Life after the eclipse (sign of Jonah)

[One Bad Pig]

Scripture Verse: Luke 21

These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away

© Copyright Original Source

Learn to read.

...all you've got is inapt insults? I"m sorta disappointed. Yep, those things happened, and surprise, surprise, the end did not come right away.

[One Bad Pig]

Obviously futurists believe preterism is false, so the only option is to pay heed to the signs as per Jesus' instructions.

...so what futurists believe should be followed, despite what actually happened? You're flailing.

Mat. 24:36-44 (and parallels), Luke 12:35-40, 1 Thes. 5:1-10, etc. tell me I should act precisely as I'm doing. I don't need signs to tell me to get ready for Christ's return. Since the odds are pretty good that I will die first, and I don't know when I will die, I should try to always be ready to meet my Maker. I'm honestly not sure how you can denigrate my position and still call yourself a follower of Christ. I am quite confident that I stand on firm scriptural ground here.

[Faber]

I definitely agree that the prophecies helped the Christians escape the war, hence the reason I'm open to partial/or double fulfillment of the OD. But not all of the prophecies were fulfilled. Jesus never came on the cloud at the sound of the trump (which I believe correlates with Paul's trump) to gather the elect from heaven and earth. And there's no need to argue that that was actually symbolic of Christ's revenge on Jerusalem because I think that interpretation is absurd. I also believe the OD better suits our generation, as our generation can see all the details of the events being fulfilled all over the world as per our communication technology. We know every war and rumor war, every earthquake, every famine, every pestilence, every disaster taking place all over the world usually in real time.

In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked three questions: (1) When will these things (temple being torn down) happen; (2) What will be the sign of His return, and (3) What about the end of the age. What they didn't understand, even in Acts 1:6, is that there was a big difference between the first question and the other two. Most of what Jesus spoke about happened during the 1,260 days from April AD 67 to September AD 70. But not all. Jesus will still some day return. When that will be, I don't know. Nor does anybody else.

[Darfius]

...all you've got is inapt insults? I"m sorta disappointed. Yep, those things happened, and surprise, surprise, the end did not come right away.

So your notion of what the Lord meant is "these things will happen, but the end is still thousands of years away"?

[Darfius]

...so what futurists believe should be followed, despite what actually happened? You're flailing.

Mat. 24:36-44 (and parallels), Luke 12:35-40, 1 Thes. 5:1-10, etc. tell me I should act precisely as I'm doing. I don't need signs to tell me to get ready for Christ's return. Since the odds are pretty good that I will die first, and I don't know when I will die, I should try to always be ready to meet my Maker. I'm honestly not sure how you can denigrate my position and still call yourself a follower of Christ. I am quite confident that I stand on firm scriptural ground here.

Preterism has no "man of sin" that was revealed before the day of the Lord, a killer blow to the ideology. Yes, some things the Lord spoke of happened, but not all, meaning at the very least double fulfillment, but preterism never has been and never will be tenable. It's just another means "Christians" can avoid dealing with uncomfortable truths, like the pre-trib rapture

[Obsidian]

In the chronology of Revelation, the man of sin (assuming it is either the first beast or second beast) arises is Revelation 13, which is after Satan is already cast down in Revelation 12. Satan's fall from heaven also corresponds to the stars falling from heaven and the sun turning black -- a.k.a. the Sixth Seal -- basically the same time that Jerusalem is destroyed. Therefore, yes, it is clear that the man of sin does not arise until some point after the fall of Jerusalem. It is an error of preterism to pretend that the man of sin arose before the fall of Jerusalem.

But it's an error of futurism to pretend that Jerusalem must be destroyed twice (along with a whole different temple), just because you have trouble seeing how all the chronology fits together. I don't pretend to have all the answers yet. But I'm not willing to twist passages in order to make the answers appear.

[Darfius]

I don't have trouble seeing how the chronology fits together. Ezekiel 37. The tribes are regathered and the temple is rebuilt for the Antichrist to defile. The two witnesses lead this. One of them is called "David."

[Obsidian]

Ezekiel 37:27-28
My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

From where do you glean that the temple you are referring to will be destroyed, or even 'defiled'?

[Darfius]

Ezekiel 37:27-28
My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

From where do you glean that the temple you are referring to will be destroyed, or even 'defiled'?

[Obsidian]

Even assuming that having the man of sin inside it would defile it, the passage in Ezekiel 37 seems to teach that the temple will never be destroyed. (And for the record, I believe the third temple refers to the church.) So it doesn't make sense to say that a third temple will be rebuilt and then torn down again by the Romans (or whomever).

[Darfius]

Even assuming that having the man of sin inside it would defile it, the passage in Ezekiel 37 seems to teach that the temple will never be destroyed. (And for the record, I believe the third temple refers to the church.) So it doesn't make sense to say that a third temple will be rebuilt and then torn down again by the Romans (or whomever).

I agree that the primary temple is the church, so in that sense it can never be destroyed, so even if a third physical temple is rebuilt and destroyed, "the" temple of God is here to stay. But the Antichrist can't enter Christians' bodies to defile God's temple publicly. Need a building for that.

[Obsidian]

Sitting in the temple of God probably just refers to infiltrating the overall assembly of God in some way. Also, pretending to be Christian is most likely what it means to look like a lamb.

Revelation 13:11
And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

[Darfius]

Sitting in the temple of God probably just refers to infiltrating the overall assembly of God in some way. Also, pretending to be Christian is most likely what it means to look like a lamb.

Revelation 13:11
And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

Jesuit pope

[Obsidian]

I agree that it most likely has to do with Catholicism. But the problem is that the main error of the Catholics is teaching works salvation, whereas earlier in this thread you were saying that a person had to completely stop sinning in order to get to heaven. That idea is an even more extreme falsehood than what any Catholic would ever teach. You need to get right with God, and place your faith on Christ alone for salvation, by grace.

[Darfius]

I agree that it most likely has to do with Catholicism. But the problem is that the main error of the Catholics is teaching works salvation, whereas earlier in this thread you were saying that a person had to completely stop sinning in order to get to heaven. That idea is an even more extreme falsehood than what any Catholic would ever teach. You need to get right with God, and place your faith on Christ alone for salvation, by grace.

Here we go again. Salvation from what?