Is this the lie that started many false teachings?

[Everlasting-Grace]

Can you explain what Luke 21:20-24 was all about? Jesus answered two questions, but He only gave ONE Olivet Discourse, not two. "Let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains" is the same instruction that appeared in all three accounts.

How about you answer my question first.

THEN I will answer your question. (which is quite easy)

 

[Absolutely]

With the advent of the printing press in the 15th century, and the resulting explosion of Bibles accessible in the common language from Protestant sources, it became readily apparent to those who could now study the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation in particular, that Bible prophecy identified by symbols a persecuting apostate entity generally known as antichrist.

The Catholic Church was losing its hold on people and protestants were rising.....

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy.

So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism.​

The Jesuit Inspired Futurist Lie Spreads To America's Protestant Seminaries = many false teachings today...

I got a better one for you (since you are trying to gain standing by canceling the pretrib rapture doctrine)

Did the lie that the rapture is postrib ,at the second coming on horses, start with the warped world view of the church fathers?

The fact that they saw a destroyed and scattered israel, and ASSUMED they were IN THE GT?

Did the lie ,of some made up postrib rapture doctrinal debacle, start there?

Hmmmmmm
That was easy

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

How about you answer my question first.

THEN I will answer your question. (which is quite easy)

“Whoever reads, let him understand.” You wanna understand, go read Daniel 11:31, compare it with Luke 21:20, combine it with Matthew’s version, then reach to your conclusion.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

“Whoever reads, let him understand.” You wanna understand, go read Daniel 11:31, compare it with Luke 21:20, combine it with Matthew’s version, then reach to your conclusion.

You still have not answered my question

Is my question that hard? Is that why you will not answer it?

If you continue to refuse to answer my question. I will assume you do not because you can not

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You still have not answered my question

Is my question that hard? Is that why you will not answer it?

If you continue to refuse to answer my question. I will assume you do not because you can not

“Abomination of Desolation” is supposed to be a one-off historic event committed by Antiochus who set up an image of Zeus in the temple and sacrificed a pig to it, that was THE sacrilegious offense that triggered the Maccabee revolt. Jesus mentioned that both as a scriptural and a historic reference instead of a direct quote. Unless you believe in the dispensationalist version of Third Temple, nobody else ever did that again till the Temple was burned to the ground in 70AD, and nor will it ever happen again since there's no temple to defile. Therefore if Luke translated that as the siege, then so be it. You think Luke 21:20 is a separate event only because you take a reductionist approach.

 

[ewq1938]

“Abomination of Desolation” is supposed to be a one-off historic event committed by Antiochus who set up an image of Zeus in the temple and sacrificed a pig to it, that was THE sacrilegious offense that triggered the Maccabee revolt. Jesus mentioned that both as a scriptural and a historic reference instead of a direct quote. Unless you believe in the dispensationalist version of Third Temple, nobody else ever did that again till the Temple was burned to the ground in 70AD, and nor will it ever happen again since there's no temple to defile. Therefore if Luke translated that as the siege, then so be it. You think Luke 21:20 is a separate event only because you take a reductionist approach.

“Abomination of Desolation” is a one-off future event fulfilled by the antichrist who will cause the Apostasy, which causes an abomination of spiritual desolation in the temple of people ending with them receiving a mark making them apostates and enemies of God and they won't even realize it.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

“Abomination of Desolation” is a one-off future event fulfilled by the antichrist who will cause the Apostasy, which causes an abomination of spiritual desolation in the temple of people ending with them receiving a mark making them apostates and enemies of God and they won't even realize it.

If "they won't even realize it", then how could anybody in Judea see it and flee to the mountains? And according to you, if they could be caught up again like being busted by a SWAT team sent off by the Antichrist, then why bother to flee? Why did Jesus give that instruction? Look, whatever it is, it ain't gonna be "spiritual". Calling it "spiritual" is trivializing it. That's basically the same as calling it a myth or a boogeyman.

 

[ewq1938]

If "they won't even realize it", then how could anybody in Judea see it and flee to the mountains?

The ones of the Apostasy won't realize they are worshiping a false Christ, the others will.

And according to you, if they could be caught up again like being busted by a SWAT team sent off by the Antichrist, then why bother to flee? Why did Jesus give that instruction? Look, whatever it is, it ain't gonna be "spiritual". Calling it "spiritual" is trivializing it. That's basically the same as calling it a myth or a boogeyman.

The antichrist is real, the desolation is spiritual.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The ones of the Apostasy won't realize they are worshiping a false Christ, the others will.

In the first century context, a "false Christ" was a rebel leader who fought against the Romans, and there surely had been a lot of them. Barabbas was actually such as rebel, and the crowd chose him over Jesus. That's about political rebellion, not religious apostasy.

The antichrist is real, the desolation is spiritual.

"By thy PHARMAKEIA all nations are deceived," - Rev. 18:23. That ain't gonna be anything spiritual at all.

 

[ewq1938]

In the first century context, a "false Christ" was a rebel leader who fought against the Romans

That is not what a false Christ is.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That is not what a false Christ is.

Yes it is. Jews in the first century didn't know the difference between the first coming and the second, they were expecting their messiah as another Maccabee or Spartacus figure.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes it is. Jews in the first century didn't know the difference between the first coming and the second, they were expecting their messiah as another Maccabee or Spartacus figure.

A false Christ is a false Messiah. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, and there were many that claimed to be him. If a rebel fighting the Roman's claimed to be the Messiah, he was a false Christ but he wasn't if he did not claim to be the Messiah.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

A false Christ is a false Messiah. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, and there were many that claimed to be him. If a rebel fighting the Roman's claimed to be the Messiah, he was a false Christ but he wasn't if he did not claim to be the Messiah.

"Christ" is "Messiah" in Greek, there's no fundemental difference.

 

[ewq1938]

"Christ" is "Messiah" in Greek, there's no fundemental difference.

I already told you that.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I already told you that.

Then what are you arguing about? If a 1st century zealot rose up as a rebel leader, then he was exalted as a messianic figure, whether he claimed to be one or not. That was the expectation. And still is to many people nowadays.

 

[ewq1938]

Then what are you arguing about? If a 1st century zealot rose up as a rebel leader, then he was exalted as a messianic figure, whether he claimed to be one or not.

Prove it.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Prove it.

Many false Christs will rise.

 

[ewq1938]

Many false Christs will rise.

"Then what are you arguing about? If a 1st century zealot rose up as a rebel leader, then he was exalted as a messianic figure, whether he claimed to be one or not. "


I said prove that.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

"Then what are you arguing about? If a 1st century zealot rose up as a rebel leader, then he was exalted as a messianic figure, whether he claimed to be one or not. "


I said prove that.

"For there will arise false christs, and false prophets, and they will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the chosen ones." - Matt. 24:24

Go read the gospels yourself, the Holy Land was not in short supply of those in the 1st century.

 

[ewq1938]

"Then what are you arguing about? If a 1st century zealot rose up as a rebel leader, then he was exalted as a messianic figure, whether he claimed to be one or not. "

This is false and was made up by you.