat.

And partial preterism is just-as-false as full, as is easily proven. Partials believe the great trib happened 66-70 AD, but if it has, then JESUS IS LONG-OVERDUE, as He said He'd return IMMEDIATELY AFTER the trib was ended. No getting around that FACT.

Both "schools" of preterism are phony & false!

 

[Lodic]

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

No, He used only literal pronouncements. And please don't make yourself look silly by using the old "falling stars" argument, as meteors were called falling stars by virtually everyone in that part of the world then.

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?

That was the words of ordinary men, not of Jesus. Besides, the destruction of J & the temple was against the Jews alone, not the whole Roman empire.

[/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.

No, it was destroyed in 60 AD, confirmed by Tacitus, who lived 56 AD to 120. As it occurred in his childhood, he would certainly have heard about it as he grew up. And it wasn't completely rebuilt for the better part of a century.

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.

 

[robycop3]

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

Not at all. I have history & reality on my side. You have some jive invented by quacks on yours.

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?

Remember, John was trying to explain modern things with 1sr-C. understanding. "Something like a burning mountain" could be a meteor. And who knows what it could do to the sea? Making a third of it seem like blood is very possible, as well as its destroying a third of all ships upon it & killing a third of the life in it. Same for the "star" called "Wormwood". And they could easily generate enouigh smoke & dust to obscure a thrid of the natural light.

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.

JESUS said "the whole world". Who do you believe-Gentry or JESUS?

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?"

Archaeology-geology show that the entire city was leveled. It wasn't rebuilt overnight.

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

No, He DIDN'T. Scripture mentions only ONE return of Jesus,in great power & glory, SEEN BY ALL.

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

No, the preterist view is based upon the eisegesis & guesswork of men, & is proven false by history and reality. Of course, futurism is inexact, since it hasn't happened yet, but preterism has no supporting evidence at all.

The anti-preterism view is easy to establish as true. Scripture is ALWAYS right, & Scripture says certain events will happen. History shows they have NOT yet happened, so they're still future.

This thread started out about the AOD. We know what it'll be from Daniel's writings & the type of it that occurred in the 160s BC. And nothing like it ever occurred again before the temple was destroyed. But JESUS said it WILL occur, so a new temple will be built for it to occur in.

 

[Lodic]

Remember, John was trying to explain modern things with 1sr-C. understanding. "Something like a burning mountain" could be a meteor. And who knows what it could do to the sea? Making a third of it seem like blood is very possible, as well as its destroying a third of all ships upon it & killing a third of the life in it. Same for the "star" called "Wormwood". And they could easily generate enough smoke & dust to obscure a third of the natural light.

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 "the whole world". Who do you believe-Gentry or JESUS?

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

Archaeology-geology show that the entire city was leveled. It wasn't rebuilt overnight.

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

No, He DIDN'T. Scripture mentions only ONE return of Jesus,in great power & glory, SEEN BY ALL.

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.

This thread started out about the AOD. We know what it'll be from Daniel's writings & the type of it that occurred in the 160s BC. And nothing like it ever occurred again before the temple was destroyed. But JESUS said it WILL occur, so a new temple will be built for it to occur in.

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.

 

[37818]

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

Totally false.

 

[robycop3]

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.
Symbols in Scripture ALWAYS represent something literal. rev interprets many of its own symbols, such as in Rev. 17. Some symbols are universal thruout Scripture, such as a dragon for Satan, Lamb for Jesus, harlot for apostate religion.

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

Jesus meant "the whole OCCUPIED earth." But naturally some of the plagues will fall on unoccupied places as well.

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

Maybe-maybe not. We don't really know.

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.

Actually, He caused/allowed/influenced those things to happen.

From Daniel's prophecy, and from the Olivet Discourse, we know the AOD was coming within the lifetime of Christ's original audience.

No, we DON'T. No time is given.

Since Jesus said it would occur, we know it did.

No, we know it WILL.

Scripture does not support the view that a third temple will ever be built.

Yes, it DOES. The events of 2Thess.2:4-5 have not occurred yet, & they require a standing temple to occur in.

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.

No, YOU should be careful to not ignore some things He said. He finished that particular part with "Let the READER understand." At that time, His words weren't yet written. But Jesus knew they WOULD BE, & He preserved themthrough this day.

Finally, a 3rd temple would not have been ordained by God.

The Jews are gonna build it, simple as THAT. How holy it'll be is up to GOD. But most of the world will believe it's holy to some degree, just as we believe the Dome of the Rock is holy to Moslems. (But not to US.)

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.

For a man to declare himself God is an abomination no matter where it occurs! Remember reading about Herod Agrippa allowing men to praise him as a god? What happened to him? He was smitten with an awful intestinal disease, which included worms, & he died in great agony. And he hadn't declared himself God; he merely accepted praise as a god. But THE God saw it as evil enough to send an awful punishment upon him. So, imagine hoe much more God will be angered by the beast calling himself God!

But Paul was told by God that the beast would do that in the temple, so there must be a temple existing for him to do it in.

 

[Lodic]

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.

 

[Lodic]

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.

 

[37818]

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.

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.