# Question for Partial Preterist



## Roldan (Mar 28, 2005)

I'm really trying to hold on to Partial preterism, but I have many questions thathave risen from digging into the Scripts.

1. If Nero was the "man of sin" and Thessolonians says that he will be destroyed by the splendor of Christ return and that was in 70 A.D right?

2. How can Nero be destroyed if he was already dead by 68 A.D.?

3. Also Jerusalem was destroyed not Rome

Help me out here.

Manata?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> I'm really trying to hold on to Partial preterism, but I have many questions thathave risen from digging into the Scripts.
> 
> 1. If Nero was the "man of sin" and Thessolonians says that he will be destroyed by the splendor of Christ return and that was in 70 A.D right?
> ...



Gentry writes:



> The Lord Will Consume
> 
> And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders. (2 Thess. 2:8-9)[32]
> 
> ...



Where does it say that Rome is destroyed?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2005)

Most people for theological reasons date the fall of Jerusalem from 68-72 AD, if that helps any.


----------



## andreas (Mar 29, 2005)

***I'm really trying to hold on to Partial preterism, but I have many questions thathave risen from digging into the Scripts.***


"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him," 2 Thess. 2:1,and,

"For this we say unto you by the Word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 
for the Lord Himself shall descend with a shout, and the voice of the Archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thes. 4:15-17

There is nothing here about 70 AD,Romans,Jews,Rocks,and Olive trees.The Lord will come at the end,at the rapture.That is what scripture tells us,not man's interpretations and speculations.

andreas.


----------



## Roldan (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> 
> "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him," 2 Thess. 2:1,and,
> 
> ...



I'm glad you brought that up for that was my next question.

As for the Gentry quote, Its not convincing, because the passage says that the man of sin will be destroyed at the His coming which harmonizes with Revelation that the beast will be destroyed AT HIS coming not, Christ did not come in judgment til 70 A.D. Nero was dead at 68 A.D. To say that Nero was destroyed by the PROCESSS of His coming is not His coming its the signs of His coming but not the "splendor" of His coming. 

Sounds gnosticish to me. Not impressed so far with that interpretation.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 29, 2005)

Partial preterists still believe in the coming Parousia don't they? This stuff will happen then, I'm pretty sure. So I still believe in the Rapture, it's just the timing that the Dispensationalists have WAY off.


----------



## openairboy (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Partial preterists still believe in the coming Parousia don't they? This stuff will happen then, I'm pretty sure. So I still believe in the Rapture, it's just the timing that the Dispensationalists have WAY off.



Yes, preterists hold to "the rapture", or 'general resurrection', and the bodily parousia of our Lord. To collapse all texts into an ad70 framework is the error of heretical-eschatology.

Bahnsen, I believe, holds 2 Thess. to be future and referring to the final apostasy, which occurs at the end of the millennium. That's based on a conversation I had with my pastor who was friend's with Bahnsen, so I may be confusing his words with Bahnsen's.

openairboy


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> Bahnsen, I believe, holds 2 Thess. to be future and referring to the final apostasy, which occurs at the end of the millennium. That's based on a conversation I had with my pastor who was friend's with Bahnsen, so I may be confusing his words with Bahnsen's.
> 
> openairboy



Not so sure.




> So, perhaps it would have been better to speak of the "œman of lawlessness" (since appeal is made to 2 Thessalonians 2) who would appear at the end of history. Yet that too would be unsatisfactory. That man´s lawlessness was already operating in Paul´s day (verse 7). The man of lawlessness would sit in the temple of God (verse 4), indicating that he was operative before the Temple´s destruction in A.D. 70, (since the man of lawlessness sets himself against anything that is even called God "“ verse 4a "“ his sitting in the temple is not a metaphorical description of a "œreligious leader´). 2 Thessalonians 2 parallels Christ´s discussion of the "œabomination of desolation" in Matthew 24, which in turn is explained by the parallel passage in Luke as being the military overthrow of Jerusalem (Luk3 21; 20) by the Romans. Thus the "œman of lawlessness" is a past historical figure, unveiled in order to bring God´s historical judgment upon Israel´s falling away (2 Thess. 2:3; cf. 1 Thess. 2:14-16).
> 
> "œYear of Antichrist"? Anno Domini! By Greg L. Bahnsen


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...



I recall from listening to one of Bahnsen's tapes on postmillennialism that he believed the man of lawlessness was from the first century, but made the argument that EVEN IF the man of lawlessness were in the future, it was not inconsistent with postmillennialism... he would then be involved in the final apostasy.


----------



## openairboy (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> so I may be confusing his words with Bahnsen's.
> 
> openairboy






> Thus the "œman of lawlessness" is a past historical figure, unveiled in order to bring God´s historical judgment upon Israel´s falling away (2 Thess. 2:3; cf. 1 Thess. 2:14-16).
> 
> "œYear of Antichrist"? Anno Domini! By Greg L. Bahnsen


 [/quote]

Then chalk it up to me confusing my pastor's words with Bahnsen's, but see ex nihilo's words, which is much of what I remember.

openairboy


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 29, 2005)

Bear in mind that this is _partial_-preterism. Not every text has to do with 70AD. Even more, grant the olivet discouse to be referent to Jerusalem and most of the book of Revelation, and I will gladly give you all these texts.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***I'm really trying to hold on to Partial preterism, but I have many questions thathave risen from digging into the Scripts.***
> 
> 
> ...



One could easily make the argument that the idea of a "rapture" is man's interpretation and speculation. I say this as a recovering Dispensationalist! :bigsmile:


----------



## andreas (Mar 29, 2005)

***One could easily make the argument that the idea of a "rapture" is man's interpretation and speculation. I say this as a recovering Dispensationalist!***

In order to avoid repeating that whole verse every time we refer to this event, we simply call this The Rapture. When we use the word Rapture, we are referring to 1st Thessalonians 4:17 . The word Rapture does not actually appear in scripture.

andreas.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 29, 2005)

How about we not use Rapture but Resurrection? The reason I say is that 99.95% of the time that rapture is used, one has this timeline in mind:

1)Rapture of the saints
2)7 years of tribulation.
3)Jesus returns again.
etc.

When it would be better to say General Resurrection of just and unjust at the consummation of history.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***One could easily make the argument that the idea of a "rapture" is man's interpretation and speculation. I say this as a recovering Dispensationalist!***
> 
> In order to avoid repeating that whole verse every time we refer to this event, we simply call this The Rapture. When we use the word Rapture, we are referring to 1st Thessalonians 4:17 . The word Rapture does not actually appear in scripture.
> ...



I realize this. I am not referring to the word, rather the EVENT. Dispensationalists see the Rapture as a distinct event from the Second Coming. That is what I was referring to.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by andreas_
> ...



I think that the issue here is that "the rapture" in common parlance refers to the secret rapture espoused by J.N. Darby et al. That is how Kevin was using the word. Let's not get caught up in semantics. Also, by the way, if one really wants to use shorthand to refer to the incident in 1 Thess 4:17, one should speak of the Second Coming. The rapture is actually just a part of that.


----------



## VERITAS (Mar 29, 2005)

*Hebraism for Jewish Hierarchy*

2 Thess 2 "Now *we beseech you*, brethren, *by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ*, and by our gathering together unto Him, {2} That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. {3} Let no man deceive you by any means: for *that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first*, and *that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition*; {4} *who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God*. {5} Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? {6} And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. {7} For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. {8} *And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His Mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His Coming*: {9} Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, {10} And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. {11} And *for this cause* God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie: {12} That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. {13} But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: {14} Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. {15} Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. {16} Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, {17} Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work."

I'm home in bed sick at the moment and don't feel up to typing all the quotes, but Gary Demar had an appendix in his book "Last Days Madness" where he postulates (if memory serves) that the man of lawlessness is a Hebraism for the Jewish hierarchy particularly as embodied in the office of high priest and that the restrainer was the Roman authority over the Jews. He also states that our gathering together unto Him is not the Rapture but _episunagogue_, or the gathering of the people of God into a body, as a hen gathers her chicks. And that it is the Gospel which so gathers. The apostasy that is spoken of near the end of the chapter is the Jewish apostasy from the true religion/focus of the O.C.

But I agree with the thread-starter, Gentry's hypothesis doesn't satisfy this preterist either! 

--C


----------



## andreas (Mar 29, 2005)

***I realize this. I am not referring to the word, rather the EVENT. Dispensationalists see the Rapture as a distinct event from the Second Coming. That is what I was referring to. ***


"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at The Last Trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." 1 Cor.15:52


"For the Lord Himself shall descend with a shout, and the voice of the Archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thes. 4:15-17

It is not a separate event.1 Corinthians clearly states, AT THE LAST trumpet.The last,there is no more after the last ,and we know the last trumpet will be follwed by the second coming and the rapture.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (Mar 29, 2005)

***Thus the "œman of lawlessness" is a past historical figure, unveiled in order to bring God´s historical judgment upon Israel´s falling away (2 Thess. 2:3; cf. 1 Thess. 2:14-16).***


"That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" 
2 Thes.2:2-3

It is written,"the man of sin".

Sin, is a transgession of God's law,1 John 3:4 "for sin is the transgression of the law".

Man,that is, any man that sins or transgresses God's law, is the man of sin.It is not a particular,or specific man,but ANY man that trasgresses the law.
andreas.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***I realize this. I am not referring to the word, rather the EVENT. Dispensationalists see the Rapture as a distinct event from the Second Coming. That is what I was referring to. ***
> 
> 
> ...



I don't understand. You say that there will be nothing after the last trumpet then you say that the second coming and rapture will follow the trumpet. By the way, when you and Paul went back and forth on this, I don't know if you realized that neither Paul, myself, Adam, or any other _partial_-preterist denies the second coming of Christ. We all joyfully affirm that.


----------



## andreas (Mar 30, 2005)

***I don't understand. You say that there will be nothing after the last trumpet then you say that the second coming and rapture will follow the trumpet. ***

No more trumpets.The second coming takes place then.The second coming,the last day. 

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at The Last Day!" John 6:39


"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at The Last Day!" John 6:40


***By the way, when you and Paul went back and forth on this, I don't know if you realized that neither Paul, myself, Adam, or any other partial-preterist denies the second coming of Christ. We all joyfully affirm that.*** 

I was responding to Kevin.Carroll and not to preterists.

Quote:

***I realize this. I am not referring to the word, rather the EVENT. Dispensationalists see the Rapture as a distinct event from the Second Coming. That is what I was referring to. ***

andreas.

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by andreas]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 30, 2005)

I have yet to buy a new bookshelf and as such all my study materials (Gentry, etc) are in boxes still. I plan of posting some quotes soon!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***I don't understand. You say that there will be nothing after the last trumpet then you say that the second coming and rapture will follow the trumpet. ***
> 
> No more trumpets.The second coming takes place then.The second coming,the last day.
> ...



That may be, but I fail to see what point you are making. Fred had it right. When you said "Rapture," I had the popular usage of the word in mind. Since it is a word created and used by Dispensationalists to describe an event distinct from the Second Coming and since it is a term so easily misunderstood, perhaps we should refer to the event we are discussing, the Second Coming.


----------



## VERITAS (Mar 30, 2005)

*Benjamin B. Warfield on 2 Thess 2*



> The withholding power is already present. Although the Man of Sin is not yet revealed, as a mystery his essential "lawlessness" is already working -- "only until the present restrainer is removed from the midst." He expects him to sit in the "temple of God," which perhaps most naturally refers to the literal temple in Jerusalem, although the Apostle knew that the out-pouring of God's wrath on the Jews was close at hand (1 Thess ii.16). And if we compare the description which the Apostle gives of him with our Lord's address on the Mount of Olives (Mt xxiv), to which, as we have already hinted, Paul makes obvious allusion, it becomes at once in the highest degree probable that in the words, "he exalteth himself against all that is called God, or is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the sanctuary of God showing himself that he is God," Paul can have nothing else in view than what our Lord described as "the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (Mt xxiv. 15); and this our Lord connects immediately with the beleaguering of Jerusalem (cf. Luke xxi. 20).



--This article was originally written in 1886 and appeared in _The Biblical Expositor_

So, I see only 3 options:

1) the temple was still standing and an available place for the man of sin to occupy (preterist position)

2) the temple must be rebuilt in order for the man of sin to occupy it (futurist postion)

3) the temple is a spiritual reality and the man of sin would have to be a spiritual leader who leads a) professing Christians or b) the very elect astray (the anti-papal view)

I have problems with #2 because a rebuilt temple would be nothing to God, Him not having called for or sanctioned such a structure and it would be a regression to types and shadows in the face of the true. And I have problems with #3 because the sheep know the voice of God and will not follow another; the rest are goats anyway.

I prefer #1 because: a) the temple was still standing, and b) the high priest, as spiritual leader of the O.C. people of God, was standing in the temple reputedly speaking for God and leading the people astray. In other words, he was opposing God (the Son) and exalting or setting _himself_ up as God!

Thus it was the Gospel (or "the spirit of His Mouth," v.8) which revealed and destroyed the O.C. system and it was their hanging on to the O.C. which I believe was The Lie, the strong delusion - i.e. that they could be saved and inherit the promises apart from Christ.

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by VERITAS]


----------



## Robin (Mar 30, 2005)

There's solid evidence that Revelation was written in the 90's. That....right there...poses a problem for Gentry.

Why can't the style of Revelation's and all the NT language about "Babylon; antichrists; wars; signs" Etc., rather point to that there were will be war*S* (in general); many antichrist*S* not merely one (though there may be a particular one, near the end of the age); general earthquakes and pestilence (not one particular set of signs)? Why can't the references point to the overall state of the world before Christ's return? Ahh, but that would mean that "keep watch" for the Christian is focusing upon doctrine and diligence, trusting in Christ's promises, alone. We couldn't be idle, speculating about dates or current events - even the past-current events of 70 AD. Of course, the "breath of His mouth" is about the Gospel prevailing in the midst of this _present evil age_ - of which we are still in.

Partial-preterists must deal with the LOUDNESS and the PUBLIC-GLOBAL aspect of the 2nd Advent. They must also deal with the plain reading of the Text. Is there ONE Second Advent? Two? Which is it? 

When Christ comes back, it's simple: every eye shall see Him; He will put all His enemies under His feet; He will raise the dead; judge the wicked and restore creation.

My opinion (which is worth nothing) is that those who aren't satisfied with Scripture must tirelessly grapple with writings outside of Scripture -- not resting in Christ's promises, plainly written in the Text. This distracts from hoping in Christ --- it's more like hoping that Gentry (or whoever else) is right....sounds like someone is robbing Christians of the rest Christ has earned them....at least that's what I see from here...



Robin

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VERITAS_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with this.

But you cannot disagree with the fact, that a future A.C, Global Government, 7 year trib is much more exciting to us 21st century ers :bigsmile:

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## VERITAS (Mar 30, 2005)

You're right of course, *Keon*, lies are often very sexy... 

The following is from Demar's book. The emphasis is mine. He says that there are "striking parallels between the Olivet Discourse and 2 Thessalonians 2."

(Mat 24:31) "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall *gather together his elect* from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

(2 Th 2:1) "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by *our gathering together unto him*,"

---------------------------

(Mat 24:27) "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

(Mat 24:30) "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

(Mark 13:26-27) "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. {27} And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

(Luke 21:27) "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."

(2 Th 2:1-2) "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, {2} That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."

------------------------------

(Mark 13:5) "And Jesus answering them began to say, *Take heed lest any man deceive you*:"

(Mat 24:12) "And because *iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold*."

(2 Th 2:3) "*Let no man deceive you* by any means: for that day shall not come, except *there come a falling away first*, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

--------------------------------

(Mat 24:15) "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, *stand in the holy place*, (whoso readeth, let him understand)"

(Mark 13:14) "But when ye shall see *the abomination of desolation*, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, *standing where it ought not*, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:"

(2 Th 2:4) "*Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God*."

-----------------------------

(Mat 24:25) "Behold, I have told you before."

(2 Th 2:5) "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?"

------------------------------

(Mat 24:12, 15) "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." ...{15} "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)"


(2 Th 2:7) "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way."

----------------------------

(Mat 24:24) "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show *great signs and *insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

(Mark 13:22) "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, *to seduce*, if it were possible, even the elect."

(2 Th 2:8-12) "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: {9} Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan *with all power and signs and lying wonders*, {10} And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. {11} And for this cause God shall send them *strong delusion*, that they should believe a lie: {12} That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

----------------------------------

(Mark 13:27) "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

(Luke 21:8) "And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them."

(2 Th 2:13) "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

-----------------------------------------

(Mark 13:23) "But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things."

(Mark 13:31) "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

(2 Th 2:15) "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 31, 2005)

Hey, Cheri.

Do you go to Grace Baptist in Jackson?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***I realize this. I am not referring to the word, rather the EVENT. Dispensationalists see the Rapture as a distinct event from the Second Coming. That is what I was referring to. ***
> 
> 
> ...



Andreas, forgive me but are you just trying to be obtuse? I have explained what I meant three times now and yet you seem to keep misquoting me.

Let's say I create a word...and for the sake of argument, I create the word "dog," which also for the sake of argument I use to describe a quadruped of the canine genus. NOW you come along and adopt my word, only you use it to describe a feline. If I created the word and my usage of it has gained broad acceptance and you attempt to use the same word to describe something completely different, you are wrong in your usage of the word.

The word "rapture" was created and popularized by Dispensationalists to describe a "secret" catching away of the Church (as an entity completely distinct from Israel), prior to the 7 year Tribulation. It is used to describe an event completely separate from the Parousia.

With those thoughts in mind, your usage of the word "rapture" to describe the Second Coming is incorrect. And that is the only point I was trying to make.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VERITAS_
> lies are often very sexy...


the only way men can get married oops I mean people. :bigsmile:


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 31, 2005)

Does anyone know if Gentry has ever addressed the issue of Luke 17 in light of his proprosal that the subject changes in v.36? I cannot find anything on the web.

Dustin...


----------



## VERITAS (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Hey, Cheri.
> 
> Do you go to Grace Baptist in Jackson?



No. I was born in Clinton, MS (while my father was attending RTS). But I live in Memphis (where we moved when he got a teaching job). I attend Reformed Baptist Church (that's the official name).


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VERITAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Ah. I only asked since I saw your signature. I know Jackson's only Reformed Baptist minister quite well.


----------



## andreas (Apr 1, 2005)

***Are you trying to be obtuse?****

OBTUSE:blunt in form,not sharp or acute.Not sensitive or observant,stupid,dull in perception,feeling or intelect.

No,but thanks for the compliment.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 1, 2005)

Kevin.Carroll,

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him," 2 Thess. 2:1,

and,

"For this we say unto you by the Word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 
for the Lord Himself shall descend with a shout, and the voice of the Archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thes. 4:15-17

Well if this is not the rapture and the second coming,then what is it?

andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 1, 2005)

By the word "Rapture" we mean: the moment in history when the believers in Christ who have not experienced physical death will be changed into their glorified bodies. At that time they will be caught up in the air to be with Christ, even as I Thessalonians 4:17 declares.  Nothing more nothing less.The word rapture is not the exclusive property of anyone,providing you define the use of it.
andreas.

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by andreas]


----------



## Average Joey (Apr 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VERITAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Hey that`s also an affiliation with our church.I was thinking you lived further south.Whenever there are Bible Conferences,doesn`t it go from Bridgetown,Reformed Baptist,and Grace Bible during a weekend?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> By the word "Rapture" we mean: the moment in history when the believers in Christ who have not experienced physical death will be changed into their glorified bodies. At that time they will be caught up in the air to be with Christ, even as I Thessalonians 4:17 declares.  Nothing more nothing less.The word rapture is not the exclusive property of anyone,providing you define the use of it.
> andreas.
> 
> [Edited on 4-1-2005 by andreas]



That may be your definition, but that is not what is understood by the term in most Christian circles:

"The term rapture is most commonly used to describe an event in certain systems of christian escathology (study of the end of the world) whereby "faithful" Christians are taken from Earth into Heaven before other events associated with the end of the world take place. This belief is distinguished from another view which states that the end of the world would be experienced by everyone simultaneously."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by andreas_
> ...



Thank you, Tom.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 1, 2005)

Andreas, 
NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD DENIES THE SECOND COMING OF Christ! We just believe that the language in certain passages suggest that Jerusalem is being destroyed, not that believers are being raised.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andreas,
> NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD DENIES THE SECOND COMING OF Christ! We just believe that the language in certain passages suggest that Jerusalem is being destroyed, not that believers are being raised.



The Olivet Discourse is an excellent example.


----------



## andreas (Apr 1, 2005)

Being "caught up together" is called the Rapture. The word Rapture is derived from a Latin term which means "caught away" and is simply used by Christians to avoid repetitive quoting of the entire verse (1 Thess. 4:16) each time we reference the event it describes.It is not my definition, but it is used by many reformed christians.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 1, 2005)

***Thank you, Tom. ***


You should have a headache by now!

andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 1, 2005)

***NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD DENIES THE SECOND COMING OF Christ!***

I know that.The question is:

Do we all agree when that blessed event takes place?

andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 1, 2005)

***Mood: Wondering where everyone finds the time for all this posting!***

It is called fellowship.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 1, 2005)

ENGLISH:17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up  together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

LATIN:17. Deinde nos qui vivemus, ac residui erimus, simul cum ipsis rapiemur in nubibus, in occursum Domini in aera: et sic semper cum Domino erimus.

andreas.

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by andreas]


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 1, 2005)

Andreas,

Would you describe yourself to a group of unchurched people as Catholic?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD DENIES THE SECOND COMING OF Christ!***
> 
> I know that.The question is:
> ...



Right question, wrong context. If you are asking when the Second Coming takes place, then your guess is as good as mine. If you are saying when Scripture says that the SC is, well, our answer is limited. I affirm, once again, that it takes place at the end of what we would call history. Not every scripture reference has to refer to it for the event to be valid. With all due respect, you are continuing not to make the distinction between partial-preterist and full-preterist, the latter being heretical.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Andreas,
> 
> Would you describe yourself to a group of unchurched people as Catholic?



 J.Vernon McGee has a sermon entitled "You Are a Catholic Priest".


----------



## andreas (Apr 2, 2005)

****Andreas,

Would you describe yourself to a group of unchurched people as Catholic? ****

Can you please put your question in simple terms, so that i can understand it,and what prompted your question?

andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 2, 2005)

***With all due respect, you are continuing not to make the distinction between partial-preterist and full-preterist, the latter being heretical. ***

I will get it eventually.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ****Andreas,
> 
> Would you describe yourself to a group of unchurched people as Catholic? ****
> ...



The question is simple and not intended to trick. Let me put it another way: let's say that we were sitting together at a coffee house with a group of ordinary unchurched people. I say, "Andreas is Catholic." Would you object?

If so, why?

My question is prompted by our "rapture" discussion.

[Edited on 4/2/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## andreas (Apr 2, 2005)

I would not describe myself as a catholic ,for catholicism contradicts scripture. As an example,the Roman Catholics refer to Mary as queen of heaven. The practice abominable .

Prayers for the dead and the sign of the cross.

(Heb 9:27 KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Veneration of angels and deceased saints . 

Psa 29:2 KJV Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

The daily mass. 

Heb 10:11-12 KJV And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

The worship of Mary . The term "Mother of God" originated at the council of Ephesus and was bestowed upon Mary. 

1 Tim 2:5 KJV For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Isa 45:5 KJV I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Priests began to dress differently from the laity thus putting on a religious exterior. 

Rev 2:6 KJV But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

The word "Nicolaitans" comes from two Greek words "nikao" which means "conqueror" and "laos" which means "people. They instill belief that they can forgive sins and cause the eucharistic elements to turn into the actual blood and body of Christ.

The doctrine of Purgatory . 


Heb 9:27 KJV And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

2 Cor 5:8 KJV We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

THERE IS PLENTY MORE THAT I OBJECT TO.

You have not answered my question as to what prompted the enquiry.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 2, 2005)

***My question is prompted by our "rapture" discussion.***

Why?
andreas.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 2, 2005)

If I may speak as to where I believe Fred is going with it, surely you would describe yourself as "catholic" in the sense in which the word is used by the Apostles' Creed - and yet as your last post perfectly demonstrates, you would still not be comfortable associating yourself with the word because of the Roman meaning attached to it in nearly all minds today.

So it is with the word "rapture" as having a nearly-universal Dispensational meaning and connotation poured into it today in the minds of nearly everyone, which is not changed by the fact that you don't intend that meaning any more than the description of ourselves as "catholic" being taken to mean Roman Catholic would be changed by us not intending that meaning.


----------



## andreas (Apr 2, 2005)

I do not find the word "Rapture" offensive in any way ,cause i have a clear understanding as to its meaning. I have shown, the word is derived from a Latin word ,and was used by ALL,as in all kinds,of christians ,not just Dispensationalists.The question about "catholic",was unfair, as was not clearly defined, in contrast to the clear definition i offered about the meaning of Rapture.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 2, 2005)

****Would you describe yourself to a group of unchurched people as Catholic? ****

I would like to retract  my answer, and say to the "unchurched people" ,i am a christian, rather than attach a label to myself.
andreas.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> I do not find the word "Rapture" offensive in any way ,cause i have a clear understanding as to its meaning. I have shown, the word is derived from a Latin word ,and was used by ALL,as in all kinds,of christians ,not just Dispensationalists.The question about "catholic",was unfair, as was not clearly defined, in contrast to the clear definition i offered about the meaning of Rapture.
> andreas.



But words change over time with culture. "Catholic" was once an orthodox term, and an orthodox meaning still exists for it today, but as you showed, that is not the meaning that comes up in most minds today when the word is mentioned. Likewise, even if all Christians once used the term "rapture," and even if a few people such as you still mean the historic definition when you use it today, that is still not the meaning that comes up in most minds today when the word is mentioned.

Likewise, the word "Presbyterian" is another good example. Largely because of the influence of the PCUSA, I would never simply introduce myself to someone as a Presbyterian without adding further qualifications and explanation - for even though it respresents a historically orthodox branch, and even though I still mean that same thing by it, that does nothing to the unfortunate but simple fact that it now immediately evokes thoughts of liberalism in the minds of most people when mentioned. So it is with "rapture" and Dispensationalism, regardless of its historic etymology or your own intended meaning, which is why most of us think it would be much easier and better to simply use a term like "Second Coming."


----------



## Average Joey (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> Likewise, the word "Presbyterian" is another good example. Largely because of the influence of the PCUSA, I would never simply introduce myself to someone as a Presbyterian without adding further qualifications and explanation - for even though it respresents a historically orthodox branch, and even though I still mean that same thing by it, that does nothing to the unfortunate but simple fact that it now immediately evokes thoughts of liberalism in the minds of most people when mentioned.



That is a good reason you can introduce yourself as a Reformed Presbyterian.If whoever you are telling knew anything,they would understand.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> Likewise, the word "Presbyterian" is another good example. Largely because of the influence of the PCUSA, I would never simply introduce myself to someone as a Presbyterian without adding further qualifications and explanation - for even though it respresents a historically orthodox branch, and even though I still mean that same thing by it, that does nothing to the unfortunate but simple fact that it now immediately evokes thoughts of liberalism in the minds of most people when mentioned. So it is with "rapture" and Dispensationalism, regardless of its historic etymology or your own intended meaning, which is why most of us think it would be much easier and better to simply use a term like "Second Coming."



Speaking of which, I saw an article recently in the newspaper (can't remember which one) that was chronicaling the *Presbyterian church's* statement of support of the Palestinians in the middle east.
There was no indication in the article that this was the *PC (USA)* or that it didn't encompass all presbyterians. Of couse the writers in the press who cover Christianity do not understand Christianity which accounts for many of the misrepresentations and silly errors. And the rest of the misrepresentations are just malicious bias


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> I do not find the word "Rapture" offensive in any way ,cause i have a clear understanding as to its meaning. I have shown, the word is derived from a Latin word ,and was used by ALL,as in all kinds,of christians ,not just Dispensationalists.The question about "catholic",was unfair, as was not clearly defined, in contrast to the clear definition i offered about the meaning of Rapture.
> andreas.



Catholic comes from the Latin word for universal. It has been used by all kinds of Christians, evidenced by the Apostles' Creed. It has longer and wider use than "rapture"




> Cath"¢o"¢lic \Ëˆkath-lik, Ëˆka-thÉ™-\ adjective
> [Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole "” more at cata-, safe]
> (14th century)
> 1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal
> ...



You can't have it both ways.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Being "caught up together" is called the Rapture. The word Rapture is derived from a Latin term which means "caught away" and is simply used by Christians to avoid repetitive quoting of the entire verse (1 Thess. 4:16) each time we reference the event it describes.It is not my definition, but it is used by many reformed christians.
> andreas.



Your etymology is correct. Your use of the word is not. The Rapture *DOES NOT REFER TO THE SECOND COMING!* If you think it does you are either wrong in your usage, misinformed as to your definitions, or swimming against the stream of popular denotation. Which is it?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> I do not find the word "Rapture" offensive in any way ,cause i have a clear understanding as to its meaning. I have shown, the word is derived from a Latin word ,and was used by ALL,as in all kinds,of christians ,not just Dispensationalists.The question about "catholic",was unfair, as was not clearly defined, in contrast to the clear definition i offered about the meaning of Rapture.
> andreas.



Andreas, your clear understanding of the usage of the word "rapture" is misinformed. Your definintion may be clear to you but it runs contrary to everyone else's. I'd suggest finding another word.


----------



## andreas (Apr 2, 2005)

***Catholic comes from the Latin word for universal. It has been used by all kinds of Christians, evidenced by the Apostles' Creed. It has longer and wider use than "rapture"***

You are correct as to the meaning of the word,but do you honestly think that a group of "unchurched people" would know that?They are more likely to know the Roman catholic church, but not the correct meaning.If they as such, asked me if i was a catholic, then i will ,and i am certain that other people ,will assume that they meant Roman catholic.It all comes down to defining your terms, so that you do not intentionally "mislead the witness"
andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 2, 2005)

***Rapture does not refer to the second coming"***


" Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other".Matthew 24:29-31

God is telling us that after the tribulation, the elect will be gathered with the Lord in the air.We are told the Rapture or the gathering is after the tribulation.Compare this with 1 Thessalonians 4:16,and also look at 1 Corr.15:52,which again talks about the last trumpet,the same trumpet of Mathew 24:31.
The second coming occurs after the tribulation(great) and on the last day when the ressurection and the judgment take place, the same day,the last day. John 6:40, John6:44, and John6:54.

IF THE RAPTURE DOES NOT REFER TO THE SECOND COMING ,THEN WHAT DOES IT REFER TO?
andreas.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> IF THE RAPTURE DOES NOT REFER TO THE SECOND COMING ,THEN WHAT DOES IT REFER TO?
> andreas.



I've answered that question repeatedly. I don't imagine answering it again will change anything.


----------



## andreas (Apr 3, 2005)

****The word "rapture" was created and popularized by Dispensationalists to describe a "secret" catching away of the Church (as an entity completely distinct from Israel), prior to the 7 year Tribulation. It is used to describe an event completely separate from the Parousia.

With those thoughts in mind, your usage of the word "rapture" to describe the Second Coming is incorrect. And that is the only point I was trying to make.****

That is no answer.I am asking you to provide some scripture to contradict what i provided for you, that the Rapture occurs at the end,the last day,where the resurrection and judgment take place.HE THAT HATH AN EAR LET HIM HEAR.Rev.2:29
Give us something to support your view,not just an opinion.I have given you proof that the word Rapture has a Latin derivation,and was not just a Dispensationalist invention,but all kinds of christians,including brother Calvin ,used the word.
You say that the Rapture has nothing to do with the end,the last day.What saith the scriptures?Rom..4:3

andreas.


----------



## Roldan (Apr 5, 2005)

Whatever happened to my original question?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ****The word "rapture" was created and popularized by Dispensationalists to describe a "secret" catching away of the Church (as an entity completely distinct from Israel), prior to the 7 year Tribulation. It is used to describe an event completely separate from the Parousia.
> 
> With those thoughts in mind, your usage of the word "rapture" to describe the Second Coming is incorrect. And that is the only point I was trying to make.****
> ...



It is not an issue of Scripture, it is an issue of semantics. It is not an issue of doctrine, it is an issue of definition. Kapish?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> Whatever happened to my original question?



You're right it got lost. And I actually jumped into this thread because I was interested in the topic. Having cut myself loose from my dispensational moorings (hence my reaction to andreas' poor use of terminology), I find myself adrift in a sea of eschatological agnosticism. The only thing I know for sure is that Christ will return, just as He said. And it won't involve the Rapture.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***Rapture does not refer to the second coming"***
> 
> 
> ...



Well, first of all the tribulation being spoken of in Matthew 24 happened in AD70. So, unless you are a heretical preterist B does not immediately follow A.

Secondly, there is no "gathering in the air" in Matthew 24. That's a eisegetical embellishment on your part, no doubt influenced by your views on other second coming passages.

Matthew 24 is speaking primarily of the call of the gospel to gather God's elect by means of His messengers (aggelos). "Assuredly, I say to you, *this generation* will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matt. 24:34)

Lightfoot writes, "When Jerusalem shall be reduced to ashes, and that wicked nation cut off and rejected, then shall the Son of man send His ministers with the trumpet of the Gospel, and they shall gather His elect of the several nations, from the four corners of heaven: so that God shall not want a Church, although that ancient people of His be rejected and cast off: but that ancient Jewish Church being destroyed, a new Church shall be called out of the Gentiles." 



> _Originally posted by andreas_
> IF THE RAPTURE DOES NOT REFER TO THE SECOND COMING ,THEN WHAT DOES IT REFER TO?
> andreas.



According to Scofield and his spiritual children it refers to a secret gathering of "church age" believer 7 years before the second coming. That is the pop definition used in most Sunday schools and Bible studies around the country.

Besides, the word "rapture" places the emphasis on us. The Biblical words "appearing" or "revelation" place the emphasis where it belongs, on Christ.


----------



## andreas (Apr 6, 2005)

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a Shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the Trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

Please NOTE, it is with a shout and sounding trumpet, not secret! 

1 Thes.4:16,


SO MR SCOFIELD AND THE SPIRITUAL CHILDREN GOT IT WRONG.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 6, 2005)

****Kapish?****

What does that mean?I am not a linguist.
andreas.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> 
> 
> SO MR SCOFIELD AND THE SPIRITUAL CHILDREN GOT IT WRONG.
> andreas.



Well, right or wrong they were the ones who coined the term to describe their particular theological position.

I find it doesn't do any good to try to argue theology based on arbitrary English definitions.


----------



## Consistent (Apr 9, 2005)

What about Roldan's original question? Any other alternative besides Gentry's?



> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> I'm really trying to hold on to Partial preterism, but I have many questions thathave risen from digging into the Scripts.
> 
> 1. If Nero was the "man of sin" and Thessolonians says that he will be destroyed by the splendor of Christ return and that was in 70 A.D right?
> ...



Does the abomination of desolation refer to the Edomites slaughtering of the Jews(67-68ad)? The Edomites worked for Rome...this is DeMar's position (see 'Last Days Madness') 

Under this scenario, Nero could definitely be the man of lawlessness as the Edomites working for him committed the abomination.

Just some thoughts to bring this thread back on topic.

consistent

[Edited on 4-9-2005 by Consistent]

[Edited on 4-9-2005 by Consistent]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ****Kapish?****
> 
> What does that mean?I am not a linguist.
> andreas.



It means, "Understand?" It is usually asked by Vinny the Leg Breaker just before he collects your overdue debt.


----------



## andreas (Apr 10, 2005)

You want to know what abomination of desolation is?Scripture tells us.

"In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations." 

Ezekiel 44:7

Nothing to do with Edomides,natural Jews, Nero,or slaughtered pigs.

andreas.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> You want to know what abomination of desolation is?Scripture tells us.
> 
> "In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations."
> ...




Well . . . I _think_ God was being a little more specific when talking about the specific "desolation" spoken of by Daniel:



Matthew 24:
[15] "So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel _(a.k.a. the "abomination of desolation")_, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 
[16] then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; 
[17] let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house; 
[18] and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. 
[19] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! 
[20] Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath. 
[21] For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 


Luke 21:
[20] "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its *desolation* has come near. 
[21] Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; 
[22] for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written.

Both Matthew and Luke are obviously talking about the same event. Matthew says the event is the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. And Luke links it specifically to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. So when I consider the specific nature of Matthew's and Luke's descriptions of the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, I don't think the general statments in Ezekiel 44:7 fill the bill, In my humble opinion.

But I am open to an alternate way of looking at it. What are your thoughts?

In Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 11, 2005)

I think the key to uncovering what the desolation or the abomination was is as to when the Christians fled from Jerusalem and the surrounding environs.

When one figures out when they fled, what was happening exactly at the time in the Temple is very likely to be the Abomination of Desolation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2005)

I will continue Joseph's line of thinking. The description in Luke fits perfectly the Roman Army led by Titus in 70 AD, especially when Titus entered the holy of holies and pronounced it empty. Christ's words to flee that wicked city meant that God would destroy Jerusalem and that those who would later be Christians need not worry about defending Jerusalem. He was saying not to be caught trying to defend a symbol of an outdated, apostate religion. Israel had failed in her mission to be a light to the Gentiles and had crucified the Lord of Glory. Judgment had come in the form of Titus. God was going to vindicate his people with the destruction of Jerusalem.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 11, 2005)

Jacob, when Titus entered the Temple, that was after Jerusalem had been conquered and decimated. The seditious and the rebels, had already made a mockery in the Temple before Titus.

So the questions to be asked is
1. How many people survived so as to see Titus enter the Temple so as to flee? Titus entering the Temple was merely an appendage to the already conquered Jerusalem.

2. It was known that rebels and the seditious had already committed murder in the Temple, now is this considered a sin, but not the abomination of desolation??????????


My own opinion is that the Abomination of Desolation occurred much earlier during the build up to the onslaught of Jerusalem. It was only during this time that the interim time period existed for Christians to escape. This time period did not exist after Titus went into the Temple. Jerusalem was already conquered, starved and a mere carcas at that point. I cannot see how a starved person could be fleeing at this point.


----------



## Robin (Apr 11, 2005)

Uh, Oh....I can just hear it...

The answer to Joseph's query is not, either - or. It is, both-and.

Prophetic language in the OT is rich with double and overlap meanings. I know there are those here that don't agree.

Consider the covenantal language throughout the OT....Gen. 3:15 is the first prophecy about Christ -- yet national Israel emerges as a type of Christ; the patriarchs are types of covenant mediators; events were foretold and fulfilled over and over--progressing up to the epicenter of human history: the Incarnation. It's hidden in plain sight....the promise of a Land; Temple; Kingdom; Savior...to some degree, fulfilled by national Israel -- yet lost, and then finally attained in the Christ -- Who will be the final Consummator at His Return.

All these foretellings had progressive, unfolding, historical revelations as they played out in time and space. The OT is "type and shadow" the NT is the reality: Christ.

Besides all this..a word about the Nero question of being the "Anti-Christ." The apostasy means to "fall away" from, right? Well, Christians can fall-away from the Faith...but pagans are already lost and cannot fall away...they are already fallen. Nero can't cause an apostasy---he's an image of the Beast, actually. A picture of government persecuting God's elect on earth. We have no record of the Church being stumbled by Nero theologically. They knew he was "the Beast" --- as he incited one of the bloodiest persecutions in all Christendom.

One needs the "specatacles" of Covenant language to see the big picture.



R.


----------



## andreas (Apr 11, 2005)

Hi Joseph,

I do not see Jerusalem as the literal city in the Middle East,but the body of Christ,the eternal church.


"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect," 
Hebrews 12:22-23.

In Mathew we are told what the church is,a city,that speads the gospel,a city that is the light of the world.THE CITY OF THE LIVING GOD,THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." Mathew 5:14

Nothing about a literal city,but a spiritual city.
andreas.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Hi Joseph,
> 
> I do not see Jerusalem as the literal city in the Middle East,but the body of Christ,the eternal church.
> ...



Revelation 11:8
"and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically [2] is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified"
obviously this is a reference to a physical jerusalem.
Is it really the Beast who leads people astray, or is it not the false prophet? Nero can still be the beast and their be another who leads astray. Sorry, I cannot contribute deeper--all my notes and resources are at home.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ****The word "rapture" was created and popularized by Dispensationalists to describe a "secret" catching away of the Church (as an entity completely distinct from Israel), prior to the 7 year Tribulation. It is used to describe an event completely separate from the Parousia.
> 
> With those thoughts in mind, your usage of the word "rapture" to describe the Second Coming is incorrect. And that is the only point I was trying to make.****
> ...



You haven't given us anything other than a Latin word and an anachronsitic view of etymology. Suppose I was to take the Greek word _dunamis_ (power). This is the word from which we get our word "dynamite." Now suppose I were to say that Paul calls the Gospel the "dynamite of God" in Romans 1:9. Obviously I would be in error since I am importing modern meaning into an ancient word. This is the error that D. A. Carson refers to as the exegetical error of anachronism. You are taking a Latin word and importing a 20th century meaning into it.

We are not disagreeing about the existence of a Latin word. We are disagreeing on the anglicized modern usage of it. Nobody spoke of "the Rapture" before Darby. This is because Darby coined the word to describe an event he believed would occur distinct from the Parousia. When the word "Rapture" is used today it always has that meaning.

So this leaves us with two possibilities regarding your usage:

1. You are wrong in your usage of the word.
2. You are trying to change the definition of the word.


----------



## andreas (Apr 13, 2005)

Some Christians object to the use of the word Rapture, because they believe that it pertains to premillennialism or dispensationalism. The word Rapture has nothing to do with Premillennialism or Dispensationalism. I see no problem with using this word which is derived from the Latin term meaning "caught away" ,as described in 1 Thess.4:16.Nothing more nothing less.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (Apr 13, 2005)

"I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah." Jeremiah23:14

People that deviate from the true gospel are to God like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.People in the external corporate church that commit wickedness are to God as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.What is happening in the external corporate church now,with all the abominations taking place such as, homo bishops, gay and lesbian marriages,women preachers,etc............is exactly what happened in Jerusalem which was supposed to be a holy city,but instead crucified Christ.The abominations taking place in todays church will ultimately silence the eternal church,which is represented by the two witnesses.
So what has happened in the literal Jerusalem is happening now in the external corporate church.

andreas.


----------

