Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 113

Thread: 2nd Coming backdrop

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,814

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    What makes the temple or any place of worship 'holy' is the presence of God, so when Jesus himself passed judgment that the temple would be destroyed, then the reader should understand that his glory has left there. Thus, making the temple no different from any other brick structure in Jerusalem at the time.
    Exactly. I couldn't agree more.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    That's been my feelings as well. That says it all right there.
    I would refer you to post #30. An immediate need trumps a long range forecast. The 70 AD event was a prioritized focus, and yet not reducing the value of the 2nd Coming in the least!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    We can argue till the chickens come home to roost and still not prove that the AoD described in the OD occurred in 70 AD. With all the challenges posed to God's Sovereignty by the destruction of the temple, it is still impossible to qualify it an AoD since Jesus himself didn't say so. What makes the temple or any place of worship 'holy' is the presence of God, so when Jesus himself passed judgment that the temple would be destroyed, then the reader should understand that his glory has left there. Thus, making the temple no different from any other brick structure in Jerusalem at the time.
    Your arguments here are a little difficult to follow. In my judgment Dan 9 does indeed depict the destruction of the temple and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem as an AoD. And the Church Fathers interpreted it as such, as best as I can determine. There were perhaps 3 Church Fathers who viewed it otherwise--perhaps more. The point is, the more immediate generations saw the AoD as something occurring immediately after the 70 Weeks, with the 70th Week being fulfilled in the time of Christ. No matter how many times you reject my "chickens," you're going to have to deal with this fact. This isn't just my position, but the majority position of the Church Fathers. You will have a much harder time insulting them!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Actually no. Jesus isn't going to bring up unrelated issues to the questions being asked. He was asked about 2 things, about things to affect his 1st Coming and about things to affect his 2nd Coming. And he was asked with the assumption that the issues are tied together. And they are.
    You have a serious problem then.
    As Jesus DID speak about things TOTALLY unrelated to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD or the future GT.
    It seems like you haven't bothered to understand the OD at all.
    He was NOT asked with the assumption they are all tied together. That is in fact YOUR assumption. Furthermore His coming again is NOT tied into the 70 AD destruction of the temple.

    I've gone to pains to explain how I view these 2 questions as being tied together. And I don't think the way Luke phrased these questions were remarkably different than how Matthew describes it. The assumption has to be made in Luke that the central focus was on the 70 AD destruction of the temple. This perspective is not lost by the way Matthew phrased the questions, adding the part about the 2nd Coming. Both events are clearly tied together in the minds of those asking the questions. And Jesus answered the questions directly, without adding extraneous material that he thought we should know about.
    One can see that the focus in Luke is 70 AD.
    However the perspective IS very different in Matthew.
    He added all sorts of things which were unrelated to 70 AD. The FACT you don't recognise this shows how badly you are understanding this Discourse:

    Mat 24:22* And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.*

    So are you saying that no human being would be saved IF 70 AD had taken longer?

    Mat 24:30* Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.*
    Mat 24:31* And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.*

    Are you saying this is about 70 AD?

    Mat 24:36* “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

    Are you saying this is about 70 AD? Jesus didn't know when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur?

    Listen to yourself and recognise that you are spouting rubbish.

    No, the record can stand for itself. I provided all of the accounts, showing the parallel issues appear in the chronology of the Discourse. This enables one to identify the AoD, the generation, and the Great Tribulation. You don't *want* to believe this! You have the agenda, brother--not me. I've changed views many times through the years. After 40 years I've come to hold to the view I have now. And I'm still open to change. That's the only way we learn.
    There are indeed some parallel things. There is also things which aren't parallel.
    You are NOT open to change. You have determined beforehand the meaning and anything which shows this view as wrong you try all sorts of evasions to avoid dealing with the FACTS. I have an agenda, to get to what is stated. You see to not want to. This is not agreeing to disagree, this is disagreeing.

    You regularly play these kinds of word games. If they don't use any arguments about what "generation" means, you claim there isn't any argument for the 70th Week and the AoD being fulfilled in Jesus' generation. Or, you claim that because they each have a nuanced view of how the 70th Week was fulfilled that they don't agree at all. These are "word games." Clearly, they are all referring to the 70th Week of Daniel, and to its fulfillment in the *time of Christ.* And this means they referred this fulfillment to the "generation" of Christ! A few of them may have looked at the AoD differently, but they were still in the time or generation of Christ!
    Now you build a strawman. I am saying LET THEIR arguments be dealt with AS THEY argued it.
    However you create your own fiction from what they said and read between lines and make up your own invention and then claim it is what they said.
    I didn't say that none of the ECFs mention the 70th week. I highlighted that YOUR quotes show disharmony and disagreement between even the ones you say are in agreement. Also NONE of them said that "ALL these things" were fulfilled then. IOW they comment on one part of the OD and you try to make them speak about parts they haven't commented on.

    My quotations of these Fathers are sufficient to prove my case. I used references by others who drew the same conclusions. So I'm not at all alone in my conclusions!
    Sufficient for who? Yourself? Well if you want to keep deluding yourself....
    As to others coming to those conclusions, then this simply makes them following the same delusion. I have highlighted why the reasoning is wrong, but you don't want to engage on that, but prefer to reiterate.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    We can argue till the chickens come home to roost and still not prove that the AoD described in the OD occurred in 70 AD. With all the challenges posed to God's Sovereignty by the destruction of the temple, it is still impossible to qualify it an AoD since Jesus himself didn't say so. What makes the temple or any place of worship 'holy' is the presence of God, so when Jesus himself passed judgment that the temple would be destroyed, then the reader should understand that his glory has left there. Thus, making the temple no different from any other brick structure in Jerusalem at the time.
    Here I disagree with you.
    When Antiochus made an AoD in 168 BC was God's presence there?
    I don't believe so.
    Going back to 587 BC destruction of the temple was God's presence there?
    You see the place is Holy because God deems it holy. Because it is holy so then He can dwell there.

    It is God who makes a place Holy and Man who desecrates it, yet God can cleanse it again.
    It requires a place to be Holy in order for it to be desecrated. If it were not holy then no desecration.
    However simply destroying a place is not a desecration.

    The Statute of Zeus may be called an Abomination if set up on the holy place. At least one of the ECFs saw it this way.
    However it was not an AoD as the desolation had ALREADY occurred.

    Jerusalem is God's Holy city, NOT because the people living in it are holy, but because God calls it holy and plans for it to be holy.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    You have a serious problem then.
    As Jesus DID speak about things TOTALLY unrelated to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD or the future GT.
    It seems like you haven't bothered to understand the OD at all.
    He was NOT asked with the assumption they are all tied together. That is in fact YOUR assumption. Furthermore His coming again is NOT tied into the 70 AD destruction of the temple.


    One can see that the focus in Luke is 70 AD.
    However the perspective IS very different in Matthew.
    He added all sorts of things which were unrelated to 70 AD. The FACT you don't recognise this shows how badly you are understanding this Discourse:

    Mat 24:22* And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.*

    So are you saying that no human being would be saved IF 70 AD had taken longer?
    No, Jesus was here speaking about the end of the age--not the cutting short of the 1st Jewish War. The Great Tribulation was to be "cut short." And I believe the Great Tribulation, as defined by Luke in ch. 21, is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. That will be "cut short" at the end of the age. It is cut short because this period of Distress will last so long as to seem interminable. And so, it will eventually be "cut short," due to the fact an endless dispersion of the Jews must eventually end in genocide or with the loss of Jewish distinctions altogether.


    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Mat 24:30* Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.*
    Mat 24:31* And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.*

    Are you saying this is about 70 AD?
    No, of course not. Jesus was also asked about the sign of the end of the age, or of the coming of the Kingdom. The return of Christ, or the 2nd Coming, is the end of the Great Tribulation of the Jews in the NT age. The 70 AD event was only the beginning of this period of Great Distress.


    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Mat 24:36* “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

    Are you saying this is about 70 AD? Jesus didn't know when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur?
    No, you are blending 2 different events together. The 70 AD event was one thing, and the 2nd Coming another.


    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Listen to yourself and recognise that you are spouting rubbish.
    You're losing the argument again, brother. You can't misinterpret what I say, and then argue against it. Doesn't work for me. 1st you have to truly understand my view. Then you may argue against it. I would've stopped arguing with you a long, long time ago if I really thought you understood my position. But as you argue back I do notice that you really don't have my positions down. So I don't expect you to believe something that I'm not really espousing.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    There are indeed some parallel things. There is also things which aren't parallel.
    You are NOT open to change. You have determined beforehand the meaning and anything which shows this view as wrong you try all sorts of evasions to avoid dealing with the FACTS. I have an agenda, to get to what is stated. You see to not want to. This is not agreeing to disagree, this is disagreeing.

    Now you build a strawman. I am saying LET THEIR arguments be dealt with AS THEY argued it.
    However you create your own fiction from what they said and read between lines and make up your own invention and then claim it is what they said.
    I didn't say that none of the ECFs mention the 70th week. I highlighted that YOUR quotes show disharmony and disagreement between even the ones you say are in agreement. Also NONE of them said that "ALL these things" were fulfilled then. IOW they comment on one part of the OD and you try to make them speak about parts they haven't commented on.
    This isn't about what parts they're including in "all these things." It's *your argument* that "all these things* includes *everything* Jesus said, and includes his 2nd Coming. How ridiculous!

    On the other hand, my argument is that "all these things" is qualified by the Main Subject, which is the destruction of the temple and when it would happen. "All these things," as defined by the destruction of the temple, will take place in "this generation." That is, "all these things" have a qualifier, and refers only to the set of things that precede the destruction of the temple. All other items are to be excluded, quite logically.

    When I talk about reading between the lines, I'm talking about seeing what the Church Fathers are actually saying. When they mention even a small part about the 70th Week, then we can "read between the lines" and recognize that they're talking about Dan 9 and the 70th Week Prophecy. And when they talk about Jesus' earthly ministry fulfilling the 70th Week, we can "read between the lines" and recognize that they saw the 70 Weeks as completely fulfilled in the time of Jesus. That means, logically, that they saw the AoD as fulfilled at that time. But you refuse to "read between the lines." You think that's adding to the insinuations they are clearing making!


    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sufficient for who? Yourself? Well if you want to keep deluding yourself....
    As to others coming to those conclusions, then this simply makes them following the same delusion. I have highlighted why the reasoning is wrong, but you don't want to engage on that, but prefer to reiterate.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, Jesus was here speaking about the end of the age--not the cutting short of the 1st Jewish War. The Great Tribulation was to be "cut short." And I believe the Great Tribulation, as defined by Luke in ch. 21, is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. That will be "cut short" at the end of the age. It is cut short because this period of Distress will last so long as to seem interminable. And so, it will eventually be "cut short," due to the fact an endless dispersion of the Jews must eventually end in genocide or with the loss of Jewish distinctions altogether.
    So now you argue with yourself as you said that Jesus wasn't speaking about other things, yet here you note the other things.
    I had thought it was possible to reason with you, but whenever you are told something contrary to your core belief then reason goes out the window.
    This is sad.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,814

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I would refer you to post #30. An immediate need trumps a long range forecast. The 70 AD event was a prioritized focus, and yet not reducing the value of the 2nd Coming in the least!
    So why are you giving the impression that Jesus felt the destruction of the temple was far more important than His 2nd coming? When Jesus said those things, at the time they were living in, the destruction of the temple would be more important than His 2nd coming, meaning in regards to those living at the time. But eventually the destruction of the city and temple are going to be in the past, once it was fulfilled, and that Jesus is then focusing on things no longer having to do with the events leading up to 70 AD. And here we are in 2018. 70 AD is in the past. 70 AD can't happen again, so no use concerning ourselves with it yet today. It's history, its over with, and maybe you need to get over it and focus more on the present and future rather than the past. Because that's exactly what Jesus does in the Discourse eventually. He begins focusing on the present and future beyond that of 70 AD at some point.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    So now you argue with yourself as you said that Jesus wasn't speaking about other things, yet here you note the other things.
    I had thought it was possible to reason with you, but whenever you are told something contrary to your core belief then reason goes out the window.
    This is sad.
    I see nothing inconsistent with my posts overall. Perhaps you see something that's contradictory? Clearly, you do. Would you be kind enough to point out, specifically, what these "other things" are that you're talking about? Jesus was focusing on 2 major themes, and did not drift away from them. This doesn't mean that he didn't deal with all kinds of things that had to do with these 2 events. The 2 events were the 70 AD destruction of the temple and the 2nd Coming. Lots of things were associated with them. The preliminary things, leading up to the 70 AD event, were things like false christs, false prophets, earthquakes, famines, Christian persecution, loss of love in society, and the preaching of the gospel. All these things were the beginning of birth pains, leading up to the fall of the temple. All of these things are consistent with the Main Subject, which is the fall of the temple.

    The 2nd Coming, however, provides a backdrop for this information. It is the long range forecast which provides context for the fall of the temple in Jesus' own generation. It explains that this age is an age of judgment, and not just a recovery for Israel. Israel will be recovered, but prior to that event at the 2nd Coming the temple will fall in Jesus' generation. And this event will be followed by the "Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People, in which they will lose their temple worship, their OT Law, and their homeland. And the Christian believers among them will suffer, along with this, an added persecution from both Jews and pagans alike.

    I've *never* said that the 70 AD destruction of the temple was the Great Tribulation, which is "cut off" immediately after. I've not held to this position for a long time, though I have considered it. So I think you just don't understand my position. And you may be angry with my inconsistency that you believe I have simply because you have my views wrong?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    So why are you giving the impression that Jesus felt the destruction of the temple was far more important than His 2nd coming? When Jesus said those things, at the time they were living in, the destruction of the temple would be more important than His 2nd coming, meaning in regards to those living at the time. But eventually the destruction of the city and temple are going to be in the past, once it was fulfilled, and that Jesus is then focusing on things no longer having to do with the events leading up to 70 AD. And here we are in 2018. 70 AD is in the past. 70 AD can't happen again, so no use concerning ourselves with it yet today. It's history, its over with, and maybe you need to get over it and focus more on the present and future rather than the past. Because that's exactly what Jesus does in the Discourse eventually. He begins focusing on the present and future beyond that of 70 AD at some point.
    David, there are *many* Bible Prophecies that deal strictly with Israel's fall of Babylon in 586 BC. Using your logic, we should just "throw out" these prophecies, and focus exclusively on the 2nd Coming?

    If so, I can't agree. Historical prophecies that are long fulfilled still serve to teach us things today. And Paul argues that in 1 Cor 10.

    Jesus did not mix messages in the Olivet Discourse. The message was primarily about the destruction of the temple in his own generation. When he was asked how this related to Israel's restoration, ie the coming of the Kingdom, Jesus explained how the event he focused upon related. There is no abandonment of the historical focus on 70 AD for end of the age scenarios. On the contrary, it was all about how the people alive in his own generation could survive, spiritually, as the Jewish People fell into even worse decline.

    These things are important to us today because many of us live in former Christian societies that are also falling into great decline. We have to be aware of this so that we remain spiritually strong. Focus on predicting who the Antichrist will be doesn't help us, and isn't Jesus' priority. Date setting, and speculation about the next wave isn't the big priority with Jesus. We are to be about our mission where we're at and in the time we live. Speculation about the future is fun, but can run far afield of what's important.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,610
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Let me show you the absurdity of your argument brother. Suppose I show you any passage in the Bible that speaks of some historical event with a side-reference to the coming of God's Kingdom. With the focus on a particular event to come, that was extremely important for that particular generation, does that mean that the coming of God's Kingdom plays "2nd fiddle" to that particular historical event? No, not at all. It happens all the time. Let me give you an example from every day life.

    The stock market is poised to plunge, putting lots of investors at risk. I quickly warn them about what I'm hearing, that they should pull their investments, and be cautious with the current events in mind. At the same time I add a warning that at the Judgment God will hold us all accountable about the way we manage our finances, because these things are important to our families, to our children, and to those we help.

    In this case, do you think mention of the judgment at the 2nd Coming is being trumped by the importance of mentioning a current event as an immediate need? Your claim that Jesus' 2nd Coming is being "trumped" by my prioritization of the 70 AD event is therefore absurd, a ridiculous argument. An immediate need trumps a long range forecast, no matter how important it is in the eternal scheme of things. The 70 AD event was an event Jesus' generation had to immediately deal with, and it was a priority. The importance of the 2nd Coming is not being reduced in any way whatsoever. To claim I'm doing this is more emotional than rational, in my judgment. You just don't want to believe my position is correct, for whatever reason.
    Given your analogy above, the context clearly indicates that the imminent danger of a potential stock market crash is the primary focus. But is this scenario the same in the OD? Of course not! You see, your false rendition of the discourse is predicated on the under listed core components which you, unfortunately, having very badly interpreted, leaves the overall outcome skewed. Thus, irrespective of your intelligent and clever explanation of the AoD, GT and this generation, it is no surprise that you've continued a free fall to ground zero ever since.

    1. You misunderstood what the AoD is. It was NOT fulfilled in 70 AD and it's still future.
    2. You misunderstood when the GT will start, this too is still future. Your insistence that it started in 70 AD rather than end times, says it all.
    3. You have insisted that "this generation" refers to those who lived at the time of Christ. It is not difficult to understand how you reached this conclusion given your belief that it's about 70 AD. However, an objective look at the discourse in full (Matt 24:1-51) leaves no discerning reader in doubt that the primary focus is the Second Coming. Events like 70 AD, the Holocaust and all the pogroms, etc. that has befallen the Jew are on the periphery.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,610
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Your arguments here are a little difficult to follow. In my judgment Dan 9 does indeed depict the destruction of the temple and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem as an AoD. And the Church Fathers interpreted it as such, as best as I can determine. There were perhaps 3 Church Fathers who viewed it otherwise--perhaps more. The point is, the more immediate generations saw the AoD as something occurring immediately after the 70 Weeks, with the 70th Week being fulfilled in the time of Christ. No matter how many times you reject my "chickens," you're going to have to deal with this fact. This isn't just my position, but the majority position of the Church Fathers. You will have a much harder time insulting them!
    The early Church Fathers, like believers in every era got some interpretations, spot on and others not very so. I consider every interpretation of scripture on its merit irrespective of who it is credited to or, when it was interpreted. I revere the ECF since after the Apostles, they are the next in line and we stand on their shoulders. However, I know enough not to accept every text they interpreted as holy writ.

    What is pertinent in Dan 9:26 & 27 is the fate of the temple at different timescales, separated by millenniums. In v-26 the temple is destroyed in 70 AD, but v-27 speaks of the era of the Antichrist. My point is the AoD according to the OD is attributed to the Antichrist (Dan 12:11).

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,610
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Here I disagree with you.
    When Antiochus made an AoD in 168 BC was God's presence there?
    I don't believe so.
    Going back to 587 BC destruction of the temple was God's presence there?
    You see the place is Holy because God deems it holy. Because it is holy so then He can dwell there.

    It is God who makes a place Holy and Man who desecrates it, yet God can cleanse it again.
    It requires a place to be Holy in order for it to be desecrated. If it were not holy then no desecration.
    However simply destroying a place is not a desecration.

    The Statute of Zeus may be called an Abomination if set up on the holy place. At least one of the ECFs saw it this way.
    However it was not an AoD as the desolation had ALREADY occurred.

    Jerusalem is God's Holy city, NOT because the people living in it are holy, but because God calls it holy and plans for it to be holy.
    My remark is based on the fact that there was no judgment of destruction passed on the temple in Antiochus’ time.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Given your analogy above, the context clearly indicates that the imminent danger of a potential stock market crash is the primary focus. But is this scenario the same in the OD? Of course not! You see, your false rendition of the discourse is predicated on the under listed core components which you, unfortunately, having very badly interpreted, leaves the overall outcome skewed. Thus, irrespective of your intelligent and clever explanation of the AoD, GT and this generation, it is no surprise that you've continued a free fall to ground zero ever since.

    1. You misunderstood what the AoD is. It was NOT fulfilled in 70 AD and it's still future.
    2. You misunderstood when the GT will start, this too is still future. Your insistence that it started in 70 AD rather than end times, says it all.
    3. You have insisted that "this generation" refers to those who lived at the time of Christ. It is not difficult to understand how you reached this conclusion given your belief that it's about 70 AD. However, an objective look at the discourse in full (Matt 24:1-51) leaves no discerning reader in doubt that the primary focus is the Second Coming. Events like 70 AD, the Holocaust and all the pogroms, etc. that has befallen the Jew are on the periphery.
    All you do here is assert that I'm wrong--terribly wrong. You don't prove a single point wrong. So believe as you will...

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The early Church Fathers, like believers in every era got some interpretations, spot on and others not very so. I consider every interpretation of scripture on its merit irrespective of who it is credited to or, when it was interpreted. I revere the ECF since after the Apostles, they are the next in line and we stand on their shoulders. However, I know enough not to accept every text they interpreted as holy writ.

    What is pertinent in Dan 9:26 & 27 is the fate of the temple at different timescales, separated by millenniums. In v-26 the temple is destroyed in 70 AD, but v-27 speaks of the era of the Antichrist. My point is the AoD according to the OD is attributed to the Antichrist (Dan 12:11).
    I believe that Dan 9.26-27 is referencing both things, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the AoD in 70 AD. They are the *same thing.* And I believe the Church Fathers largely believed the *same thing.* The reason I mention the Church Fathers at all is because I regularly get trashed for my views, as if I personally made my views up. I'm pointing out that if you wish to trash me as silly, uneducated, or dishonest, you will be doing the same thing to the Church Fathers. If you wish to call me a Preterist, you will be calling the Church Fathers Preterists!

    No, you don't accept something just because a particular Church Father believes it. But it does help to know what many of them believed by consensus. And if they are wrong by consensus, we should search in their time frame to discover why. In this case, my view is credible and enjoys historical depth in its interpretation. A majority of the Church Fathers believed, I think, that the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled in Christ's time, and thus, the 70 Weeks were exhausted in the generation of Christ. Thus, I believe they then interpreted the AoD to immediately follow Christ in 70 AD, interpreting it as the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, or some kind of sacrilege in this time frame.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 3rd 2018, 12:22 AM
  2. Is Jesus coming with Heaven at “His coming”?
    By Soldier_of_Faith in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct 24th 2017, 06:55 AM
  3. Changes coming up.
    By Old man in forum Prayer
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Mar 11th 2016, 11:57 PM
  4. Jesus 1st coming/2nd coming??
    By Joe King in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul 19th 2009, 08:16 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul 8th 2009, 11:32 PM

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
  •