You don't think that there's going to be a future Anti-Christ and False Prophet in the land before God/Jesus returns?
The Bible says there will be.
--
Replacement theology? Yes or No.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You don't think that there's going to be a future Anti-Christ and False Prophet in the land before God/Jesus returns?
The Bible says there will be.
--
You assume that Jesus is King of the Jews......now?
And He is ruling the nations (גּוֹיִם, gôyim) with a rod of iron.....now?
Well, I for one don't think that you do. Nor anyone else on this thread either.
I think that you are faking it and so are they, and are intent on denying the doctrine of the Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel.
Among other denials of biblical doctrine and covenants like the millennial reign and Davidic covenant.
Who knows what he is. He is not in any rush to come into the light and expose his form of doctrine is he?
Nor is @Cameron143 ......its as if it is a closely guarded Gnostic secret.
I think you misunderstand those verses. When all are living in the land during the Millennial Kingdom period, Jesus will be ruling over them with a rod of iron. Anyone trying to prophesy of something new and against things already made known (God/Jesus), will immediately be cut off from the kingdom.
--
The middle wall of partition and "one new man" is strictly a CHURCH AGE phenomenon.
You reject this doctrine despite it being unequivocally proven over and over again.
This will NOT be in play during the millennium. Quite the contrary in fact.
Realize that even THEY don't know what they are. Go ahead and ask. They either will not say (Gnostic secrecy prevents this) or it will be an inchoate unbiblical pot luck of various heresies will a little Jesus seasoning sprinkled on top to make it more palatable the unwary when selling it.
I am not saying that none of this has any relevance other than its immediate fulfillment.
My point is that all of it is far less supportive of the future millennial reign doctrine than it is cracked up to be.
God's hand was against nations that came against Jerusalem in a mighty way during the second temple restoration, or it would not have been possible.
Don't forget he also destroyed Babylon and the Agagites that came against the captives in Persia (book of Esther).
So what happened to the Grecian empire, and the Northern kingdom of Antiochus Epiphanes?
And the tribes of Meshech and Tubal and Magog that used to reside there, where are they now?
Interesting language in 12:10, but Israel had need of repentance in the restoration, because they had done God much wrong.
The fact that "pieced" is in the sentence does not prove that Jesus had been born first.
Sin and uncleanness (13:1) together with judgement forgiveness and mercy were all things that existed in the OT too.
Yes, 13:9 looks forward to Jesus, as does ch, 14.
Don't ask me to comment too much on ch.14, because it contains metaphor that flummoxes dispensationalist minds, and in some cases my own.
"Preterist" sounds like a bad word when you say it in the same tone of voice as "predator' or "heretic".
I remember when I thought the pope was the antichrist and people called me a "historicist" and expected me to believe a whole lot of things that came with the package.
The first time I saw a connection between the destruction of Jerusalem and Revelation was the first time I got called a "preterist".
I wonder if people who think that John never spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem ever consider that silence to be strange.
yes, I have considered that.
If Jerusalem's destruction was as significant as Jesus described in Matthew 24, then it is reasonable to ask whether John refers to it somewhere in Revelation.
The question, however, is not whether there is any connection, but whether Revelation is exhausted by that event.
Scripture itself forces me to wrestle with both possibilities.
On one hand, Revelation speaks of a city "where also our Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8), and many see clear judgment themes that could relate to Jerusalem.
On the other hand, Revelation also speaks of the beast, the kings of the earth gathered against Christ, Satan's final rebellion, the Great White Throne, the destruction of death itself, and the new heaven and new earth.
Those themes appear to extend beyond the events of AD 70.
So I do not find it strange to ask whether Jerusalem's fall appears in Revelation.
What I find difficult is restricting the entire book to that event when later chapters contain realities that Scripture elsewhere presents as still future.
The real question is not whether John spoke of Jerusalem's destruction at all, but whether that destruction was one part of a larger prophetic picture that ultimately culminates in the final victory of Christ over all His enemies.
Well you had better find out where your fantasy falls short of biblical reality.
Well, I'm not the one who created the term, "Preterist", so I'm not using it any particular tone of voice.
There are still many people today who believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, which WaynesNO and I spoke about earlier in this thread. That's been going on since the 1500's. We can all speculate on who it is, but we won't know until he arrives. I'm not sure why anyone would call someone purely a "historicist" for that, but everyone looks at it differently.
I think as you've seen from our previous discussions, that there are indeed past events and future events listed in all of the prophetic books, many people haven't recognized that fact yet. So, that doesn't make you a full Preterist unless you don't believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, but I think you do.
