Who Is "the Restrainer" In 2 Thess. 2:6-7

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,534
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marcus O'Reillius said:
Preterism holds that the prophecy of events were fulfilled in the 1st century.

If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, and it floats like a duck, and it flies like a duck: it's duck.

Yes, Jesuit Preterism's claim that the Antichrist came in the the 1st century is just as false as Jesuit Futurism's claim that the Antichrist come during a future 70th Week.

That's why I preach Historicism, just like the Protestant Reformers who fought against the Jesuits and their silly eschatological ideas of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,534
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marcus O'Reillius said:
Jesus did not prevail by might the New Covenant. That is what gabar would mean if you assign Jesus to Daniel 9:27.
Now the Lord, the Commander of God's Army, whose strong right arm can save us; did not foil the attempt to execute Himself in the most barbaric, humiliating way possible. He did not impose His Will by force!
No! Jesus did the opposite of gabar! He submitted to the Cross!
No, as Jesus said to Peter, 'Get behind me Satan,' at the very thought of resisting God's Plan for Salvation.

So if the New Covenant was only made at the Last Supper, and the blood oath was made on the cross sealing the deal, and that is what cut off (karat) in Daniel 9:26 can also mean - to cut a deal -
  • Where does that leave you for the events of the one 'seven'?
  • Where is the midpoint abomination in the Holy Place that Jesus told us about?
  • Where are the desolations poured out on the desolator?
You see, when you make Jesus the actor of gabar, the remaining narrative God gives us through Gabriel to Daniel doesn't fit the historical events of the first century.

The third person singular conjugation of gabar reverts back to the last person mentioned as a rule in grammar.
That person is the "prince who will come".
That person is also defined by those who destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Those were the Romans.
The "prince who will come", the anti-Christ, is Roman.
He forces through, or prevails by might a limited-time covenant which ultimately sees God's desolations poured out on to himself.
And lest I need to remind you, the Romans are the last kingdom of man which is struck down by Jesus to establish the Millennium Sabbath of His Reign here on earth - as it is in Heaven.
Brother, if you think it was easy to go to the Cross, then you have absolutely no concept of what Jesus went through. Of course He prevailed by might, the might and power of His Father to Whom He clung when every ounce of His flesh wanted to run away from the Cross, to the point that "His sweat was as it were great drops of blood." Of course He was assailed by every weapon of Hell as He hung their dying, not able to see through the portal of the tomb, but had only the promises of His Father to cling to, as He was mocked and derided, and abandoned by everyone. Yes, The greatest victory in the history of the Universe was won on that day, when the Confirmation of the New Covenant of Grace was finished and God is even now accepting applicants to partake of His glorious New Covenant, which is according to Scripture His law written on the hearts of men. The Jesuits hate that too, that's why they have led countless unwary Christians into weekly Sun worship on Sunday.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,534
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marcus O'Reillius said:
First of all, I'm not going to reply to some dogmatic, conspiracy-laden, internet hype on Jesuits, the Pope, Scofield, Darby, or sins of Westcott and Hort.
To me, these are minor side issues that have nothing to do with what we can read for ourselves in the Bible.
I do not rely upon them for my thinking and never heard of them prior to debating online what I read in the Bible in my youth.

Right: I don't think gabar typifies anything that Jesus did by humbly submitting to a humilating, painful execution - which, by the way, did not kill Him!

I look at how you have to twist words like paper streamers in the wind to make gabar apply.

So let's entertain your argument.
  • First you said that Jesus "confirmed" a covenant for only seven years at the start of His Ministry.
  • You then pointed to His Crucifixion as the midpoint abomination.
When you could not show - from Scripture - when Jesus made a proper covenant at the start of His Ministry,
When you could not show - from Scripture - that this was a continuation of the promise for Abraham's prodigy,
When you could not show - from Scripture - that this was a continuation of the promise made to David for the Kingdom,
-- You changed your tune to what is in Scripture and now you say that the Covenant was made at the end of Jesus' Ministry. That is at least correct.

However!
If this limited-time offer available only to the Jews begins at the end of Jesus' Ministry (I guess we're left out!)

Show us - from Scripture - where, when, and what the midpoint abomination is
Show us - from Scripture - where, when, and how God's desolations, which He has decreed, are poured out on the desolator.

You see, when you start from a Preterist position that it all happened in the first century - it become awfully hard to prove, because the historical facts don't fit the prophecies.
I've shown you plenty Scripture. Jesus is called the "Messenger of the Covenant". What Covenant? The New Covenant, which He confirmed for 7 years, first in Person and then by "those who heard Him".

You can believe Jesuit theology if you like, but remember that they have failed to get right even the most fundamental aspect of Christianity: salvation by faith through grace. They think you can earn it, even to this day, the poor misguided Bible haters.
 

Saint

New Member
Apr 7, 2012
243
10
0
Bible Belt
The biggest mistake of believers today and yesterday is that they adopt theology positions presented by others without ever proving for them selves these things to be supported by scripture. The study of scripture; and I mean all scripture, both the OT and the NT is an eternal study. Understanding does not come by simply reading a passage and moving on; understanding comes by being able to relate a passage from the OT to something said when reading the New. Understanding is also a lifetime commitment but I must add we will never fully understand simply because we cannot understand the mind of the Eternal. The more I study the more I understand how little I really know. In my studies I think I have adopted about every theology position and attempted to prove it. All I'm really saying is don't just passionately hold to a position without doing the leg work necessary to prove it and be willing to adapt when you cannot pull all of the details together. Another point…unless you fully understand the relationship of God to Israel you will never be able to see the full picture. After all of this be prepared to be surprised.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Phoneman777 said:
God inserted no such gap into this or any other prophecy, Jesuits and their apologists do that.
You didn't address the Scripture in question which does that. You ignore it. The only way to ignore the gap, is to ignore the actual language Gabriel conveys, from God, to Daniel.

God's Plan: seventy 'sevens'.
Gabriel said: Dan 9:26 Then after the sixty- two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

Even to the end there will be war.
WE STILL HAVE WAR.
The end is not yet.

Now, instead of getting on your chemtrail, religious, conspiracy platform - try answering the questions here in debate:

Show us - from Scripture - where, when, and what the midpoint abomination is.
Show us - from Scripture - where, when, and how God's desolations, which He has decreed, are poured out on the desolator.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Phoneman777 said:
Yes, Jesuit Preterism's claim that the Antichrist came in the the 1st century is just as false as Jesuit Futurism's claim that the Antichrist come during a future 70th Week.

That's why I preach Historicism, just like the Protestant Reformers who fought against the Jesuits and their silly eschatological ideas of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism.
Preterism and Futurism are dynamic opposites. To say both come from the Jesuits is a little like saying jet aircraft are spreading chemtrails across the world to poison the people because the Illuminati are trying to kill us all.

You sure do preach your point of view. You haven't been able to debate any counter-points to it.

Historicism, as you define it, can only be found at one weird website, which stands alone; Wikipedia, which follows this website which gives good definitions as well, defines it differently.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Phoneman777 said:
I've shown you plenty Scripture. Jesus is called the "Messenger of the Covenant". What Covenant? The New Covenant, which He confirmed for 7 years, first in Person and then by "those who heard Him".
Having NEVER READ Jesuit theology, I fail to see how I could believe in something I've never seen.

Now - quit obfuscating: SHOW us the Scripture.

Specifically: show us where Jesus confirmed either the Abrahamic or Davidic Covenants to increase either offspring or the kingdom respectively at the start of His First Advent.

Now - as you can only point to the New Covenant Jesus made at the end of His First Advent - how then did the one 'seven' begin three years beforehand?

AND - as you can only point to the New Covenant Jesus made at the end of His First Advent - what was the midpoint abomination?

Finally - as you can only point to the New Covenant Jesus made at the end of His First Advent - when is the end of the one 'seven' shown in Scripture at the later part of the third decade in the first century?

You want to debate: debate. Don't run away with excuses saying 'oh, i showed you that...' - WHERE?
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,534
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marcus O'Reillius said:
Preterism and Futurism are dynamic opposites. To say both come from the Jesuits is a little like saying jet aircraft are spreading chemtrails across the world to poison the people because the Illuminati are trying to kill us all.

You sure do preach your point of view. You haven't been able to debate any counter-points to it.
Historicism, as you define it, can only be found at one weird website, which stands alone; Wikipedia, which follows this website which gives good definitions as well, defines it differently.
While it is true that they are opposites, they do in fact both come from the Jesuits. Jesuit Luis Alcazar authored Preterism and Jesuit Francisco Ribera Futurism. That is simply a matter of history. The Papacy doesn't care which you choose to believe as long as you don't believe Historicism, which came decades earlier and accused it as Antichrist. The internet is filled with mis-characterizations of Historicism by those sympathetic to the Papacy, which now vastly outnumber those who lived way back when. One thing is consistent: The ECF were Historicists and correctly believed that Paul referred to the Roman Empire as the Restrainer, which upon its fall allowed the rise of the Papal Antichrist. I have successfully debated every single one of your points but you refuse to acknowledge truth, even if it is right before your eyes. You are free to believe your Jesuit Futurism if you like, but it will only lead you to embracing the Antichrist that you so adamantly defend.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,534
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marcus O'Reillius said:
Having NEVER READ Jesuit theology, I fail to see how I could believe in something I've never seen.

Now - quit obfuscating: SHOW us the Scripture.

Specifically: show us where Jesus confirmed either the Abrahamic or Davidic Covenants to increase either offspring or the kingdom respectively at the start of His First Advent.

Now - as you can only point to the New Covenant Jesus made at the end of His First Advent - how then did the one 'seven' begin three years beforehand?

AND - as you can only point to the New Covenant Jesus made at the end of His First Advent - what was the midpoint abomination?

Finally - as you can only point to the New Covenant Jesus made at the end of His First Advent - when is the end of the one 'seven' shown in Scripture at the later part of the third decade in the first century?

You want to debate: debate. Don't run away with excuses saying 'oh, i showed you that...' - WHERE?
If you understand that Jesus is the God of the OT, then you know that it is He that declared in Jeremiah 31:31 KJV that He would make a "New Covenant" with the house of Israel and Judah. Then, He comes incarnate to confirm in His blood what He Himself had already promised in the O.T., which He began confirming at His baptism in 27 A.D. and finished confirming through His disciples in 34 A.D., according to Hebrews 2:3 KJV.

. 457 B.C. - (Artaxerxes' decree)
+ 483 years - (7 weeks construction + 62 weeks)
-----------------
. 27 A.D. - (year of His baptism, NOT death because His death comes AFTER 27 A.D. because "Messiah the Prince" is the "unto" part of "unto Messiah the Prince" while His death is "after" as in "after threescore and two weeks [and the aforementioned 7 in the previous verse] Messiah shall be cut off.")

If you do not accept 457 B.C. as the year of the decree, then there is no sense debating this any further because the rest of the prophecy is foolproof if you do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cassandra

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You're obfuscating; you're not answering the questions. I'm not interested in two people I've never heard of nor your particular take on Preterism.

Here are three events which happen after the sixty-two 'sevens'.
Daniel 9:26 Then after the sixty- two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
What does "its end" refer to?

If only at the Last Supper did Jesus make a New Covenant - which you agreed happened -
  1. What prior covenant did Jesus ever make in Scripture? Show the passage/verse(s) which state that.
  2. Which covenant did Jesus shore up? The Abrahamic or Davidic?
Since the New Covenant at the Last Supper is the only covenant Jesus made -
  1. What was the subsequent midpoint abomination?
  2. Who had God's desolations poured out on them?
So leave your conspiracy laden preaching aside and try to have an actual debate.
 

Saint

New Member
Apr 7, 2012
243
10
0
Bible Belt
The New Covenant or another name for it is the Eternal Covenant could only be established in one way; it was a Blood Covenant and required actual blood to enforce. That blood was the blood that Christ shed on the cross. It seems that very few understand the actual meaning of a Blood Covenant. The wine and bread of the Eucharist (Lord's Supper) is symbolic in remembrance of what was to happen; Jesus commanded his followers to "do this in memory of me" while referring to the bread as "my body" and the wine as "my blood".
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Phoneman777 said:
which He began confirming at His baptism in 27 A.D.
and finished confirming through His disciples in 34 A.D., according to Hebrews 2:3 KJV.
What was the date of Jesus' Baptism?
How is it that only YOU know it was in A.D. 27?
Do you have special knowledge?

What was the date that Stephen was stoned?
How is it that only YOU know it was in A.D. 34?
Again, do you have some special knowledge (Gnosticism) or are you a prophet like rabbi keras that the Holy Spirit told only you?
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Phoneman777 said:
If you do not accept 457 B.C. as the year of the decree, then there is no sense debating this any further because the rest of the prophecy is foolproof if you do.
You don't sound like you're even willing to debate anything.

You sound frighteningly dogmatic in your take-it-or-leave-it approach.

There are several nuances in counting the seventy 'sevens' which you seem to have overlooked... which makes you less a lay Bible scholar and more of a cultist in your approach.

Sorry Charlie, only the best tuna will do.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The seven and the sixty-two ‘sevens’ describe the first part of the timeline. They are connected by a conjunction in the Hebrew, so can be thought to run concurrently. The first seven ‘sevens’ represents the rebuilding timeframe for Jerusalem and the second set of ‘sevens’ represents the waiting period until the Messiah comes. In accounting for the prophecy three problem areas arise: the start date; the time itself; and the final point when the Messiah can be said to have come.

The start is revealed as the issuing of the decree to restore Jerusalem. Unfortunately this extremely important date is not totally clear. There are three times which can be used as a ‘starting’ point, and there is some fog in saying exactly which year between scholars.

• The first decree of Cyrus the Great around 537/6.
• The seventh year of Artaxerxes I around 458/7 B.C.
• The commission of King Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444/5/6 B.C.

The second problem is the manner of counting years. The typical manner Western man would use is totally foreign to Daniel and the Jewish culture; solar years. If one uses the Hebrew system of lunar years, the time is variable because of the inclusion of leap year months so it does not advance the months ahead of the solar cycle of seasons. Lastly, because it is prophecy, is the idea of using “prophetic” years by including a simplified time keeping method derived from the book of Revelation. These counting methods are as follows.

• Solar years, which is the Roman calendar of 28, (29,) 30, and 31 days per month, years of 365 days, with a leap year of 366 every four years (except on century years that are not divisible by 400).
• Lunar years, which is the Semantic calendar of 29.5 days per month and variable days in a year, usually 354, with leap years of 384 +/- 1, by which the addition of, marries with the solar calendar every 19 years.
• Prophetic years, which are based on a 30 day month and 360 days per year.

Then if that were not enough complexity, there are then three instances which Jesus could be said to have arrived:

• The first is his birth which the Magi observed.
• The second instance would be the start of Jesus’ Ministry.
• The third would be the Triumphal Entry which Jesus stressed as important:
........LK 19:40 "I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

One more layer of complexity comes in the Western system of year keeping. Eschewing the humanistic, secular cultural mores of “common period”, the basic division of years in the West hinges on Jesus’ domination as King. The European method of counting actually reflects an older method shared by the ancients in Biblical times: the year of a King. However, while the Roman Calendar, as modified by Julius Caesar was the basis for months and days, the numbering of years by Christ’s dominion was not universally recognized for several centuries. The modern system of counting years owes its invention to Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the short) in early in the sixth century, but it was not fully accepted throughout Europe until about the twelfth century, and the Julian calendar was modified for leap years by Pope Gregory in the sixteenth century.

In the ‘Year of our Lord’, or Anno Domino system, there is no year zero. This has less to do with the fact that “0” was not included in the Roman numbering system, but because of the manner of keeping track of the year of the king. Thus when a king took office, it was his first year, even though its anniversary had not yet been reached. Years prior would be stated as the nth year of the prior king. To state prior years by the current king, like the entire first year is year 1, counting backwards is also the first year before the king became king.

In calculating the first Year of our Lord, Dennis the Short came up short. Modern scholars, using the Anno Domino system, date the death of Herod the Great, who ordered the infants in Bethlehem killed, as having died in the spring of the 4th year before Christ was born. Thus, the discrepancy: Jesus’ first year, 1 A.D., would have to be fixed between 6 B.C. and 4 B.C., since Herod’s decree was to eliminate the future King who had already been born: Jesus. Counting backwards on limited resources, Dionysius was off by about 1% considering his calculations were 500 years after Jesus’ first Advent.

• The first possibility might be found in the first decree of Cyrus the Great. However, this decree was only for the Temple, not the city.
• The second possible date may be in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I around 457 B.C. This established the Temple and its practices.
• The third possibility might be the commission of King Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 446 B.C. This decree specifically calls for building the walls of Jerusalem.

Starting with Cyrus, none of the counting methods yields a date close to Christ’s birth, however, some Jewish and Christian scholars have set a terminus a quo, or beginning point in the reign of Cyrus which align with the Savior’s birth. (Know Therefore and Understand: A Biblical Explication of the First 69 Weeks of Daniel 9, by T. T. Schlegel.) Going by the second listed decree, Artaxerxes' first, can yield a date using solar or lunar years to align with Jesus' Baptism. Using the third decree with the first two counting methods overshoots the accepted range of dates for Jesus' first Advent using either solar or lunar year counting systems, but it can, when prophetic years are used, yield a reasonable date for the Messiah’s “coming” with Palm Sunday.

Concerning Jesus' birth, none of the possible methods point to it using Daniel 9:25. The interesting fact that the Magi had determined His birth leaves one to wonder if they hadn’t used some other method to arrive at Christ’s birth between 6 and 4 B.C. One could allow that the Magi may have had some other prophecies of Daniel in Babylon that might explain their arrival being timed correctly. Or, alternately, they may have used an additional celestial test such as the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn or eclipses of the moon, and Jupiter. Jupiter, being the “kingly” planet, had such overtones in astrology that its appearance out from behind a conjunction may have signaled the arrival of the “King”. Several such astronomical signs occurred in this time period, but which one may have been interpreted as determining the Savior’s birth is not known. However, despite how they came to determine Jesus’ birth, however, the sign they followed was in the heavens (sky) and the Gospel accounts testify that they did arrive.

So the problem is three-fold, finding the actual start date, correctly calculating the intervening years, and finally, establishing the proper end date. It is important to note that because of the error in the start of the Year of our Lord counting system, that any date rendering of Jesus’ “coming” being fixated with His Baptism with this prophecy being the basis around 26/7 A.D.; would not conflict the Gospel account that He was around 30 at the time.

Depending on actual birth year, even in 26 A.D., Jesus would have been 30 to 32 at the time.

• Using the first decree of Cyrus has a problem in that its date is too “early” to have any alignment with the Messiah’s first Advent no matter in which manner you count the years. Furthermore, it does not comport with the prophecy in Daniel because it did not address the city.
• Using the second decree, Artaxerxes’ first, counting in straight solar years, would put the coming of the Messiah as his baptism in A.D. 26/7 and would conform to Jesus being crucified around A.D. 30/1. However, this decree too, does not address the rebuilding of the city, which must include its defenses to be complete.
• The third seems too recent because that would push the coming of the Messiah to A.D. 38 when counting in straight solar years. It is, however, the only decree to comport with the language of Daniel 9:25 to rebuild the city, and that fact is confirmed by the actions written in the book of Nehemiah. The problem of the late date is rectified, however, if one counts in prophetic years. This method then renders the “coming” of the Messiah as happening in early A.D. 31 which would coincide with Jesus' arrival on Palm Sunday rather than His Baptism.

It is important to note that the Western fascination with dates was not shared by the culture of the Jews in Biblical times. They were not so preoccupied by anniversaries as a way to mark the calendar, but by the fact that an event had transpired. Thus, there is no celebration of Jesus’ birthdate, only His Birth. Nor do we have any hard date evidence for Jesus’ birth other than a reference to a census in Luke which scholars tie to Quirinius, the Governor of Syria. He is the only known Roman ruler who ordered a taxation census of non-Roman citizens. The funny aspect to this is that the only known census he performed is dated 6-7 A.D., ten years after Herod the Great died. Thus, a clue in translation may be with protos whereby Luke describes the census which calls David to Bethlehem Quirinius’ first, because why would Luke say his first if there was only one? This then points to an early census than the only one recognized.

In conclusion, while other methods can yield similar results which approximate a reasonable time frame for Jesus’ first Advent, key factors must be weighed. In that regard, one method among the twenty seven (3 times 3 times 3) ways of ordering start dates, intervening years, and end dates has the strongest Biblical backing and also yields a reasonable time frame pointing to Jesus’ first Advent:

• The third decree because it rebuilds the city
• The use of prophetic years as revealed in Revelation
• The “coming” of the Lord on Palm Sunday as emphasized by Jesus.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Saint said:
The wine and bread of the Eucharist (Lord's Supper) is symbolic in remembrance of what was to happen; Jesus commanded his followers to "do this in memory of me" while referring to the bread as "my body" and the wine as "my blood".
The wine and bread in the Passover Feast have two very important names which are symbolic as well as meaningful.

The third cup of the Passover Feast is the Cup of Redemption.
The "hidden manna", taken from the bread broken when the supper first commences, and hidden by the host in a "tosh" is called the Bread of Salvation.

Did Jesus encourage His Jewish Apostles to sin by eating human flesh and drink human blood (the Eucharist)?
Or was Jesus declaring that His Body was Salvation and His Blood was Redemption?
 

ATP

New Member
Jan 3, 2015
3,264
49
0
U.S.A.
Phoneman777 said:
ATP, you must understand that the 483rd year is part of the 69 weeks. Jesus is said to have died AFTER the 69 weeks, which CANNOT be during the 483rd years. Understand?
Yes, He died 3.5 years after the 69 weeks. That doesn't minimize the fact that there is still a gap. Otherwise, Daniel would of put Jesus death in Dan 9:27. Even if Jesus died 3.5 years after the 483rd year, it still would not matter if God chose to stop the clock and add a gap for the antichrist, peace treaty and abomination of desolation to occur.

Phoneman777 said:
Also, the prophecy said the 483rd year brings us to "Messiah the Prince", which is not His death, but His baptism because it says He was about 30 years old when He began His ministry and that is 27 A.D., 483 years after the beginning of the prophecy.
I agree, but as I stated above God has the authority to stop the clock. Besides, the scriptures below all point to future especially Dan 12, 2 Thess 2, Revelation, and completely annihilate any argument you have Phone. Dan 12, Matt 24 chapter is titled "The End Times" and 2 Thess 2 chapter is titled "The Man of Lawlessness" for crying out loud.

Dan 12:11-12 NIV, Matt 24:15 NIV, 2 Thess 2:3-4 NIV - Antichrist, third temple and the abomination of desolation is future.
Dan 12:11-12 NIV, Rev 11:2-3 NIV, Rev 12:6 NIV, Rev 12:14 NIV, Rev 13:5 NIV - 1260, 1290, 1335 days is future.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I've been trying to follow the arguments here, but you guys are a little too deep for me. I take it that some folks believe that the prophecies dealing with anti-Christ and the coming judgment were all fulfilled with the first advent and destruction of Jerusalem. If that's the case, do you believe that the disasters striking the earth in various places now and with increasing frequency, the wide spread persecution of Christians nearly everywhere in the eastern hemisphere, and the wide spread apostasy from the Biblical faith are all just unrelated events?
I've already had some contact on these forums with people who don't believe anything has changed throughout history (with respect to wars, natural disasters, and the like), so I wouldn't be surprised.
 

ATP

New Member
Jan 3, 2015
3,264
49
0
U.S.A.
Marcus O'Reillius said:
God's Plan: seventy 'sevens'.
Gabriel said: Dan 9:26 Then after the sixty- two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

Even to the end there will be war.
WE STILL HAVE WAR.
The end is not yet.
Yes. Excellent point. Psa 83, Ez 38-39 and Armageddon has yet to occur.
 

ATP

New Member
Jan 3, 2015
3,264
49
0
U.S.A.
Michael V Pardo said:
do you believe that the disasters striking the earth in various places now and with increasing frequency, the wide spread persecution of Christians nearly everywhere in the eastern hemisphere, and the wide spread apostasy from the Biblical faith are all just unrelated events?
No, they are very related to the future 70th week of Dan 9:27 NIV. They are called birth pains. Matt 24:4-8 NIV.
 

ATP

New Member
Jan 3, 2015
3,264
49
0
U.S.A.
Phoneman777 said:
I've shown you plenty Scripture. Jesus is called the "Messenger of the Covenant". What Covenant? The New Covenant, which He confirmed for 7 years, first in Person and then by "those who heard Him".
I've shown you plenty of scripture. The Antichrist is called the "Covenant of Death". He's also the deceiver Phone.

Phoneman777 said:
You can believe Jesuit theology if you like, but remember that they have failed to get right even the most fundamental aspect of Christianity: salvation by faith through grace. They think you can earn it, even to this day, the poor misguided Bible haters.
Ironic how you also fail to get right even the most fundamental aspect of Christianity.

You believe you can't earn salvation, but you have to earn it to keep it? lol. :popcorn: