Has the second coming occurred already?

[Katy-follower]

Preterism depends on Jerusalem being the whore mentioned. But one thing they overlook.....


Rev 17:4: "The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls"

("The color for bishops and other prelates is purple, for cardinals scarlet... the prectoral cross should be made of gold and decorated with gems" (Our Sunday visitor's Catholic encyclopedia, 1991, pg 175,178,466)


Jerusalem does not fit because there were 4 colors given by God, to be worn by the priests in Israel - gold, blue, purple and scarlet (Exodus 28). This color blue is not mentioned in Rev 17:4, therefore it cannot be Jerusalem.

Numbers 15:37-40: Again the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel: Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners. And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined, and that you may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy for your God"

 

[Jimbone]

Keep dreaming pal....you called me out on nothing and you are a joke.....the above reeks of a lack of honesty and false allegation and assumption....everyone is always childish but YOU hahahahahahahahhahhahah what a joke!

I like you too...just not your double standard!

Wow okay, I'm truly sorry you feel that way. I'll leave you alone.

 

[EleventhHour]

Rev 17:4: "The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls"

("The color for bishops and other prelates is purple, for cardinals scarlet... the prectoral cross should be made of gold and decorated with gems" (Our Sunday visitor's Catholic encyclopedia, 1991, pg 175,178,466)

Rome has had the scriptures for a long time.... I am sure the Jesuits were well aware and well studied in the Book of Revelations, it becomes almost too contrived how well the Roman Catholic Church has made itself into the whore of Babylon.

Dave Hunt popularized this interpretation, I guess he was thinking that the Jesuits were a bunch of dummies.

Sometimes people play the whore/harlot but they are not really the harlot.

 

[Jimbone]

So you believe Titus is a man of sin or the second beast or first beast in rev 13.

I don't share this believe.

1. After antichrist Will follow Jesus appear in the sky and every one see

2. Than Jesus reign for 1000 years from mount Olive and after Titus this is Bot happen

So your dilema about temple must be build for God, not for antichrist.

Did you believe that temple that destroy by Titus build for Titus? Or for God?

See I knew you'd use this to skirt my question. It's all you can do is pick apart what I'm bold enough to put out there, but sorry to put it so harsh, but it seems you're too scared to address, stand on, and examine your beliefs. I'm not calling you a coward at all in any way, please understand that, but I think this is cowardly tactic. The same one Muslims and atheist use often in debate, deflect and never clearly state or stand on your beliefs at all for any reason, then change topics and pick apart the others beliefs.

You ask "So your dilema about temple must be build for God, not for antichrist."

No my problem is it must by God's temple that is desecrated. That is what I believe the text to clearly state about this event. before I asked this I never even saw this questioned. Just like me I never thought any deeper about the idea of a 3rd temple until He opened my eyes to it. The temples purpose has been fulfilled, even the idea of going backwards to it does not make sense at all when thinking about how God is. He leaves things half done until later? He sits down at the right hand in glory to take a brief rest before the final stretch? No He is seated in ALL victory right now!!!

If the "anti-Christ", builds a temple, frankly so what? It can not be "desecrated" if it was never holy, right? If it was never His? Of coarse they can set up a mockery, a deception to deceive, but it's God's temple that the AoD takes place in clearly in scripture, at least in my opinion. Again, I've never even heard it questioned that it happens in "THE" holy temple of the one true God, before I started bringing up this issue.

Okay fresh start here, I already said I assume I'm wrong, you win, you've lead me to truth. Now I'm thinking about your story here and I have this problem with the whole idea of a 3rd temple, convince me of what I'm missing, where am I getting it wrong? Forget about Titus and preterism, stupid ideas both, please teach me what you know that allows for this 3rd temple to be built. Thank you.

 

[Dino246]

So no answer? Preterist or pre-trib premillenial?

Fallacy: false dichotomy. I'm not interested in playing your game.

 

[cv5]

If Jesus said so clearly, you should be able to provide some scriptural support.

He did say to Jerusalem "For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
Math 23:39

Until........... indicates he will return under the right circumstances.

That is clear definitive statement by our Lord Himself. I hope and pray that those souls who still do not comprehend the soon return of the Lord, first to rapture His Church in the air, then to the earth when Israel acknowledges their offense (Hos 5:15) will receive the truth of the matter. When comparing Scripture with Scripture the preterist view utterly fails.

 

[cv5]

Fallacy: false dichotomy. I'm not interested in playing your game.

Just curious man...no need to get upset. I myself am a fully convinced pre-trib rapture/premillenialist and utterly reject any notions of replacement theology.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Just curious man...no need to get upset. I myself am a fully convinced pre-trib rapture/premillenialist and utterly reject any notions of replacement theology.

So does he reject it.. Not sure why you could not see that from his posts.

 

[Dino246]

Just curious man...no need to get upset. I myself am a fully convinced pre-trib rapture/premillenialist and utterly reject any notions of replacement theology.

I am investigating the matter, and don't hold to any view at this time. I strongly dislike labels, because people utterly dismiss others who wear different ones: "Oh, you're a (....) so nothing you have to say can possibly be correct." Sadly, this forum frequently exemplifies that behaviour.

If I misread your intent, I offer my apology.

 

[garee]

Some sects of Christianity believe that Christ’s second coming had already occurred. This is in conjunction with the Olivet Discourse and specifically with chapter 24 from Matthew’s Gospel(Christ returned around 70 AD prior to the destruction of Jerusalem). Is there validation to any of this? Is there any historical evidence to support such? Has the revelation of Christs second coming being a future event based on tradition and misinterpretation? Is Preterism correct?

Thoughts?

I would offer we must be careful how we hear or say we hear. The seed snatcher accuses day and night .

I would not call it second coming. Wherever of when that idea came from?

I see it more like reappearing.

If I not go the comforter will not come. This simply shows we cannot serve two Masters . The temporal flesh seen and the eternal Holy Spirit not seen . I would say at Pentecost he reappeared as tongue of fire to show his unseen approval the Holy Spirit took over, as the promised the greater works .

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Because he did go to the father. Three thousand souls the promised greater work were saved by the hearing of faith .

Greater work in number of souls than that which Jesus as the Son of man performed. Not greater as a kind of work . Salvation is the greatest.

.Jesus hid many times from that kind of glory. The Son of man was a representative glory.

When accused of being Good Master. Jesus replied one is Good. The father not seen God.

Mark 10:17-19 King James Version (KJV) And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

The teaching in Mathew 23 seems to agree .

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.And call "no man" your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.Mathew 23

God who hides himself teaching us to walk by faith the unseen eternal .

John 8:59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

John 12:36While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

 

[Jimbone]

First off, we don't have to guess what the abomination that causes desolation is. We know it happened in history already, when Antiochus Epiphanes sacrificed a pig on the altar, and erected a statue of Zeus. Jesus points to this event in the Olivet discourse. This HAS NOT happened since Antiochus Epiphanes. It ALMOST happened in A.D. 68 I think it was, but it didn't.

And. Who says this temple is going to be God ordained? Israel has been planning for a long time to rebuild the temple.
Of course, for almost 2000 yrs preterists of every stripe said "See! Told you this temple, and Israel, and antichrist, 1000 yr reign stuff was bunk! The nation doesn't exist, and the Jews aren't in the land"..

You would of thought all preterists would have evaporated and admitted they were wrong after May 14th 1948, when David ben Gurion, cited Ezekiel, in declaring the Nation of Israel! But nope. There are just as many now, if not more, than there were then.

Yes I understand why and the answer "Who says this temple is going to be God ordained? Israel has been planning for a long time to rebuild the temple", the bible when Matthew says:
. 15 So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination of desolation,’ described by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand)

In Daniel, that the author here is referring directly to this here:

"Then he will turn back and rage against the holy covenant and do damage. So he will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. 31His forces will rise up and desecrate the temple fortress. They will abolish the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation. 32With flattery he will corrupt those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him."

This is telling me clearly they are speaking of the temple of God, you say "who says God has to ordain it", how can "not Gods temple" be desecrated any more than a dollhouse I declare to be "Gods"? I can't just brush this off as nothing, and before I go any further THANK YOU BROTHER!!!! for answering me this way. I knew when I saw you replied back that it would be actually about what I was asking about. I know, especially with DC, I came across very straight forward and a bit offended by his generalities, but man I wasn't expecting this kind of reaction from people over this one thing. So I as a brother in the Lord, as sincerely as I can possibly mean it, I thank you for just engaging with me about this issue. No matter what I thank you for that.

You said something interesting though "First off, we don't have to guess what the abomination that causes desolation is. We know it happened in history already, when Antiochus Epiphanes sacrificed a pig on the altar, and erected a statue of Zeus. Jesus points to this event in the Olivet discourse. This HAS NOT happened since Antiochus Epiphanes. It ALMOST happened in A.D. 68 I think it was, but it didn't."

I don't exactly understand what you're saying here. I seems like you're saying this happen, almost? When you weight these kinds of things all together with things like Jesus looking those people in the eyes and telling them "Truly I tell you this generation will not pass away before ALL these things take place." does it not makes more sense that it's that simple? Still I don't see how the AoD is possible at all now, unless Gods revelation to us is not complete.

 

[cv5]

If Jesus said so clearly, you should be able to provide some scriptural support.

He did say to Jerusalem "For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
Math 23:39

Until........... indicates he will return under the right circumstances.

Here is arguably yet another rapture verse. I think on the whole it is perfectly valid to see it as such, fitting perfectly with other
rapture-themed verses.

Col 3:1-4
"If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

 

[Dino246]

If I not go the comforter will not come. This simply shows we cannot serve two Masters . The temporal flesh seen and the eternal Holy Spirit not seen .

You're ripping things out of context again. The statement, "You cannot serve two masters" distinguishes between God and money, not between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

When accused of being Good Master. Jesus replied one is Good. The father not seen God.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? A simple "Yes" or "No" will do.

 

[garee]

You're ripping things out of context again. The statement, "You cannot serve two masters" distinguishes between God and money, not between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? A simple "Yes" or "No" will do.

The Bible is a spiritual book the buying and selling has to do with the gospel Not wordily good.

You're ripping things out the spiritual understanding in those parables. That parable you are speaking of applies to power using the temporal things seen ($) to represent the other heavenly unseen ( ) . Scripture is clear. One is our good Master, God. . represented by two .The one unseen the master as lord. . . called walking by faith.

Yes, Jesus the Christ is God or Jehovah. Almighty God who has also become our savior.

 

[Dino246]

The Bible is a spiritual book the buying and selling has to do with the gospel Not wordily good.

The Bible is indeed a spiritual book, and most of the things it discusses are physical in nature. The context of serving two masters is crystal clear: it's talking about literal money, not "the gospel".

You're ripping things out the spiritual understanding in those parables.

Instead of an empty and meaningless retort, try a reasonable response and address the issue I addressed.

That parable you are speaking of

It's not a parable.

applies to power using the temporal things seen ($) to represent the other heavenly unseen ( ) . Scripture is clear.

Yes, Scripture is clear, and is clearly talking about literal money. The fact that money also represents the world is secondary, not primary. Further, it is NOT talking about a distinction between Jesus and the Holy Spirit... AT ALL.

Yes, Jesus the Christ is God or Jehovah. Almighty God who has also become our savior.

Good. Then stop implying that He isn't.

 

[Jackson123]

See I knew you'd use this to skirt my question. It's all you can do is pick apart what I'm bold enough to put out there, but sorry to put it so harsh, but it seems you're too scared to address, stand on, and examine your beliefs. I'm not calling you a coward at all in any way, please understand that, but I think this is cowardly tactic. The same one Muslims and atheist use often in debate, deflect and never clearly state or stand on your beliefs at all for any reason, then change topics and pick apart the others beliefs.

You ask "So your dilema about temple must be build for God, not for antichrist."

No my problem is it must by God's temple that is desecrated. That is what I believe the text to clearly state about this event. before I asked this I never even saw this questioned. Just like me I never thought any deeper about the idea of a 3rd temple until He opened my eyes to it. The temples purpose has been fulfilled, even the idea of going backwards to it does not make sense at all when thinking about how God is. He leaves things half done until later? He sits down at the right hand in glory to take a brief rest before the final stretch? No He is seated in ALL victory right now!!!

If the "anti-Christ", builds a temple, frankly so what? It can not be "desecrated" if it was never holy, right? If it was never His? Of coarse they can set up a mockery, a deception to deceive, but it's God's temple that the AoD takes place in clearly in scripture, at least in my opinion. Again, I've never even heard it questioned that it happens in "THE" holy temple of the one true God, before I started bringing up this issue.

Okay fresh start here, I already said I assume I'm wrong, you win, you've lead me to truth. Now I'm thinking about your story here and I have this problem with the whole idea of a 3rd temple, convince me of what I'm missing, where am I getting it wrong? Forget about Titus and preterism, stupid ideas both, please teach me what you know that allows for this 3rd temple to be built. Thank you.

So your question is

If the temple build by antichrist why It call Holy.?

Hindu People call Holy to the Hindu temple.

Just because people call It Holy doesn't mean It is Holy.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Preterism depends on Jerusalem being the whore mentioned. But one thing they overlook.....


Rev 17:4: "The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls"

("The color for bishops and other prelates is purple, for cardinals scarlet... the prectoral cross should be made of gold and decorated with gems" (Our Sunday visitor's Catholic encyclopedia, 1991, pg 175,178,466)


Jerusalem does not fit because there were 4 colors given by God, to be worn by the priests in Israel - gold, blue, purple and scarlet (Exodus 28). This color blue is not mentioned in Rev 17:4, therefore it cannot be Jerusalem.

Numbers 15:37-40: Again the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel: Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners. And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined, and that you may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy for your God"

Rome doesn't fit either.

 

[Jimbone]

So your question is

If the temple build by antichrist why It call Holy.?

Hindu People call Holy to the Hindu temple.

Just because people call It Holy doesn't mean It is Holy.

That's absolutely right, and is a HUGE part of my point. The only way it can be "Gods holy temple" is if God directly orders it built. Has He given such an order that you know of? If you know please share.

You:
So your question is

"If the temple build by antichrist why It call Holy?"

Me: No that is not my question at all, my question is if the AoD happens in Gods holy temple as it says in Daniel and Revelation, and if Gods temple is gone, and He hasn't ordered another one built by now, now at the point when we are told NOTHING should be added to His word, how on earth can there even be a 3rd temple if He hasn't commanded it built. You are right and if a bunch of Jews decide to build a temple and call it "gods", it makes it no more holy than the Hindu temple. See my point yet?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Rome doesn't fit either.

The Catholic Church fits.. In fact when Johnn gives us all the characteristics of the harlot. The Catholic Church can fulfill every one of them,

But that does not mean it is her. Its just a guess

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So your question is

If the temple build by antichrist why It call Holy.?

Hindu People call Holy to the Hindu temple.

Just because people call It Holy doesn't mean It is Holy.

The temple is not built by the antichrist, He abomination the temple. Not builds it. Who thinks it is built by the antichrist?