The double-standards of the preterist and why I left that system

[GaryA]

But the Abomination of Desolation (AoD) disciples are warned to flee after they see the AoD set up. If this referred to the desecration of the temple by the Roman standard entering its precincts, that happened well after the siege had been put in place, and it would be too late for the disciples to flee.

From https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-be-in-the-future.200137/page-29#post-4603180 (discussion was focused on Matthew 24:15):

Verses 16-20 comprise the instructions that the Jew-Christians were to follow according to the recognition of what is being illustrated in verse 15.

'When ye therefore shall see...'

[then]

'follow these instructions'

(And don't waste any time doing it.)

There was a three-year seige before the Romans took the city and destroyed the temple.

The Jew-Christians followed the instructions before/as the seige began.

What did they 'see' - before/as the seige began - three years before the temple was ever touched or destroyed - that they instantly recognized as being what was illustrated in verse 15?

hint:

( whoso readeth, let him understand: )

~

What they saw was exactly what is described in the Luke account.

And, it was precisely that that they were warned to flee when they saw it.

There was no AoD circa 70 A.D. - before, during, or after the siege.

 

[PaulThomson]

The AoD has happened - back in 167 B.C.

What do you understand the following to mean?

Luke 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

what does "the times of the gentiles" mean? And when was/will it be completed?

 

[PaulThomson]

From https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-be-in-the-future.200137/page-29#post-4603180 (discussion was focused on Matthew 24:15):

Verses 16-20 comprise the instructions that the Jew-Christians were to follow according to the recognition of what is being illustrated in verse 15.

'When ye therefore shall see...'

[then]

'follow these instructions'

(And don't waste any time doing it.)

There was a three-year seige before the Romans took the city and destroyed the temple.

The Jew-Christians followed the instructions before/as the seige began.

What did they 'see' - before/as the seige began - three years before the temple was ever touched or destroyed - that they instantly recognized as being what was illustrated in verse 15?

hint:

( whoso readeth, let him understand: )

~

What they saw was exactly what is described in the Luke account.

And, it was precisely that that they were warned to flee when they saw it.

There was no AoD circa 70 A.D. - before, during, or after the siege.

Sorry Gary, but your response is to circumlocutory for me to understand your points.

 

[GaryA]

What do you understand the following to mean?

Luke 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

This is referring to the events of circa 70 A.D. and its aftermath.

what does "the times of the gentiles" mean? And when was/will it be completed?

The 'Times of the Gentiles' will continue until the Second Coming of Christ.

For a more complete explanation of 'Times of the Jews'/'Times of the Gentiles', read the discussion on this web page:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html

 

[GaryA]

Sorry Gary, but your response is to circumlocutory for me to understand your points.

It is actually pretty simple...

You are on the right track when you say this:

If this referred to the desecration of the temple by the Roman standard entering its precincts, that happened well after the siege had been put in place, and it would be too late for the disciples to flee.

There could not possibly have been an AoD - that people saw and then fled the city - if the AoD occurred 3 years after the starting point of the siege.

You are correct in that it would have been way too late for them to flee.

However, this is incorrect:

But the Abomination of Desolation (AoD) disciples are warned to flee after they see the AoD set up.

They were not warned to flee after they see an AoD 'event'/'incident'.

They were warned to flee when they saw what-happened-at-the-real-actual-AoD (in 167 B.C.) happen again.

The idea that the Matthew and Mark accounts of the Olivet Discourse predict a future AoD is a misinterpretation of scripture - that is not what it is saying. It is only making reference to a past event (167 B.C.) to illustrate a mental picture that the Jews would understand very well.

The key in understanding this is the parenthetical phrases in the verses that mention the AoD.

Take a look at this:

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/whoso-readeth-let-him-understand.192848/

 

[GaryA]

Read post #48 in this thread.

 

[GaryA]

Sorry Gary, but your response is to circumlocutory for me to understand your points.

Funny that you used that word considering its meaning...

 

[GaryA]

The point of post #301 is pretty-much summed up in the last statement of that post.

 

[PaulThomson]

This is referring to the events of circa 70 A.D. and its aftermath.


The 'Times of the Gentiles' will continue until the Second Coming of Christ.

For a more complete explanation of 'Times of the Jews'/'Times of the Gentiles', read the discussion on this web page:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html

We mostly agree on Dan. 9:24-27, it seems. I also read this passage as a single 70 weeks of years without any parenthetical church age.

However, I note that the Chaldean text does not use the definite article with "messiah" and "prince" in verse 25, so it actually says "until a messiah, a prince" and the word for prince means "one who goes before, a forerunner." So I think this messiah/anointed one and forerunner is John the Baptist.
And when I read v. 26, again "messiah" is indefinite, "a messaih shall be cut off". So, I see this a different messiah, otherwies it would have said "the messiah" referring to the one already mentioned in v. 25. I see this other Messiah as Jesus Christ.
When we come to "the end of v. 26, we read that "the people of a prince the coming (one) shall destroy (hiphil, causative verb form, so, shall cause to destroy the city and the sanctuary" , I think it could be that the people of the coming prince are the people of John the Baptist, the levites, who caused Titus to destroy the city by their continuing blasphemous rejection of the perfect sacrifice of Chrost and continuing to offer cattle for sins.

 

[lrs68]

It is not going to happen [in the future]. It happened one time in 167 B.C. - never to happen again...

There was a sacrifice that happened in 167 B.C. but Jesus in Matthew 24 was speaking about a time that hadn't happened yet.

 

[Hakawaka]

It is actually pretty simple...

You are on the right track when you say this:

There could not possibly have been an AoD - that people saw and then fled the city - if the AoD occurred 3 years after the starting point of the siege.

You are correct in that it would have been way too late for them to flee.

However, this is incorrect:

They were not warned to flee after they see an AoD 'event'/'incident'.

They were warned to flee when they saw what-happened-at-the-real-actual-AoD (in 167 B.C.) happen again.

The idea that the Matthew and Mark accounts of the Olivet Discourse predict a future AoD is a misinterpretation of scripture - that is not what it is saying. It is only making reference to a past event (167 B.C.) to illustrate a mental picture that the Jews would understand very well.

The key in understanding this is the parenthetical phrases in the verses that mention the AoD.

Take a look at this:

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/whoso-readeth-let-him-understand.192848/

I would actually agree with this. Makes sense. Now tell me what 2 Thessalonians 2:4 means. You've been asked by many to explain it, now do your work.

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 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.
2Th 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;
2Th 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, shewing himself that he is God.

What do you believe this temple is? Church? Many protestant's in the past said that the man of sin is the Pope. Do you agree with them? I don't see how it could be anything other than the church if you dont wanna go with the renewed animal sacrifices in some jewish temple

 

[GaryA]

Now tell me what 2 Thessalonians 2:4 means. You've been asked by many to explain it, now do your work.

Did you miss post #80 in this thread?

 

[GaryA]

Many protestant's in the past said that the man of sin is the Pope. Do you agree with them?

I certainly could agree with that quite easily. Sure. It fits.

 

[GaryA]

The issue is - would the Bible call something 'the temple of God' that God did not actually consider to be valid?

Or, are we to assume that the phrase is strictly being used from the perspective of the son of perdition?

With the exception of the phrase 'the temple of God', the verse as a whole certainly makes sense as fitting into a future-time event. But we know that - the moment "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" (Mark 15:38) - there could no longer be a legitimate 'the temple of God' in the form of a physical building/structure. The only valid answer to this phrase would seem to have to be "in the abstract" somehow and not referring to an actual physical building/structure of any kind.

I am thinking that verse 4 must be "in the abstract" and/or from the perspective of the son of perdition.

Meaning - the words "the temple of God" are not actually describing a real accepted valid physical temple of God - but rather, something that the 'son of perdition' would call "the temple of God" in the context of the overall description in verse 4.

2 Thessalonians:

1 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, shewing himself that he is God.

I say this because I can find no biblical justification for there to be a "the temple of God" - one that God accepts as valid - at any time after the resurrection of Jesus - and, the prophecy certainly seems to be future to us - but, before the Second Coming of Christ.

In the context of the thread topic - these questions are raised:

~ Who was the 'son of perdition' in the past?

~ When did he claim to be God? And, what temple did he sit in when doing so?

~ When did the Second Coming of Christ occur? And, why did all of the other things scripture indicates will occur when He comes not occur when He came?

 

[Hakawaka]

I am thinking that verse 4 must be "in the abstract" and/or from the perspective of the son of perdition.

Meaning - the words "the temple of God" are not actually describing a real accepted valid physical temple of God - but rather, something that the 'son of perdition' would call "the temple of God" in the context of the overall description in verse 4.

2 Thessalonians:

1 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, shewing himself that he is God.

I say this because I can find no biblical justification for there to be a "the temple of God" - one that God accepts as valid - at any time after the resurrection of Jesus - and, the prophecy certainly seems to be future to us - but, before the Second Coming of Christ.

In the context of the thread topic - these questions are raised:

~ Who was the 'son of perdition' in the past?

~ When did he claim to be God? And, what temple did he sit in when doing so?

~ When did the Second Coming of Christ occur? And, why did all of the other things scripture indicates will occur when He comes not occur when He came?

Now this I agree with completely. Maybe it is the way you say, but what would the man of sin consider the temple of God, any suggestions?

 

[PaulThomson]

Now this I agree with completely. Maybe it is the way you say, but what would the man of sin consider the temple of God, any suggestions?

I think he would love to persuade large numbers of the church, which happens to be a temple, that He is Christ returned.

 

[GaryA]

Now this I agree with completely. Maybe it is the way you say, but what would the man of sin consider the temple of God, any suggestions?

Anything that would help him convince the world that he was God.

 

[PaulThomson]

It is actually pretty simple...

You are on the right track when you say this:

There could not possibly have been an AoD - that people saw and then fled the city - if the AoD occurred 3 years after the starting point of the siege.

You are correct in that it would have been way too late for them to flee.

However, this is incorrect:

They were not warned to flee after they see an AoD 'event'/'incident'.

They were warned to flee when they saw what-happened-at-the-real-actual-AoD (in 167 B.C.) happen again.

The idea that the Matthew and Mark accounts of the Olivet Discourse predict a future AoD is a misinterpretation of scripture - that is not what it is saying. It is only making reference to a past event (167 B.C.) to illustrate a mental picture that the Jews would understand very well.

The key in understanding this is the parenthetical phrases in the verses that mention the AoD.

Take a look at this:

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/whoso-readeth-let-him-understand.192848/

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand (ἑστός , perfect active participle, having stood) in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing (ἑστός , perfect active participle, having stood) where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

The Greek here indicates that the church/disciples will see the Abomination of Desolation having stood (i.e. stood and remaining stood) where it ought not. This is seeing the Abomination of Desolation after it stands in the temple.
I do not think this can be taken as "see similar events that happened before the Abomination of Desolation of the 2nd century had stood where it ought not.

The more likely interpretation, it seems to me, is that this is an example of telescoping prophecy: a prophecy that is fulfilled more than once in history. Another example of this is the prophecy about the child called Emmanuel by his mother and Maher-shalal-hashbaz by Isaiah. Fulfilled once before the death of two kings, in a conception that occurred on the virgin's wedding night , and again in the conception of Jesus by a virgin who remained a virgin even after the conception.

 

[GaryA]

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand (ἑστός , perfect active participle, having stood) in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing (ἑστός , perfect active participle, having stood) where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

The Greek here indicates that the church/disciples will see the Abomination of Desolation having stood (i.e. stood and remaining stood) where it ought not. This is seeing the Abomination of Desolation after it stands in the temple.
I do not think this can be taken as "see similar events that happened before the Abomination of Desolation of the 2nd century had stood where it ought not.

The more likely interpretation, it seems to me, is that this is an example of telescoping prophecy: a prophecy that is fulfilled more than once in history. Another example of this is the prophecy about the child called Emmanuel by his mother and Maher-shalal-hashbaz by Isaiah. Fulfilled once before the death of two kings, in a conception that occurred on the virgin's wedding night , and again in the conception of Jesus by a virgin who remained a virgin even after the conception.

Please read posts #41 - #47 on this page:

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/context-context-context.210987/page-3#post-5079550

 

[PaulThomson]

And the first rule of hermenuetics it has to be understood through the audience to whom it was stated and it has meaning to the primary audience.

This is not correct. Prophecies are not always understood correctly by those recording them and hearing them at the time they are given.

1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

It is not unusual for God to speak a message aimed at future generations in language that is ambiguous or cryptic to His present audience and misunderstood by them. If Jesus says "this generation" referring to the generation seeing all these things including the AoD standing where it ought not, but his hearers misunderstood Him to be saying their own generation, that is a misunderstanding God allows to happen in the present. Jesus spoke of people eating his flesh and drinking His blood, but he did not mean what his present audience thought he was saying. Many Christians understood Jesus as predicting his imminent return, but it has been 2000 years. Contemporaries of John had thought Jesus was predicting His return within John's lifetime, but they were wrong.

I think your suggested rule of thumb should not be assumed to be universally true?