Page 4 of 41 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 610

Thread: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,768

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    You would have an argument IF the Book of Revelation was CHRONOLOGICAL. But it is not. It is a description of events surrounding the REVEALING (Apokalypsis) of our Lord Jesus. For instance the Kingdoms of this earth become the property of our LOrd Jesus already by Chapter11. But the battle that causes this take-over is in Chapter 19. The Seals ARE the Wrath of God (Rev.6:17). Their opening is the start of God's wrath, and the contents of the Seals casts men and the earth into Tribulation.
    But I don't take the book of Revelation to be chronological to begin with, meaning from start to finish. If I did, that would mean I would have to place the time of the 6th seal prior to the time of the beast in Rev 13, but I don't though. How could I have an argument if Revelation was chronological? I think you have it backwards here. I have an argument because Revelation isn't chronological.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The 1290 days is in the resurrection context of Daniel 12. End times context.

    The half seven in Daniel 9 ends with an end to sin in Jerusalem. End times context.
    Actually, I can see where you come to that conclusion. I don't agree with it, but I understand. But back to the *explicit theology* thing.

    I base my theology on explicit theology, and not just inferences. Nowhere is the 1290 days directly linked to the resurrection. The reference is simply in the *same chapter* as the resurrection.

    My own take is that Dan 12 summarizes the two major future prophecies in the book of Daniel, the prophecy of Antiochus 4 and the prophecy of the period of Antichrist's rule. Dan 12.7 is distinct and separate from Dan 12.11. One is a "time, times, and half a time," whereas the other is 1290 days and 1335 days. One is about the Antichrist, and the other is about Antiochus 4. This fits history, and it also eliminates connecting the 1290 days with the endtimes. It is, however, still a future significant event for Daniel's people in his time.

    However you look at it, the 1290 days is indeed connected to the AoD. But we already know the AoD is connected to Antiochus 4, and not to the Antichrist (Dan 11.31). Nothing in Dan 7, where we read about Antichrist, is there reference to an AoD. So as far as any of us knows, the AoD is not necessarily connected to Antichrist.

    So the question is, is there any definitive link of the AoD to Antichrist or to the Roman desolation? I would argue that there is nothing that definitively links the AoD to Antichrist, except your reference to Dan 12.11, which is a questionable link. But that the AoD is definitively linked to the Roman desolation, I think that is beyond question. We see that definitive link in Dan 9.26-27.

    The link of the Roman desolation to the AoD in Dan 9.26-27 connects the AoD not just to Antiochus 4, but also to the Roman desolation. Again, there is nothing that definitively links the AoD to the Antichrist. The only passage that clearly identifies the Antichrist is Dan 7, where there is absolutely *no* AoD mentioned. And I think that is significant.

    So if we can say that Antiochus and his AoD prefigures Antichrist, fine. But that does not mean the Antichrist is THE AoD, or the fulfillment of the AoD. As far as I can see, the only explicit theology we have on the subject makes the AoD a phenomenon associated with Antiochus 4 and Titus. There is no such event associated with the Antichrist in any biblical theology. Not even Antichrist taking his seat in the temple of God, in 2 Thes 2, is called an AoD.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Both involve 3.5 years. Furthermore the last section of Daniel 11 also leads up to the resurrection, showing overlaps between the boastful leader of Daniel 11 with the abomination period of Daniel 12. Logical deduction.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    I stopped reading in paragraph 2 because I have no idea what you are referring to when you say Paul spoke of "gathering the elect". To claim a scriptural point WITHOUT providing the scripture is a point unworthy of consideration. The rest of your "points #3,#4" are... pointless. [I labeled your points just for referencing].

    Blessings
    The PuP
    Matt 24.31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

    Jesus here referred to "gathering the elect." I'm making the logical deduction that Paul is referring to Jesus in this Discourse. I do not make this inference without merit. Paul refers to a number of elements that are contained in Jesus' Olivet Discourse in his two letters to the Thessalonians.

    Specifically, when Paul says in 2 Thes 2 that "concerning the coming of the Lord and our being *gathered to him,* " the assumption has to be made that Christians would naturally refer back to what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives.

    To utilize this legitimate deduction as a reason to exclude all my points seems a decision to stick by your guns at any cost. Why? Don't we want to know what Jesus taught? Or is what you believe more important?

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,768

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Matt 24.31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

    Jesus here referred to "gathering the elect." I'm making the logical deduction that Paul is referring to Jesus in this Discourse. I do not make this inference without merit. Paul refers to a number of elements that are contained in Jesus' Olivet Discourse in his two letters to the Thessalonians.

    Specifically, when Paul says in 2 Thes 2 that "concerning the coming of the Lord and our being *gathered to him,* " the assumption has to be made that Christians would naturally refer back to what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives.
    Why are you allowed to make logical deductions when it seems to suit your theology, but whenever others also make logical deductions which don't suit your theology, now all of a sudden making logical deductions is not a good idea? Case in point, 2 Thess 2 and the man of sin involves the GT. You seem to think not because a GT is not even mentioned in that chapter.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Actually, I can see where you come to that conclusion. I don't agree with it, but I understand. But back to the *explicit theology* thing.


    I base my theology on explicit theology, and not just inferences. Nowhere is the 1290 days directly linked to the resurrection. The reference is simply in the *same chapter* as the resurrection.

    My own take is that Dan 12 summarizes the two major future prophecies in the book of Daniel, the prophecy of Antiochus 4 and the prophecy of the period of Antichrist's rule. Dan 12.7 is distinct and separate from Dan 12.11. One is a "time, times, and half a time," whereas the other is 1290 days and 1335 days. One is about the Antichrist, and the other is about Antiochus 4. This fits history, and it also eliminates connecting the 1290 days with the endtimes. It is, however, still a future significant event for Daniel's people in his time.


    However, you look at it, the 1290 days is indeed connected to the AoD. But we already know the AoD is connected to Antiochus 4, and not to the Antichrist. Nothing in Dan 7, where we read about Antichrist, is there reference to an AoD. So as far as any of us knows, the AoD is not necessarily connected to Antichrist.


    So the question is, is there any definitive link of the AoD to Antichrist or to the Roman desolation? I would argue that there is nothing that definitively links the AoD to Antichrist, except your reference to Dan 12.11, which is a questionable link. But that the AoD is definitively linked to the Roman desolation, I think that is beyond question. We see that definitive link in Dan 9.26-27..
    Thanks for realising I had some logic behind placing the abomination 3.5 years before the end of this age. Which is incidentally the exact same moment that the antichrist comes to power , who rules for 42 months according to Rev 13. And is also the exact same period of Satan's wrath on earth as per Rev 12.

    Now you claim that the 1290 days are not necessarily directly related to the resurrection mentioned earlier in the chapter. I say you can read anything you want in the Bible. Anything is possible with an often vague symbolic prophetic book. But seriously when you read Daniel 12 it speaks of the events leading up to the culmination of this age. After this dramatic description of the resurrection a specific question is asked: how long will it be? The same answer is given twice, 3.5 years.
    A time, times and half a time
    1290 days

    Sure, read anything you want into the text, I see the resurrection, then the angel gives precise timing. Even if you disagree, you can never again claim that the association of the abomination with the end times is some myth. In fact it is the prima facie starting point leading up to the resurrection of Daniel 12. Very little in prophecy is explicit, what you see as explicit I may just see as failing even implicitly.


    As for your repeated reference to Antiochus and his association with the AOD. Sure in Daniel 8 and 11. But Daniel 9 and 12 are both in end times context and both have a 3.5 year association. Daniel 8 rather mentions 2300 evenings and mornings, NOT 3.5 years. Maccabees confirms this precise period connected to Antiochus.

    As for the Roman destruction of Jerusalem mentioned in Daniel 9:26 , yes it is mentioned before the final seven even starts. Nothing there associates the later abomination with the earlier Roman destruction. Not only that the 490 years and therefore the last 3.5 years of the 490 years are associated with an end to sin in Jerusalem. ie end times context.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Why are you allowed to make logical deductions when it seems to suit your theology, but whenever others also make logical deductions which don't suit your theology, now all of a sudden making logical deductions is not a good idea? Case in point, 2 Thess 2 and the man of sin involves the GT. You seem to think not because a GT is not even mentioned in that chapter.
    Oh, I don't know. It just seems "logical" that I would make the right choice, and not you. Not! What I'm saying, David, is that inferences hold no weight without explicit doctrine. Sometimes "explicit" comes with some thinking. If I say something *is* a duck, that is explicit doctrine. But if I say something "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, an quacks like a duck," is that explicitly a reference to a duck? I think so. You have to make a choice to believe something is explicit at some point.

    In our case, Paul references the coming of the Lord, and our gathering to him. Is this a reference to the Olivet Discourse? I would have to say, using my own judgment, that it is. And that's because we only have so many references to go by, in the tradition of Christian doctrine. We have the Son of Man coming from the clouds of heaven in Dan 7. And then we have Jesus referring to himself as the Son of Man who is coming on the clouds of heaven. Finally, we have Paul referring to what he viewed as common knowledge, the coming of the Lord to gather the Church. How is this not an explicit reference to Jesus' teaching on the subject in the Olivet Discourse?

    Actually, Paul's reference here seems to be to a combination of two references, the Olivet Discourse and Dan 7. Both talk about the Son of Man coming back to deliver his people. We may therefore conclude that the reason the Son of Man is coming back to gather his people is to save his people from the Antichrist's persecution. This is not said, however, in the Olivet Discourse--only in Dan 7. On the other hand, the Olivet Discourse directly references Dan 9, where the AoD is identified, not as Antichrist, but as the Roman desolation.

    2 Thes 2 does *not* reference the Great Tribulation. It only talks about the exploits of Antichrist--his deceptions and satanic ways. It is an apostasy that is to *precede* the coming of Christ for his Church. Where in this is a "Great Tribulation" mentioned? Nowhere! It has to be assumed to be the case, if you want to believe it, because nowhere is the Reign of Antichrist directly associated with a "great tribulation," nor are the things associated with the Antichrist directly associated with the same things having to do with the Great Tribulation.

    The things associated with the Great Tribulation are mentioned in Luke 21, and only have to do with the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and in the Jewish Dispersion following. Therefore, the Great Tribulation has *nothing* to do with the Antichrist, but only with the Jewish Diaspora in the NT era.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Thanks for realising I had some logic behind placing the abomination 3.5 years before the end of this age. Which is incidentally the exact same moment that the antichrist comes to power , who rules for 42 months according to Rev 13. And is also the exact same period of Satan's wrath on earth as per Rev 12.

    Now you claim that the 1290 days are not necessarily directly related to the resurrection mentioned earlier in the chapter. I say you can read anything you want in the Bible. Anything is possible with an often vague symbolic prophetic book. But seriously when you read Daniel 12 it speaks of the events leading up to the culmination of this age. After this dramatic description of the resurrection a specific question is asked: how long will it be? The same answer is given twice, 3.5 years.
    A time, times and half a time
    1290 days

    Sure, read anything you want into the text, I see the resurrection, then the angel gives precise timing. Even if you disagree, you can never again claim that the association of the abomination with the end times is some myth. In fact it is the prima facie starting point leading up to the resurrection of Daniel 12. Very little in prophecy is explicit, what you see as explicit I may just see as failing even implicitly.


    As for your repeated reference to Antiochus and his association with the AOD. Sure in Daniel 8 and 11. But Daniel 9 and 12 are both in end times context and both have a 3.5 year association. Daniel 8 rather mentions 2300 evenings and mornings, NOT 3.5 years. Maccabees confirms this precise period connected to Antiochus.

    As for the Roman destruction of Jerusalem mentioned in Daniel 9:26 , yes it is mentioned before the final seven even starts. Nothing there associates the later abomination with the earlier Roman destruction. Not only that the 490 years and therefore the last 3.5 years of the 490 years are associated with an end to sin in Jerusalem. ie end times context.
    Okay, your logic is sound, and everything fits for you. However, it ignores the main point, that Luke 21 identifies the AoD as the Roman invasion. If you ignore that, then I suppose you can somehow pull a Rubic's cube maneuver, and make the colors line up.

    But you're doing the same thing I'm doing. I complained that you're associating the 1290 days with the resurrection, simply because it is in the same conversation. And now you're complaining that I'm associating the desolation of Jerusalem in Dan 9.26 with the AoD in Dan 9.27!

    But which is more likely? Daniel, in ch. 12, certainly asked how all these things would turn out? That included the prophecy of Antiochus 4, as well as the prophecy of Antichrist. He was given not one, but two answers, because these are two prophecies--not one.

    There was the answer to Antichrist given in Dan 12.7, which indicates a period of 3.5 years. This directly correlates to the prophecy of Antichrist given in Dan 7.

    The answer to Antiochus 4 is given in Dan 12.11, and has a completely different time period, 1290 days and 1335 days. Some scholars have identified this period of time with Antiochus 4, who desolated the temple for a period of 1290 days. News of his death reached others later.

    The 2300 days also associates with Antiochus 4, if we begin with the period of Jewish sacrilege--not just Antiochus 4's period of desolating the temple. It was about a 6 year period of time. Antiochus' desolation lasted approx. 3.5 years.

    But the point is, Antichrist is associated with a specific period only designated as 3.5 years. You would have to *assume* that the 1290 days correlates with that. I don't, because later, in the book of Revelation, we are told that the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign is limited to only a 1260 day period, which is obviously less that the 1290 days that I associate with Antiochus 4.

    Clearly, the Reign of Antiochus is a picture of Antichrist's future reign. But it is *not* that reign. The 1290 days likely associates with him, and not with the endtimes, because the only corroborating evidence we have a time period preceding the end of the age is 1260 days--not 1290 days!

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Okay, your logic is sound, and everything fits for you. However, it ignores the main point, that Luke 21 identifies the AoD as the Roman invasion. If you ignore that, then I suppose you can somehow pull a Rubic's cube maneuver, and makes the colors line up.

    But you're doing the same thing I'm doing. I complained that you're associating the 1290 days with the resurrection, simply because it is in the same conversation. And now you're complaining that I'm associating the desolation of Jerusalem in Dan 9.26 with the AoD in Dan 9.27!

    But which is more likely? Daniel, in ch. 12, certainly asked how all these things would turn out? That included the prophecy of Antiochus 4, as well as the prophecy of Antichrist. He was given not one, but two answers, because these are two prophecies--not one.

    There was the answer to Antichrist given in Dan 12.7, which indicates a period of 3.5 years. This directly correlates to the prophecy of Antichrist given in Dan 7.

    The answer to Antiochus 4 is given in Dan 12.11, and has a completely different time period, 1290 days and 1335 days. Some scholars have identified this period of time with Antiochus 4, who desolated the temple for a period of 1290 days. News of his death reached others later.

    The 2300 days also associates with Antiochus 4, if we begin with the period of Jewish sacrilege--not just Antiochus 4's period of desolating the temple. It was about a 6 year period of time. Antiochus' desolation lasted approx. 3.5 years.

    But the point is, Antichrist is associated with a specific period only designated as 3.5 years. You would have to *assume* that the 1290 days correlates with that. I don't, because later, in the book of Revelation, we are told that the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign is limited to only a 1260 day period, which is obviously less that the 1290 days that I associate with Antiochus 4.

    Clearly, the Reign of Antiochus is a picture of Antichrist's future reign. But it is *not* that reign. The 1290 days likely associates with him, and not with the endtimes, because the only corroborating evidence we have a time period preceding the end of the age is 1260 days--not 1290 days!
    The abomination starts 30 days before the antichrist. I claim they are associated, but not the same thing. The end point is the same. The resurrection/ second coming.

    Have you any evidence other than "some scholars" that Antiochus is associated with 1290 days? I have never seen such. And regarding the end times context of Daniel 9, you still have not dealt with the end to sin in Jerusalem occurring 3.5 years after the submission of Dan 9:27. In addition it is not only that they share chapter 12 that makes me associate that abomination with the 3.5 years preceding the resurrection, but the obvious deep interest in the timing of that event showed during the rest of the chapter.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Okay, your logic is sound, and everything fits for you. However, it ignores the main point, that Luke 21 identifies the AoD as the Roman invasion. If you ignore that, then I suppose you can somehow pull a Rubic's cube maneuver, and makes the colors line up.
    I am not sure why you think Luke 21 identifies the Roman invasion with the abomination. Yes similar wording is used. Jane sits in a tree. Tarzan sits in a tree. Therefore Jane is Tarzan . Good logic

    Luke focused on the Roman army. Good time to flee Jerusalem. Matthew focused on the abomination and false Messiahs. Good time to flee Jerusalem. Doesn't mean it is the same occasion. Mainly Jews that compromise with Islam will stay. The rest will be under threat unless they flee to the wilderness for 3.5 years (Rev 12)

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,768

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Okay, your logic is sound, and everything fits for you. However, it ignores the main point, that Luke 21 identifies the AoD as the Roman invasion. If you ignore that, then I suppose you can somehow pull a Rubic's cube maneuver, and makes the colors line up.

    But you're doing the same thing I'm doing. I complained that you're associating the 1290 days with the resurrection, simply because it is in the same conversation. And now you're complaining that I'm associating the desolation of Jerusalem in Dan 9.26 with the AoD in Dan 9.27!

    But which is more likely? Daniel, in ch. 12, certainly asked how all these things would turn out? That included the prophecy of Antiochus 4, as well as the prophecy of Antichrist. He was given not one, but two answers, because these are two prophecies--not one.

    There was the answer to Antichrist given in Dan 12.7, which indicates a period of 3.5 years. This directly correlates to the prophecy of Antichrist given in Dan 7.

    The answer to Antiochus 4 is given in Dan 12.11, and has a completely different time period, 1290 days and 1335 days. Some scholars have identified this period of time with Antiochus 4, who desolated the temple for a period of 1290 days. News of his death reached others later.

    The 2300 days also associates with Antiochus 4, if we begin with the period of Jewish sacrilege--not just Antiochus 4's period of desolating the temple. It was about a 6 year period of time. Antiochus' desolation lasted approx. 3.5 years.

    But the point is, Antichrist is associated with a specific period only designated as 3.5 years. You would have to *assume* that the 1290 days correlates with that. I don't, because later, in the book of Revelation, we are told that the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign is limited to only a 1260 day period, which is obviously less that the 1290 days that I associate with Antiochus 4.

    Clearly, the Reign of Antiochus is a picture of Antichrist's future reign. But it is *not* that reign. The 1290 days likely associates with him, and not with the endtimes, because the only corroborating evidence we have a time period preceding the end of the age is 1260 days--not 1290 days!
    Per your view of Dan 12 in general, you are making utter nonsense out of that chapter. You have Daniel all over the place in that chapter, where he can't seem to make up his mind if he is meaning events connected with the end of the age, or if he is meaning events connected with thousands of years ago. You do pretty much the same in the Discourse, mainly Matt 24:34. You claim the first century is the context, regardless that in the context that surrounds that verse, the 2nd coming is the context, therefore you have Jesus all over the place there, where He can't seem to make up His mind what time period He actually has in mind. We're all stubborn about things, no doubt, but how does it make good sense to be stubborn about things that are making the authors of the texts involved to be looking like the most confused people on the planet? Maybe you are injecting your own confusion into the texts, and that these authors are not confused after all? Could that be possible?

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    188

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Matt 24.31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

    Jesus here referred to "gathering the elect." I'm making the logical deduction that Paul is referring to Jesus in this Discourse. I do not make this inference without merit. Paul refers to a number of elements that are contained in Jesus' Olivet Discourse in his two letters to the Thessalonians.

    Specifically, when Paul says in 2 Thes 2 that "concerning the coming of the Lord and our being *gathered to him,* " the assumption has to be made that Christians would naturally refer back to what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives.

    To utilize this legitimate deduction as a reason to exclude all my points seems a decision to stick by your guns at any cost. Why? Don't we want to know what Jesus taught? Or is what you believe more important?
    Going back to point #2:


    #2. So I argued (within myself), Did Jesus' prediction of the regathering of the elect have to do with Israel's national restoration or with the Church's glorification? Paul clearly indicated the latter, that the regathering of the elect at the 2nd Coming of Christ has to do with the regathering of the Church.*

    "Clearly indicated [by scripture] " were the words that you used. And you are referring to "the regathering of the elect". No such language is used by Paul, nor even a reference to the words of Jesus. It is clear to me that you are using circular reasoning [i.e., post trib is true]. I.e., therefore, because Jesus is referring to the elect as the church, therefore, the "regathering of the elect" [by Paul] can only refer to the Church. Your post trib theology, precludes the notion, that the gathering of Israel takes place in conjunction with the time of the Assyrian [Isa 10,11] and the "our gathering together until Christ". Israel is to be gathered from every direction (the 4 winds -see Matt 24:31, Isa 11:12):

    *[[Isa 11:12]] KJV* And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

    *[[Mat 24:31]] KJV* And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    The scattering of the children of Israel, at this time, will not be to the south, TO PETRA, as many believe, but it will be to the north, across the Assyrian highway:

    *[[Isa 11:16]] KJV* And there shall be an highway for the REMNANT of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.

    Blessings
    The PuP

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,448

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    For a start, how you got 3 (Israel, The nations The New Man) people groups from Eph 2:15 is ambiguous to me and I don't think I agree that it's what Eph 2:15 says.

    1. Even though Jesus addressed Jewish disciples at the OD, I believe that those who use this as a conviction that the discourse pertains exclusively to Israel are missing the point. We know that God's redemptive plan for Gentiles was only revealed after the ascension when it was given to Paul en route to Damascus. So Jesus addressed his faithful (the church). I have not seen anything that persuades me otherwise that Jesus was not speaking collectively to the Jew and Gentile in the Olivet Discourse.

    2. Undoubtedly, Jerusalem will play a pivotal role in the end times, so there are some of the prophecies that exclusively pertain to Israel e.g. reference to the Sabbath day, the AoD etc.

    3. Since you separated Israel from the church, where do you place Jewish Christians? Don't you realise that the Jewish and Gentile Christian are the same before God?



    Your 12 "proof" doesn't actually prove that Jesus had only Israel in mind in Matt 24:1-31. It is also a misapplication to claim that Jesus spoke to the church in parables. Jesus spoke in parables to ALL Israel in his time but explained some of his parables to his disciples for their understanding. However, there is no basis to claim that that Jesus is still speaking to the church in parables.

    I have read and read again, everything you've written but still can't find any proof that the elect is Israel alone. Maybe others, may see it differently?
    Your honesty is refreshing. I will just comment on the main points:
    1. If you drive home from work on Friday evening at about 5:30 p.m (17:30) you notice a string of orthodox and non orthodox Jews walking to Schul at their synagogue. So you have (1) The Jews. On Sunday you drive to the Meeting and you pass the Casino - brimming with gamblers. Who are these? Well, probably there will be some Christians among them but the majority are unbelievers. So you have (2) the nations, Gentiles and/or Infidels. Then you reach the meeting hall and spend 3 hours singing, testifying, breaking bread and sharing the Word with Christians. These Christians are the THIRD group, and they were once either Jews or Gentiles, but now are the New Man by rebirth. Your everyday life proves Ephesians 2:15. "Of TWO - a additional THIRD = THREE.
    2. There is no such thing as a Jewish Christian. In the New Man, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). Ethnicity might be displayed on their passports, but before God the New Birth REPLACES all that has gone before. 2 Corinthians 5:17 is set in eternally in stone. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
    3. The Parables were spoken before all men. But they only profit the Church and confuse the jew and Gentiles. Matthew 13:10-13;
      10 "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
      11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
      12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
      13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
      So in Matthew 24:32 we see that the Parable is given that we may "learn". It must be talking to the Church if they can "learn".

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,448

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    But I don't take the book of Revelation to be chronological to begin with, meaning from start to finish. If I did, that would mean I would have to place the time of the 6th seal prior to the time of the beast in Rev 13, but I don't though. How could I have an argument if Revelation was chronological? I think you have it backwards here. I have an argument because Revelation isn't chronological.
    Maybe my language is failing me, but I understood in your posting #9 a number of CHRONOLOGIES. I think the whole matter of timing lies with when the Great Tribulation begins. Once it begins you have the Beast Abominating and Desolating the Holy Place, and immediately the wrath of God revealed from heaven in the Seals. But the Seals are in Chapter 6 and the Beast's universal power is first found in Chapter 13. But his climb to power is in Chapter 13 but he is active in Chapter 11. But let us then agree that Revelation is NOT Chronological.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The abomination starts 30 days before the antichrist. I claim they are associated, but not the same thing. The end point is the same. The resurrection/ second coming.
    I'm not sure what you're saying here? Are you trying to claim that there is an explicit reference to an AoD 30 days prior to the revelation of Antichrist? I don't find that anywhere, unless you are trying to claim that the 1st half of Daniel's 70th week precedes the AoD in Dan 9?

    I don't know how you can conclude this with any reasonable assurance because...
    1) That would require an enormous gap in a 490 year period, which of course would render it not a 490 year period, but rather, a 2,490 year period!
    2) The context of the 70th Week is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Dan 9.26). The AoD in Dan 9.27 does not identify with Antichrist, but rather, with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in the preceding verse, vs. 26.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Have you any evidence other than "some scholars" that Antiochus is associated with 1290 days? I have never seen such. And regarding the end times context of Daniel 9, you still have not dealt with the end to sin in Jerusalem occurring 3.5 years after the submission of Dan 9:27. In addition it is not only that they share chapter 12 that makes me associate that abomination with the 3.5 years preceding the resurrection, but the obvious deep interest in the timing of that event showed during the rest of the chapter.
    You will get several different interpretations here.

    I do not associate the 70 Weeks prophecy in Dan 9 with the "end of the age." It is, rather, a prediction of the earthly ministry of Christ, who brought a significant atonement in a time of the greatest sin in Israel, the sin of rejecting their Messiah.

    There are 6 things that Messiah did during his earthly ministry, and you can read them Dan 9.24. He did not come to end sin in Jerusalem. He came to bring sin to its full revelation in his death *for* sin. Sin, in other words, was *magnified* by showing where human sin ends up. It ends up crucifying God's word, and by causing suffering in all of humanity. Thus, it brings sin to its terminal point, which is death. It bring sin to fulness so that it can be fully judged and disposed of.

    I do not interpret the 70th Week the way you do, because that would divide up the 69 weeks from the 70th Week, which of course would then render the time period not 70 Weeks, but 2490 years! Sorry, that doesn't wash with me. I once held that position, but gave it up for the reason I now give you.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not sure what you're saying here? Are you trying to claim that there is an explicit reference to an AoD 30 days prior to the revelation of Antichrist? I don't find that anywhere, unless you are trying to claim that the 1st half of Daniel's 70th week precedes the AoD in Dan 9?

    I don't know how you can conclude this with any reasonable assurance because...
    1) That would require an enormous gap in a 490 year period, which of course would render it not a 490 year period, but rather, a 2,490 year period!
    2) The context of the 70th Week is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Dan 9.26). The AoD in Dan 9.27 does not identify with Antichrist, but rather, with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in the preceding verse, vs. 26.



    You will get several different interpretations here.
    Even you believe there's a gap in the 490 year period don't you.

    But I think you misunderstood me regarding the 1290 days. Daniel 12 is describing 1290 days from abomination to resurrection. Rev 13 describes 42 months of beasts power until the second coming. This is enough information to know that the abomination comes first by 30 days.

    The 490 period is a Jewish period (for your people) and is interrupted by a Gentile period which is the spread of the Gospel to the nations. This spreading gospel started nearly immediately after the crucifixion. Matthew 24 mentions this period of the Gospel to the nations followed by the abomination which brings in the set period again.

    This concept of a victory for the Gospel, then the 3.5 year period starting up is also in Rev 12. So does Jesus mention that the end won't come until the Gospel is first preached. Romans mentions that we need the fullness of the nations before Jews have their time/revival at the end. The trend is an indefinite Gentile age followed by 3.5 years of protection/ gospel for Jews.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Discussion Tribulation, Great Tribulation, and the Wrath of God
    By seeker_truth in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: Jun 6th 2018, 05:28 AM
  2. The great tribulation. Only one? Or more than one?
    By divaD in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 183
    Last Post: Feb 14th 2017, 10:31 PM
  3. Information What is the Great Tribulation
    By Vakeros in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: Mar 29th 2013, 10:39 PM
  4. The Great Tribulation
    By jeffweeder in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: Dec 10th 2009, 07:04 AM
  5. When is the great tribulation?
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Apr 17th 2009, 11:09 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •