Matthew 24

[Covenanter]

Sorry Covenanter, but Scripture refutes your argument that the Temple in Jerusalem was standing

John was in the Spirit on Patmus, not in Jerusalem. He was called up to the third Heaven, not to Jerusalem. The Temple he was to measure was future.

Revelation 4:1 (KJV) 1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

I suggest you study outside the box of Preterism. Preterism is a disgrace to the truth.

 

I am studying Scripture, NOT Preterism. Where Scripture prophecy is made, we look for its fulfilment, as fulfilment authenticates the prophet. 

 

We therefore should look for the fulfilment of Gabriel's 70 weeks prophecy to be fulfilled in 490 years. I have shown how to understand that prophecy. God could have summarily destroyed Jerusalem at the end of the 70th week when Stephen, in the power of the Holy Spirit, denounced his accusers as "uncircumcised." However he graciously allowed them the duration of "this generation" to repent - as Hebrews underlines. There is not the slightest Scriptural justification for splitting off the 70th week. 

 

Likewise Jesus' Olivet prophecy explains things that will happen that are not of prophetic significance, while giving specific warning signs so the Jerusalem Christians would know when to flee the doomed city. Comparison with of Dan. 9:27 , Mat. 24:15-16 , Luke 21:20-22 shows that the "abomination" is related to the armies - prOBably the eagle standards. Luke 17:37 Paul in 1 Thes. 2:14-16 refers to the Olivet prophecy. As the temple would still be standing for another 20 years, there seems no reason to see the temple in 2 Thes. 2 as other than the existing, doomed, temple in Jerusalem. 

 

When Jesus warned the women of Jerusalem to weep for themselves & their children at  the coming destruction, Luke 23:27-31 , he was quoting Isaiah 2:19 which John saw would be fulfilled during the 6th seal. Rev. 6:15-16 

 

It seems that 30 years later the Jews were mocking the Apostles about Jesus' unfulfilled Olivet prophecy - 2 Peter 3:3-5 - so Peter reminds them of the certainty of past prophecy of the flood - fulfilled after 120 years. He reminds them that God is longsuffering, giving time for repentance. 2 Peter 3:9-10 He does not specifically refer to the destruction, but reminds them there will be a final day of judgement. However in the previous chapter he warns them of swift destruction as in the days of Noah & Lot, alluding to Jesus' prophetic warnings. 

 

I strongly recommend you to read your Bible, carefully OBserving what it says, without imposing an interpretation system. Keep to the truth of the Word. 

[Genevanpreacher]

Revelation 1

 1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Has anyone actually bothered to research the words and phrasing used in this verse?

I KNOW Covey hasn't. .......

 

What do you mean? Is this not self explanatory? 

Or is there an 'interpretation process' that needs to be applied?

 

I think it means what it says, don't you?

Or are you just reaching for a 'slam' on Covenanter?

 

Personal 'slams' are very unbecoming for you DaveW, if there is an underlying reason

for trying to unhinge some Christians in understanding the exactness of God's word

you need to rethink your 'attack' here.

 

Lacking discretion brings about 'foolishness'.

And I would rather you not look foolish.

[Even though you think Covenanter, (and myself) do.] 

[DaveW]

What do you mean? Is this not self explanatory?
Or is there an 'interpretation process' that needs to be applied?

I think it means what it says, don't you?
Or are you just reaching for a 'slam' on Covenanter?

Personal 'slams' are very unbecoming for you DaveW, if there is an underlying reason
for trying to unhinge some Christians in understanding the exactness of God's word
you need to rethink your 'attack' here.

Lacking discretion brings about 'foolishness'.
And I would rather you not look foolish.
[Even though you think Covenanter, (and myself) do.]

Suggesting a proper and thorough study process is foolishness?

[Genevanpreacher]

Suggesting a proper and thorough study process is foolishness?

 

No. Suggesting that there is something other than what the text is saying

seems to be, especially since there is the 'slamming' of a brother in the process of it.

 

Meanwhile, how about answering some of my previous questions in post #122?

[Covenanter]

Suggesting a proper and thorough study process is foolishness?

I have shown you my "proper & thorough study process."  

 

Now show me YOUR "proper & thorough study process."  

[DaveW]

My study process has been outlined on this site recently.

[Covenanter]

My study process has been outlined on this site recently.

Please give a link - mine is evident in almost every post. 

[DaveW]

Please give a link - mine is evident in almost every post.

Yes it is.....

[Invicta]

One thing - John, (or Jesus, which ever way you want to look at it), doesn't mention the destruction of the temple as occurring.

And I think it would have come into the book, in some shape or form, if such a thing had happened.

If what Jesus was talking about in the Gospels, about the Temple walls being 'leveled', had been fulfilled, John would have mentioned it.

There is no scripture that I know of, in Revelation, that would seem to mention it as happening.

 

John's brief from Jesus was to write what he saw in the Revelation not what he saw before it and as he was writing to the church they would know about the destruction because some of them would have fled the city in response to the Lord's command, Matt 24:15-20,  Mark 13:14-18,  Luke 21: 174-21.

[Steve Schwenke]

I am studying Scripture, NOT Preterism. Where Scripture prophecy is made, we look for its fulfilment, as fulfilment authenticates the prophet. 

 

We therefore should look for the fulfilment of Gabriel's 70 weeks prophecy to be fulfilled in 490 years. I have shown how to understand that prophecy. God could have summarily destroyed Jerusalem at the end of the 70th week when Stephen, in the power of the Holy Spirit, denounced his accusers as "uncircumcised." However he graciously allowed them the duration of "this generation" to repent - as Hebrews underlines. There is not the slightest Scriptural justification for splitting off the 70th week. 

 

Likewise Jesus' Olivet prophecy explains things that will happen that are not of prophetic significance, while giving specific warning signs so the Jerusalem Christians would know when to flee the doomed city. Comparison with of Dan. 9:27 , Mat. 24:15-16 , Luke 21:20-22 shows that the "abomination" is related to the armies - prOBably the eagle standards. Luke 17:37 Paul in 1 Thes. 2:14-16 refers to the Olivet prophecy. As the temple would still be standing for another 20 years, there seems no reason to see the temple in 2 Thes. 2 as other than the existing, doomed, temple in Jerusalem. 

 

When Jesus warned the women of Jerusalem to weep for themselves & their children at  the coming destruction, Luke 23:27-31 , he was quoting Isaiah 2:19 which John saw would be fulfilled during the 6th seal. Rev. 6:15-16 

 

It seems that 30 years later the Jews were mocking the Apostles about Jesus' unfulfilled Olivet prophecy - 2 Peter 3:3-5 - so Peter reminds them of the certainty of past prophecy of the flood - fulfilled after 120 years. He reminds them that God is longsuffering, giving time for repentance. 2 Peter 3:9-10 He does not specifically refer to the destruction, but reminds them there will be a final day of judgement. However in the previous chapter he warns them of swift destruction as in the days of Noah & Lot, alluding to Jesus' prophetic warnings. 

 

I strongly recommend you to read your Bible, carefully OBserving what it says, without imposing an interpretation system. Keep to the truth of the Word. 

Scriptural Justification for "splitting off" the 70th week has been covered very thoroughly in several of the many threads on Daniel 9.  It is justified, regardless of your rejection of our explanations.  Our explanations cover every aspect and angle of it, and allow the Scriptures to be interpreted in a very real and literal sense.  

 

Really?  Let's see about that...

v. 20 talks about fleeing on the Sabbath day....why would any Christian be worried about fleeing on the Sabbath day?  Christians do not OBserve the Sabbath at all.  The Law-Keeping Jews DID, and even persecuted Paul for not keeping the Sabbath.  OBviously, this statement is not aimed at CHRISTIANS.

v. 21 says that this period of "tribulation" would be the worst period of time EVER.  So then, if this is to be understood literally, there has never been a period of intense persecution worse than this 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem???  WOW!  That is a r e a l  s t r e t c h.

 

v. 27 mentions the "coming of the Son of Man."  so the Lord Jesus Christ returned at this very time???  (70 AD?)  

See, that's why I can't take this preterism seriously.  OBVIOUSLY the Lord did not return to the earth in 70 AD, but that is what the passage demands.  It is the very reason that we reject preterism - He has NOT returned, thus the prophecies of Mt. 24 point to a FUTURE EVENT.

 

The "abomination" spoken of is "PROBABLY?"  You don't know?  But you are SURE it cannot be a future event, because it MIGHT be something else???  

Another great, big WOW!  

The "abomination" is CLEARLY the Antichrist, who marches into the Most Holy Place, and seats himself on the Mercy Seat, and declares himself to be God.  This matches perfectly with the prophecies of Daniel 9, Rev. 13, and II Thess. 2.  It is most certainly NOT any "army."  Your very statement admits that your theory is pure conjecture.  

 

Oh, by the way, JERUSALEM is not mentioned ANYWHERE in Rev. 6.  Just wanted to clear that up for you.  

You are INTERPRETING Rev. 6 in light of your preterism.  You accept preterism as true, and then READ IT INTO passages when it does not exist.  Jerusalem is not in Rev. 6.  This is another classic example of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

 

Yes, we keep hoping that you will follow your own advice!!!

[John81]

Scriptural Justification for "splitting off" the 70th week has been covered very thoroughly in several of the many threads on Daniel 9.  It is justified, regardless of your rejection of our explanations.  Our explanations cover every aspect and angle of it, and allow the Scriptures to be interpreted in a very real and literal sense.  

Steve,

 

If this isn't the place to do so, could you please post such elsewhere or point me to a concise posting of the information if it's in another thread, with regards to the Scriptural explanation of the gap between the 69th and 70th week?

 

Earlier this year I read a booklet on this topic and I think I understand their reasoning for reaching that conclusion and I'm wondering if your reasoning is the same. I brought it up back then and I believe only DaveW responded about that and he wasn't familiar with the booklet which was put out by Midnight Call Ministries.

 

Thank you.

[Genevanpreacher]

Scriptural Justification for "splitting off" the 70th week has been covered very thoroughly in several of the many threads on Daniel 9.  It is justified, regardless of your rejection of our explanations.  Our explanations cover every aspect and angle of it, and allow the Scriptures to be interpreted in a very real and literal sense.  [Only because of your own anti-preterist thoughtline, of which it has been stated previously, we are not preterists! "Partial preterism" is the term! It gives leeway to various timing on teachings, unlike preterism.]

 

Really?  Let's see about that...

v. 20 talks about fleeing on the Sabbath day....why would any Christian be worried about fleeing on the Sabbath day? [Hello? there were no Gentile Christians amongst the disciples yet!] Keeping JewsChristians do not OBserve the Sabbath at all.  The Law- DID, and even persecuted Paul for not keeping the Sabbath.  OBviously, this statement is not aimed at CHRISTIANS. [come on Steve, think! The disciples weren't Christians?]

v. 21 says that this period of "tribulation" would be the worst period of time EVER.  So then, if this is to be understood literally, there has never been a period of intense persecution worse than this 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem???  WOW!  That is a r e a l  s t r e t c h. [if you had been there you would have thought it was. The destruction of the Temple, the image of their religion? I think you should put yourself in someone else's shoes.]

 

v. 27 mentions the "coming of the Son of Man."  so the Lord Jesus Christ returned at this very time???  (70 AD?)  [This is where we see a difference in timing {partial preterism}. This IS a future event!]

See, that's why I can't take this preterism seriously.  OBVIOUSLY the Lord did not return to the earth in 70 AD, but that is what the passage demands.  It is the very reason that we reject preterism - He has NOT returned, thus the prophecies of Mt. 24 point to a FUTURE EVENT. [Then maybe you ought to look into PARTIAL preterism, and quit accusing others of being teachers of something we are not.]

 

The "abomination" spoken of is "PROBABLY?"  You don't know?  But you are SURE it cannot be a future event, because it MIGHT be something else???  

Another great, big WOW!  [You sure are stretching your 'wrong view' a bit thin here. You are twisting what he said! He said "the abomination is related to the armies" and explained what those armies "prOBably" were!]

The "abomination" is CLEARLY the Antichrist, who marches into the Most Holy Place, and seats himself on the Mercy Seat, and declares himself to be God.  This matches perfectly with the prophecies of Daniel 9, Rev. 13, and II Thess. 2.  It is most certainly NOT any "army."  Your very statement admits that your theory is pure conjecture.  [ Wow! A decision based upon a faulty assumption as per above.]

 

Oh, by the way, JERUSALEM is not mentioned ANYWHERE in Rev. 6.  Just wanted to clear that up for you.  

You are INTERPRETING Rev. 6 in light of your preterism.  You accept preterism as true, and then READ IT INTO passages when it does not exist.  Jerusalem is not in Rev. 6.  This is another classic example of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

[After all, there is nothing new under the sun, including your own 'interpreting'.]

Yes, we keep hoping that you will follow your own advice!!!

[it might be helpful if you reread this here post. Maybe not.]

 

It sure seems like you are copying me. It seems you talk out your thinking before you actually think.

[Steve Schwenke]

Steve,

 

If this isn't the place to do so, could you please post such elsewhere or point me to a concise posting of the information if it's in another thread, with regards to the Scriptural explanation of the gap between the 69th and 70th week?

 

Earlier this year I read a booklet on this topic and I think I understand their reasoning for reaching that conclusion and I'm wondering if your reasoning is the same. I brought it up back then and I believe only DaveW responded about that and he wasn't familiar with the booklet which was put out by Midnight Call Ministries.

 

Thank you.

John, I am not familiar with Midnight Call Ministries.

 

I would have to spend a lot of time searching to figure out where we have discussed Daniel 9 before, so at this point in time, I don't think I could point you to a specific thread or post.  I do apologize for that.  

[John81]

John, I am not familiar with Midnight Call Ministries.

 

I would have to spend a lot of time searching to figure out where we have discussed Daniel 9 before, so at this point in time, I don't think I could point you to a specific thread or post.  I do apologize for that.  

Steve,

 

If you could, I'd appreciate if you would either post here, or in another thread, the Scriptural basis for the gap between the 69th and 70th week.

 

Thank you.

[Steve Schwenke]

Steve,

 

If you could, I'd appreciate if you would either post here, or in another thread, the Scriptural basis for the gap between the 69th and 70th week.

 

Thank you.

There is a good discussion of this here: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>