Replies

If you read and believe the Holy Scriptures, you know that the 7 year tribulation is very close. Therefore,the admonition stands firm as the time grows short, "Do you know the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, as the Holy Scriptures teach? If not, my friend, place your eternal destiny in His eternal hands. He loves you and wants to save you from the wrath to come. My friend, do you have ears to hear God’s call to you (Rom 10:17, Heb 4:2, Rev 13:9)? Place your trust in Him today. My friend, on the authority of God’s Word you will never be the same!"

bttt

What is the Bibilical reference for the statement: “This Day will commence directly after the Rapture of the Church”?

Hey, Buggman. Took me awhile to find a semi-suitable eschatology thread to host our discussion.

Seems the "Religion Forum" is mostly "Catholic Caucus" threads. Oh, well.

Anyway.....

**********

No, Augustine's cross-reference of Daniel to Luke, which specifically refers to the desolation of Jerusalem, trumps your reference to 2 Thessalonians -- which has no such reference whatsoever.

Hardly. Since Peter was the only recorder of the Olivet Discorse to actually be there for it, Mark's record of Peter's teaching is the most direct word-for-word record. Matthew's follows Mark's, with the only distinctions being that he did not repeat certain warnings that he had already recorded in chapter 10 (propbably a repeated refrain in Yeshua's teachings) and the addition of a couple of parables (chapter 25). The point of all that is that "Abomination of Desolation"--a clear prophetic and historical allusion to the desecration, not destruction, of the Temple--is the original, and the "armies surrounding Jerusalem" was either a deliberate paraphrase or from an earlier, but parallel, prophecy Yeshua had made in the Temple.

Respectfully, I'm not sure what your point is, here. All Scripture is Infallible; so, are you saying that this:

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:

Is "More Infallible" than this:

Luke 21:20 -- And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Because it seems to me that they're equally infallible, and describing the same event (as described by the previously cited selection from Augustine): the Roman destruction of the Temple.

"Luke, to show that the abomination spoken of by Daniel will take place when Jerusalem is captured, recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand (xxi. 20). For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." -- Saint Augustine

Since "Abomination of Desolation" is understood by all to refer to a false god being set up in the very Holy of Holies, it's very obvious to anyone who bothers to cross-reference Scripture-to-Scripture that that's what Paul refers to in 2Thess.

Um, the "abomination of desolation" is not so "understood by all".

Could you perhaps provide the precise Scriptural citation which expressly states that the "abomination of desolation" refers to "a false god being set up in the very Holy of Holies"?

Augustine is not even really wrong per se--he's just incomplete due to his biases and separation from a Jewish perspective. If the question is, "Was Yeshua referring to the destruction of the Second Temple or the defilement of the Third in the Olivet Discourse?" the answer is, "Yes."

Sure -- if one presumes that there will even be a "Third Temple"; but that's assuming your own conclusion. Well, at least if we're thinking of a physical-structure Temple building, that is -- other than the universal membership of the Church as "the Temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), which is the "New Temple" identified in Scripture.

Ergo, I'm not the one with a problem here; you are. I can readily admit that the destruction of the Temple is within the scope of the prophecy while expecting a future, more perfect fulfillment at the time of the Second Coming. I can do so the same way I can admit that Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was within the scope of the prophecy of Isa. 7:14, but still believe that it looked past Maher to Immannuel. In short, I don't reject preterism as the only interpretation of eschatological prophecy because of "literalism." I reject it because if we took preterism's hermeneutic and applied it to the prophecies of the First Coming the way you do to the prophecies of the Second, we'd have to conclude that the Apostles misused the prophetic Scriptures and Yeshua isn't really the Messiah.

Was Maher born of a Virgin?

If not, then he was a typographical parallel at best, not a "near-term fulfillment".

I'm not completely rejecting the "near-far" prophetic hermeneutic here, but I think you've chosen a bad example. (Though I would reserve that I do not think that ALL prophecy recorded in Scripture necessarily has a "near-far" dual application; I think that is true of some of the Incarnation-related prophecies at most).

Care to try a different example, or clarify your initial one for my benefit?

Thanks.

Best, CC