Let's examine Revelation 20:4 yet again.

[David in NJ]

I will say though, one concern I have about belief in a future earthly millennial reign is that it has potential to lead souls astray, so in that respect it is important.

This is a very serious statement to make so PLEASE clarify how you came to this - Thank You

 

[Lizbeth]

This is a very serious statement to make so PLEASE clarify how you came to this - Thank You

The penny dropped, by the grace of God.......so many scriptures began coming together, one after another. Jesus preaching way back then that the kingdom was nigh......and saying that "If I by the finger of God heal the sick and cast out devils then the kingdom has come to you.".....and that His kingdom is not of this world and doesn't come by observation that we may say lo here it is or there, but is within us. So many scriptures exhort us to have our affections above and to seek those things which are above and fix our eyes on what is unseen, not on what is seen. Etc. And then just observing the damage that a belief in an earthly kind of kingdom rule from earthly Jerusalem can cause and is causing.

It's getting late for me, I'll say good night now.

 

[ewq1938]

Did I forget to explain? A wrong belief in a future earthly utopia led by an earthly political king is one thing that caused the Jews/Israel to reject Jesus.

No, they believed the Messiah would rule right away, rather than in the future so that makes them more like Amills than Premills.

And it has potential to lead souls to the acceptance of a false political/military messiah. Today's Israel is still looking for an earthly fulfillment, as are many in the church.

And Amill believes the Mill is happening now, an Earthly fulfillment of the thousand years while Premill knows now is not the Mill.

 

[Lizbeth]

No, they believed the Messiah would rule right away, rather than in the future so that makes them more like Amills than Premills.




And Amill believes the Mill is happening now, an Earthly fulfillment of the thousand years while Premill knows now is not the Mill.

I suppose they assumed the Messiah would rule whenever He showed up. But the point is they were expecting an earthly messiah-king who would liberate them militarily from the Romans and rule Israel as an earthly kingdom and usher in a golden age of earthly peace that could be observed with the natural eyes, not a spiritual/heavenly inward peace and kingdom. Jesus tried to correct that wrong understanding when He said the kingdom does not come with observation that you may say lo here it is or there, but is within us.

Yes, the Amil point of view is that Christ is ruling and reigning now in this age, as King of kings and Lord of lords. He testified right after His resurrection two thousand or so years ago that all power and authority in heaven and in earth had been given to Him. His kingdom is not by sight, but by faith. And He was cruelly mocked and abused by the Roman soldiers for this, who rammed a crown of thorns on His head. Jesus rules and reigns now in the hearts of His people who are soldiers of His heavenly/spiritual kingdom. and are overcoming, subduing, conquering and taking more ground for Him from the Enemy. Israel was wrongly expecting earthly peace, and that is why Jesus said "do not think I came to bring peace but a sword", ie, a spiritual sword involving spiritual warfare....His kingdom is at war with the earthly because the earthly opposes and rejects His kingdom.rule...they refuse to let Him rule over them as scripture says.

 

[Marvelloustime]

Its all about to hit its upmost peak hour sister .
The delusion i
have long been warning all about cannot be stopped . And it has grown massive even since i began to warn years back .
Warn all that there is no hope in the govts of men , in these earthen kingdoms , in the flesh , in natural jersualem
This delusion , even the more i warn the faster it grows sister . It just cannot be stopped .
Soon the crusades against any and against all that did not conform to its lie from its god of love , WHICH IS NOT GOD or LOVE ,
will begin in mass against the saints . Fear not man , not death . JESUS is our hope
and Because of HIM we shall never die . Many will bleed but our souls shall live forever with the KING who saved us .
Ecumeincalism is no joke , nor to be taken lightly . IT has to warned against
and JESUS has to preached . FOR JESUS ALONE is the only hope one has .

@amigo de christo

 

[Marvelloustime]

The delusion i speak of and have long warned of
THOUGH IT WAS NOT I who warned first
CANNOT BE STOPPED .
But only ENDED ON THE DAY OF ALL MIGHTY GOD and OF THE LAMB
ALL things written
all things foretold MUST COME TO PASS .
THE KINGS will surrender all to the beast
The delusion sent cannot be stopped
but must be warned ag ainst . And all we can do is by grace ENDURE FAITHFUL unto the end
HE who loses his life in this world shall KEEP IT
HE who is a friend of the world is at enmity with GOD
He who conforms shall be cast out
HE who resists unto the end , BY FAITH IN CHRIST , shall be rewarded .
IN THIS LIFE we will not be loved
As t rue this has been throug hout all ages .
Saints will suffer tribulations at the hands of men
and many who even kill us will beleive they do the will of their love god for peace n sa fety .
BUT IN THE END it all flips . we shall be comf orted AN D THEY TORMENTED

@amigo de christo

 

[David in NJ]

I suppose they assumed the Messiah would rule whenever He showed up. But the point is they were expecting an earthly messiah-king who would liberate them militarily from the Romans and rule Israel as an earthly kingdom and usher in a golden age of earthly peace that could be observed with the natural eyes, not a spiritual/heavenly inward peace and kingdom. Jesus tried to correct that wrong understanding when He said the kingdom does not come with observation that you may say lo here it is or there, but is within us.

Yes, the Amil point of view is that Christ is ruling and reigning now in this age, as King of kings and Lord of lords. He testified right after His resurrection two thousand or so years ago that all power and authority in heaven and in earth had been given to Him. His kingdom is not by sight, but by faith. And He was cruelly mocked and abused by the Roman soldiers for this, who rammed a crown of thorns on His head. Jesus rules and reigns now in the hearts of His people who are soldiers of His heavenly/spiritual kingdom. and are overcoming, subduing, conquering and taking more ground for Him from the Enemy. Israel was wrongly expecting earthly peace, and that is why Jesus said "do not think I came to bring peace but a sword", ie, a spiritual sword involving spiritual warfare....His kingdom is at war with the earthly because the earthly opposes and rejects His kingdom.rule...they refuse to let Him rule over them as scripture says.

Good Morning,

Lizbeth, you keep saying you believe God's words but then you deny them - why???

 

[amigo de christo]

Good Morning,

Lizbeth, you keep saying you believe God's words but then you deny them - why???

David ..........................other thread time . Fast too . We got one at work planting confusion
to justify his two churches and gospel stuff . That one must be stopped and quickly .

 

[amigo de christo]

Good Morning,

Lizbeth, you keep saying you believe God's words but then you deny them - why???

If we take notice . notice it says and speaks about WHO .
The saints who were KILLED and BEHEADED by the beast and etc .
WHIch MEANS they are already killed , T HEN RESSURECTED .
Its too clear for us to try and mix this up .
Look i know that many are con fusing this great and massive falling away
with the little season . BUT its too clear that they were KILLED . As in KILLED
AND notice its not they were killed by GOD , IT says The beast and etc .
SO in no way can we make this apply to the death of our flesh .
Just reminder her of this .

 

[amigo de christo]

I suppose they assumed the Messiah would rule whenever He showed up. But the point is they were expecting an earthly messiah-king who would liberate them militarily from the Romans and rule Israel as an earthly kingdom and usher in a golden age of earthly peace that could be observed with the natural eyes, not a spiritual/heavenly inward peace and kingdom. Jesus tried to correct that wrong understanding when He said the kingdom does not come with observation that you may say lo here it is or there, but is within us.

Yes, the Amil point of view is that Christ is ruling and reigning now in this age, as King of kings and Lord of lords. He testified right after His resurrection two thousand or so years ago that all power and authority in heaven and in earth had been given to Him. His kingdom is not by sight, but by faith. And He was cruelly mocked and abused by the Roman soldiers for this, who rammed a crown of thorns on His head. Jesus rules and reigns now in the hearts of His people who are soldiers of His heavenly/spiritual kingdom. and are overcoming, subduing, conquering and taking more ground for Him from the Enemy. Israel was wrongly expecting earthly peace, and that is why Jesus said "do not think I came to bring peace but a sword", ie, a spiritual sword involving spiritual warfare....His kingdom is at war with the earthly because the earthly opposes and rejects His kingdom.rule...they refuse to let Him rule over them as scripture says.

Sister i want you to read it again real slowly .
Take real clear notice of WHO it says these ressurected saints are
AND WHO HAD K ILLED THEM . Notice they were KILLED
and not by GOD but by the beast and etc .
SO this is far too simple and clear for us to try and make it into meani ng somethi ng else
like perhaps the death of our flesh to sin .
That is not what it meant . Because its too clear about ITS the beast that had KILLED THEM
BEHEADED THEM
Look i know we are in an upmost massive fallin away right now .
And it might make sense to try and call it the little season .
But its too clear they were KILLED by the beast . NOW as far as totally understanding this , I DO NOT .
BUT i do know its far too clear they had BEEN KILLED by the beast .

 

[amigo de christo]

I suppose they assumed the Messiah would rule whenever He showed up. But the point is they were expecting an earthly messiah-king who would liberate them militarily from the Romans and rule Israel as an earthly kingdom and usher in a golden age of earthly peace that could be observed with the natural eyes, not a spiritual/heavenly inward peace and kingdom. Jesus tried to correct that wrong understanding when He said the kingdom does not come with observation that you may say lo here it is or there, but is within us.

Yes, the Amil point of view is that Christ is ruling and reigning now in this age, as King of kings and Lord of lords. He testified right after His resurrection two thousand or so years ago that all power and authority in heaven and in earth had been given to Him. His kingdom is not by sight, but by faith. And He was cruelly mocked and abused by the Roman soldiers for this, who rammed a crown of thorns on His head. Jesus rules and reigns now in the hearts of His people who are soldiers of His heavenly/spiritual kingdom. and are overcoming, subduing, conquering and taking more ground for Him from the Enemy. Israel was wrongly expecting earthly peace, and that is why Jesus said "do not think I came to bring peace but a sword", ie, a spiritual sword involving spiritual warfare....His kingdom is at war with the earthly because the earthly opposes and rejects His kingdom.rule...they refuse to let Him rule over them as scripture says.

one thing i do know .
WHEN even asked by the apostels
LORD will you at this time RESTORE the KINGDOM back to israel
HE said ITS NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW the times and the seasons
RATHER PREACH the gospel .
SO i dont worry over when or how this thousand year rule will come .
I SAY we simply preach JESUS
AND PREACH THE HEAVENLY KINGDOM now .
For now we know only in part .
BUT THEN shall we KNOW EVEN as WE ARE KNOWN.
IN o ther words i am not going to try and teach what i m yself do not fully g rasp .
I will only say BELEIVE what is written .
Let us focus on spreading what WE DO KNOW and not so much about speculation on what we do not YET know .
Cause you and david keep on going at this t hing .
What IF IT BE you who is wrong . HAVE you ever considered that .
THE POINT IS
We dont fully understand it sister . I do my best to only try and teach WHAT I ABSOLUTELY KNOW is TRUE .
I do try and be careful NOT to teach what i think or suspect . Just trying to help us all sister .

 

[Lizbeth]

Its all about to hit its upmost peak hour sister .
The delusion i
have long been warning all about cannot be stopped . And it has grown massive even since i began to warn years back .
Warn all that there is no hope in the govts of men , in these earthen kingdoms , in the flesh , in natural jersualem
This delusion , even the more i warn the faster it grows sister . It just cannot be stopped .
Soon the crusades against any and against all that did not conform to its lie from its god of love , WHICH IS NOT GOD or LOVE ,
will begin in mass against the saints . Fear not man , not death . JESUS is our hope
and Because of HIM we shall never die . Many will bleed but our souls shall live forever with the KING who saved us .
Ecumeincalism is no joke , nor to be taken lightly . IT has to warned against
and JESUS has to preached . FOR JESUS ALONE is the only hope one has .

Amen. The more I think about it, the more I believe it's important that we get our eyes and affections off anything to do with this earth. Our hopes are to be above, not on this earth. It's a snare to have our hopes and focus on things to do with this earth. We're all going to die, even those who are alive at His coming, the seed of the natural body has to die in order to put on immortality, so what need will we have for this world? We look for a "new" (ie, spiritual/heavenly) earth and heaven where we will forever be with the Lord.

I remember how it felt when I began to realize these things....it was kind of disappointing and literally reminded me of when I realized as a child that Santa Claus wasn't real. But the disappointment was just my earthen flesh and self being disappointed to not have a utopian home here on earth to look forward to. I think this might be at least part of what the apostle was talking about when he wrote about needing to put the thinking of childhood behind us, and fables.

 

[Zao is life]

The old covenant is said in Hebrews to have been "old and obsolete and fading away".....there was a kind of transitional phase from Jesus until 70AD

Well, Jesus prophesied that not one stone of the Old Covenant Temple would be left standing - while He was on the Temple Mount, before departing from the Temple Mount and making His way to the Mount of Olives.

It's remaining true to the gospel to acknowledge the fact that the Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant came when Jesus died, and the veil in the old temple was torn in two, and not a minute later.

It's also true and it's also remaining true to the gospel to acknowledge the fact that the temple in Jerusalem was an integral part of, and represented that Old Covenant which came to an end when Jesus died on the cross, and not a minute later.

Only Preterists and Part-Preterists can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have the Old Covenant continuing until 70 A.D

- but they cannot claim they believe the gospel of the coming of the New Covenant in the blood of Christ when Jesus died, but they also believe that the coming of the new covenant did not abolish the old covenant in its entirety until 40 years later - because it's a logical and mathematical impossibility (1 + 1 is not equal to 3).

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus did not specifically mention the old covenant temple again after having once announced - on the Temple Mount - that it was going to be destroyed.

Nowhere in the Olivet Discourse did Jesus speak to His disciples about the 'tribulation and persecution' that the stones of the old covenant temple would experience when He replied to their question on the Mount of Olives.

How some Christians could later assert that the physical temple was still the holy place 40 years later when Rome destroyed it, is a question only those who say such things can answer.

What significance did that building in Jerusalem actually have when it was destroyed?

Where was the Temple of God when that temple was destroyed?

Who was Jesus warning about their tribulation and persecution at the time of the end of the age, in the Olivet Discourse

- the living stones of the Temple of God? Or the stones of the Old Covenant Temple?

What Temple was Jesus implying would come under attack when He warned the disciples - the living stones - about the persecution and tribulation they were to endure?

Which temple was important to God in 70 A.D - HIS Temple? Or the old temple in Jerusalem?

Which temple was important to God when Jesus answered the disciples' question(s) on the Mount of Olives? God's Temple? Or the old temple?

Only Preterists and Part-Preterists can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have the Old Covenant continuing until 70 A.D.

Only those who have the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place assigned to the temple in Jerusalem or the city itself can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have it that way.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't know whether or not you believe that cycles of time involves ages in time - one age followed by another, followed by another - just as it does now. The ages of the ages involves one age followed by another, followed by another - just as it does now - cycles of time, which can only take place in time.

It's a whole subject on its own. I do not believe time exists "only because the universe exists" (that's scientific and only partly true).

I believe time exists because God exists and is always "becoming" - |the eternally becoming One" is part of what His name YHVH means.

- which is why the only moment that exists in the universe at the moment you are reading this, is the moment you are reading this. The future does not exist at this moment, neither does the past

- but this moment is always "becoming" the next moment, that's why even though the future does not exist at this moment, it will come.

The ages of the ages cannot exist without time, and as long as God exists, time exists - because God is always "becoming".

PS: I do not believe Revelation 10:6 means that time stops or ends. The NETfree translates that verse as I understand it: "There will be no further delay".

I think it could mean that, but scripture indicates that the sun will no longer exist at that point, so if there is still time then it won't be as we know it now where time is based on

It's referring to the same thousand years, IMO.

So, I see no reason to to see verses 4-6 as a parentheses in that case.

Hopefully you will have the patience and time to read this quick exercise.

Remove verses 4-6 from the text and see if it changes the flow:

1 Then I saw an angel descending from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the abyss and a huge chain.
2 He seized the dragon - the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan - and tied him up for a thousand years.
3 The angel then threw him into the abyss and locked and sealed it so that he could not deceive the nations until the one thousand years were finished. (After these things he must be released for a brief period of time.)

7 Now when the thousand years are finished, Satan will be released from his prison
8 and will go out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to bring them together for the battle. They are as numerous as the grains of sand in the sea.
9 They went up on the broad plain of the earth and encircled the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and devoured them completely.
10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are too, and they will be tormented there day and night forever and ever.

It does not change the flow - but once inserted into the text, it tells us when the thousand years commences

- but you don't believe it does

Verses 4 through 6 also tell us when the thousands years commences. When Jesus would begin to reign with His followers. I believe scripture is clear that He began to reign after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-23, Rev 1:5-6).

, so I will leave it here by saying something else which, again, you will disagree with:

We know the timing for the commencement of the thousand years is contained within the in-between verses (Rev 20:4-6) because unlike the binding of Satan, Rev 20:4-6 does not exist in isolation from the rest of the book of Revelation:

Revelation 20:4-6 is linked to:

Rev 13:7-8 & Rev 13:15-18; Rev 14:9-13; Rev 15:2; and Rev 11:7-12.

I don't know if I disagree with what you said here or not because I don't understand what you were intending to say here. I see a link between Revelation 20:4-6 and some of those verses, also. I'm afraid that you just do not communicate clearly enough in a way that I can comprehend sometimes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You clearly have a different view of immortality to me - but it makes no difference to Revelation 20:9

How do you define the word immortal or immortality? Here is a definition from a dictionary:

adjective: living forever; never dying or decaying

I agree with this definition of the word, but you apparently do not because you apparently believe that someone with immortality can be destroyed/annihilated. Notice I used the word "apparently" twice there since I am not completely certain if I'm correct about how you would define the word.

But let's talk about immortality quickly:

(IMO) Adam was immortal because had he not rebelled against the Word of God (in Whom is our life - John 1:4; John 5:26; Colossians 3:4; and 1 John 11:15 - our life is IN His Son),

then Adam would not have ever died - because until he rebelled against the Word of God, he was able to freely eat of the tree of life and live forever in the body God had created him with.

To live | be alive forever in a body that does not die = immortality.

But whether or not you agree with me about Adam losing his immortality through losing the eternal life that is the source of living forever

- makes no difference to Revelation 20:9.

In the beginning immediately following His completed creation - which was all very good - God did this:

He allowed such a thing as the testing of immortals in paradise.

- and you can leave the rest with me and as my opinion that you and almost all Premils consider weird and way off

- i.e - my opinion that there will indeed be such a testing when Satan is released again at the close of the millennium

- and there will be a rebellion against the Word of God on the part of those immortals mentioned in Rev 20:9 again - just as in Eden

- they are among those whose sins were covered by the blood of Christ, who had been resurrected with the saints, and who had experienced life with Christ

- the way Adam experienced life in the Garden of Eden when still having direct communion with God and God walking in the Garden.

IOW, they are among the (immortal) saints in the NHNE - paradise. BUT THEY ARE THOSE WHO WILL APOSTATIZE.

But the final consequence is not the same as the first time:

The result of Adam's sin was death - and in His mercy, God's grace was immediately made known (Genesis 3:15).

Jesus came, died in our place, and rose again from the dead.

It's not the same consequence that is mentioned as coming upon those who will rebel mentioned in Rev 20:9.

The immortality of humans that God created does not override God's ability to destroy anything He created with fire coming down from God out of heaven

- whether or not that means that they will go alive into the lake of fire - like the beast and false prophet did (Rev 19:20).

God is omnipotent and can do whatever He chooses in His judgment.

Admittedly, it's far easier for Premils to just believe that the thousand years in Rev 20 will be followed by the NHNE, than to even consider the possible validity of anything I said above;

- and it's far easier for Amils to just believe that the thousand years in Rev 20 is taking place now

- and will complete BEFORE the return of Christ

- than to question

(a) the validity of Amillennialiism's placing Rev 20:4-6 BEFORE the return of Christ

- as well as the validity of Amillennialim's placing of the binding of Satan - in terms of what is being metaphorically described in Rev 20:1-3- likewise BEFORE the return of Christ.

So I can only leave it at your opinion that what I have said above, is bizarre

- and almost all Premils would probably agree with you - I stand alone with this.

So, you are comfortable having a view all to yourself. It's not uncommon to see that kind of thing on this forum. It makes no sense to me, though. Does God ever reveal truth to just one person? No, He does not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Amen. The more I think about it, the more I believe it's important that we get our eyes and affections off anything to do with this earth. Our hopes are to be above, not on this earth.

True. I was reading Colossians 3 today and it says this...

Colossians 3:1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory. 5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

 

[Lizbeth]

Sister i want you to read it again real slowly .
Take real clear notice of WHO it says these ressurected saints are
AND WHO HAD K ILLED THEM . Notice they were KILLED
and not by GOD but by the beast and etc .
SO this is far too simple and clear for us to try and make it into meani ng somethi ng else
like perhaps the death of our flesh to sin .
That is not what it meant . Because its too clear about ITS the beast that had KILLED THEM
BEHEADED THEM
Look i know we are in an upmost massive fallin away right now .
And it might make sense to try and call it the little season .
But its too clear they were KILLED by the beast . NOW as far as totally understanding this , I DO NOT .
BUT i do know its far too clear they had BEEN KILLED by the beast .

I'm not sure what you mean here brother. But I'm with you in that I don't have a grasp of it all either.

I've never said or thought we were in Satan's little season, and don't know why folks keep assuming that I do. Some misunderstanding seems to have arisen somewhere.

 

[Davidpt]

Well, Jesus prophesied that not one stone of the Old Covenant Temple would be left standing - while He was on the Temple Mount, before departing from the Temple Mount and making His way to the Mount of Olives.

It's remaining true to the gospel to acknowledge the fact that the Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant came when Jesus died, and the veil in the old temple was torn in two, and not a minute later.

It's also true and it's also remaining true to the gospel to acknowledge the fact that the temple in Jerusalem was an integral part of, and represented that Old Covenant which came to an end when Jesus died on the cross, and not a minute later.

Only Preterists and Part-Preterists can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have the Old Covenant continuing until 70 A.D

- but they cannot claim they believe the gospel of the coming of the New Covenant in the blood of Christ when Jesus died, but they also believe that the coming of the new covenant did not abolish the old covenant in its entirety until 40 years later - because it's a logical and mathematical impossibility (1 + 1 is not equal to 3).

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus did not specifically mention the old covenant temple again after having once announced - on the Temple Mount - that it was going to be destroyed.

Nowhere in the Olivet Discourse did Jesus speak to His disciples about the 'tribulation and persecution' that the stones of the old covenant temple would experience when He replied to their question on the Mount of Olives.

How some Christians could later assert that the physical temple was still the holy place 40 years later when Rome destroyed it, is a question only those who say such things can answer.

What significance did that building in Jerusalem actually have when it was destroyed?

Where was the Temple of God when that temple was destroyed?

Who was Jesus warning about their tribulation and persecution at the time of the end of the age, in the Olivet Discourse

- the living stones of the Temple of God? Or the stones of the Old Covenant Temple?

What Temple was Jesus implying would come under attack when He warned the disciples - the living stones - about the persecution and tribulation they were to endure?

Which temple was important to God in 70 A.D - HIS Temple? Or the old temple in Jerusalem?

Which temple was important to God when Jesus answered the disciples' question(s) on the Mount of Olives? God's Temple? Or the old temple?

Only Preterists and Part-Preterists can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have the Old Covenant continuing until 70 A.D.

Only those who have the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place assigned to the temple in Jerusalem or the city itself can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have it that way.

You asked some great questions needing answers to if one insists the holy place was pertaining to the 2nd temple in the first century before it was destroyed.

I still insist that it is absurd, the fact 2 Thessalonians 2:4 has to be fulfilled before Christ can return, that Jesus just ignored 2 Thessalonians 2:4 altogether and only focused on the 2nd temple. That's what some of these interpreters around here would have us believe, apparently. That Jesus never had a clue about 2 Thessalonians 2:4 though He predicted His 2nd coming in the Discourse. And so what if 2 Thessalonians 2:4 had not been written yet when Jesus gave His Discourse. That doesn't mean what 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving is not written in the OT, though. Paul wasn't just coming up with stuff out of nowhere.

 

[David in NJ]

I'm not sure what you mean here brother. But I'm with you in that I don't have a grasp of it all either.

I've never said or thought we were in Satan's little season, and don't know why folks keep assuming that I do. Some misunderstanding seems to have arisen somewhere.

You have said things that ar econtray to Scripture and which are in agreement with the false doctrine of 'amil' and 'sls'.

We are here to help you by always directing you back to "It is written"

 

[Lizbeth]

Well, Jesus prophesied that not one stone of the Old Covenant Temple would be left standing - while He was on the Temple Mount, before departing from the Temple Mount and making His way to the Mount of Olives.

It's remaining true to the gospel to acknowledge the fact that the Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant came when Jesus died, and the veil in the old temple was torn in two, and not a minute later.

It's also true and it's also remaining true to the gospel to acknowledge the fact that the temple in Jerusalem was an integral part of, and represented that Old Covenant which came to an end when Jesus died on the cross, and not a minute later.

Only Preterists and Part-Preterists can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have the Old Covenant continuing until 70 A.D

- but they cannot claim they believe the gospel of the coming of the New Covenant in the blood of Christ when Jesus died, but they also believe that the coming of the new covenant did not abolish the old covenant in its entirety until 40 years later - because it's a logical and mathematical impossibility (1 + 1 is not equal to 3).

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus did not specifically mention the old covenant temple again after having once announced - on the Temple Mount - that it was going to be destroyed.

Nowhere in the Olivet Discourse did Jesus speak to His disciples about the 'tribulation and persecution' that the stones of the old covenant temple would experience when He replied to their question on the Mount of Olives.

How some Christians could later assert that the physical temple was still the holy place 40 years later when Rome destroyed it, is a question only those who say such things can answer.

What significance did that building in Jerusalem actually have when it was destroyed?

Where was the Temple of God when that temple was destroyed?

Who was Jesus warning about their tribulation and persecution at the time of the end of the age, in the Olivet Discourse

- the living stones of the Temple of God? Or the stones of the Old Covenant Temple?

What Temple was Jesus implying would come under attack when He warned the disciples - the living stones - about the persecution and tribulation they were to endure?

Which temple was important to God in 70 A.D - HIS Temple? Or the old temple in Jerusalem?

Which temple was important to God when Jesus answered the disciples' question(s) on the Mount of Olives? God's Temple? Or the old temple?

Only Preterists and Part-Preterists can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have the Old Covenant continuing until 70 A.D.

Only those who have the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place assigned to the temple in Jerusalem or the city itself can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have it that way.

This is the verse I was referring to:

Heb 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

So it's apparent that the old covenant hadn't yet vanished away when this was written. God gave them time to repent....time for more Jewish souls to be saved and be spared His wrath and get out of Dodge before He dropped the boom on it. Do you know the parable of the ten virgins was speaking to Israel? (first, and then the Gentile) The door to the wedding was shut as far as the nation of Israel was concerned in 70AD, in a manner of speaking....those who didn't have the extra oil of the new covenant/new wine for their lamps. (I've pondered why ten virgins...think it might have been a veiled reference to the minyan of old covenant worshipers....only some of them were going to make it on time. And I'm guessing those Jews who heard the parable would have well understood the significance of the number 10.)

(And just to say yes, I do understand which Temple is important to God under the new covenant. It wasn't the Lord who had asked for a brick and mortar temple to begin with. The new brick and mortar Temple is going to be a snare.)