You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Just funning. Again you did a great job defending the Bible Doctrine concerning "The Blessed Hope."
Jesus is coming the Atheist-Agnostic-nor Preterist can stop Him.

Elder Epley are you saying that I'm equaled to an Atheist and an Agnostic?

I want you to ask Jesus Christ before you answer.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason

If the abomination of desolation did happen in the first century, I will recant. Please PROVE it.

I believe it did, and have espoused the following that is from the Geneva Bible study notes for years, before I knew what the Geneva notes even said!

Mat 24:15 (4) When ye therefore shall see the (f) abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

(f) The abomination of desolation, that is to say, the one who all men detest and cannot abide, because of the foul and shameful filthiness of it: and he speaks of the idols that were set up in the temple, or as others think, he meant the marring of the doctrine in the Church.

When Rome besieged Jerusalem, they entered the temple and erected their standards which were IDOLS.

The problem is the FP posistion doesn't provide this event WITH the related events. Sacfices ceasing,

Sacrifice ceased 3.5 years after Jesus confirmed the covenant of Abraham with Israel, by being sacrificed Himself.

COVENANT CONFIRMED

Galatians 3:17 KJV And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

SACRIFICES CEASE:

Hebrews 10:1-2 KJV For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Hebrews 10:14 KJV For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

3 1/2 years of great tribulation,

Nero persecuted the church for 3.5 years exactly, and Rome besieged Jerusalem for 3.5 years as well.

a man claiming to be God (which we can see from other scriptures is the "antichrist" or "beast").

John Levi of Gischala claimed to be Israel's Savior and stood in the temple, causing Rome to destroy the Temple, when Rome did not plan to do so.

My issue with the "GAP" is that (most hyper/partial) preterists also have a gap in their eschatology. All-be-it a much shorter gap (40 years). But a gap is still necessary for their theories to make any sense.

That is incorrect. The span of years for the 70 weeks of Daniel involve NO GAP at all. The years between the cross and AD70 are NOT part of the seventy weeks. The seventy weeks of Daniel does not include 40 years after the cross. You make a common error of our views by thinking we believe the 3.5 years of the siege that ended in AD70 is part of the 70th week of Daniel. We do not believe that at all. The last 3.5 years of the 70th week occurred immediately after the cross and ended with the Gentiles coming into the church in Acts.

It is actually the result of confusing your own belief of a 3.5 year trib period in the future with our claim the 3.5 year trib occurred at AD70. And since you think that was part of the 70th week of Daniel, you believe we feel the same way, when we do not believe the trib period was part of the 70th week at all but just that it occurred at a different time than you do.

God bless!

[mfblume]

PET PEEVE TIME:


Okay, folks, preterists and otherwise... STOP SAYING "70AD". It is supposed to be "A.D. 70".

A.D. is the abbreviation for "ANNO DOMINI", which means "YEAR OF OUR LORD". We're supposed to say "YEAR OF OUR LORD 70", not "70 YEAR OF OUR LORD". Hence, it is supposed to be "A.D.70" not "70 A.D.".

We'll convert you rednecks yet!

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Clearly who won is going to be divided along eschatological lines...in other words you all are terribly biased lol

But anyways, now that the debate is over, what are your opinions on the over all debate?

I feel that both Jason and AFP1996 did as good a job as they are able. I commend them both for their efforts.

AFP1996 answered as many questions (and there were a LOT of them) that he could considering the word count restraints. Within his responses he supported his answers with scriptures that actually said what he claimed. This means he gave biblical reasons for why he believes his position is the one found in the Bible.

Jason did a great job in asking those numerous questions. However, he failed to prove with Scripture that his position is actually found in the Bible. What this did is to prove what the AFPs have been saying all along, which is that the Dispensationalists do not have scriptural evidence to support their position.

Thank you AFP1996 for your hard work and study! Thank you Jason for showing the weaknesses in dispensationalism, and as a result, the strengths in AFP.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by mfblume

PET PEEVE TIME:


Okay, folks, preterists and otherwise... STOP SAYING "70AD". It is supposed to be "A.D. 70".

A.D. is the abbreviation for "ANNO DOMINI", which means "YEAR OF OUR LORD". We're supposed to say "YEAR OF OUR LORD 70", not "70 YEAR OF OUR LORD". Hence, it is supposed to be "A.D.70" not "70 A.D.".

We'll convert you rednecks yet!

I checked it out years ago when I was editing a book. "AD70," "70 AD, or "A.D. 70," is all the same. The main thing was that whatever date was used, to keep that one consistant throughout the book. The periods between the initials are not used as religiously as they once were. Sorry to disappoint. It must be a Canada thing....

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

I checked it out years ago when I was editing a book. "AD70," "70 AD, or "A.D. 70," is all the same. The main thing was that whatever date was used, to keep that one consistant throughout the book. The periods between the initials are not used as religiously as they once were. Sorry to disappoint. It must be a Canada thing....

Actually, probably a BRITISH thing, and Canadians still use the British U in FAVOUR, etc., as the Brits do.

I did find this info from a USA site:

Words used with numbers: He left at 2:00 a.m. She was born in 1520 B.C.

Either lower or upper case letters can be used with A.M., a.m., P.M., p.m. The abbreviation B.C. (before Christ) is used after the date; A.D. (anno domini, "in the year of the Lord") appears before the date.

...Sometimes you will see 790 BC and AD 78 written without periods and written in SMALL CAPS

from http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMM...reviations.htm

The Guide to Grammar and Writing is sponsored by the Capital Community College Foundation, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation.

British site: http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/...on/node28.html

Also usual are the abbreviations b.c. and a.d., usually written in small capitals, for marking dates as before or after the birth of Christ:

According to tradition, Rome was founded in 753 b.c.
The emperor Vespasian died in a.d. 79. or
The emperor Vespasian died in 79 a.d.

It is traditional, and recommended, to write a.d. before the date, but nowadays it is often written after.

It seems after the date is acceptable nowadays, due to a loss of propriety. So the PROPER way is before.

But then again "ain't" is now in the dictionary. Go figure!

We failed in keeping AIN'T out of a dictionary, but we do not have to fail to vulgarize A.D.!

Anyway, carry on with the theme of the thread...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I believe it did, and have espoused the following that is from the Geneva Bible study notes for years, before I knew what the Geneva notes even said!

Mat 24:15 (4) When ye therefore shall see the (f) abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

(f) The abomination of desolation, that is to say, the one who all men detest and cannot abide, because of the foul and shameful filthiness of it: and he speaks of the idols that were set up in the temple, or as others think, he meant the marring of the doctrine in the Church.

When Rome besieged Jerusalem, they entered the temple and erected their standards which were IDOLS.




Sacrifice ceased 3.5 years after Jesus confirmed the covenant of Abraham with Israel, by being sacrificed Himself.

COVENANT CONFIRMED

Galatians 3:17 KJV And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

SACRIFICES CEASE:

Hebrews 10:1-2 KJV For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Hebrews 10:14 KJV For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Nero persecuted the church for 3.5 years exactly, and Rome besieged Jerusalem for 3.5 years as well.



John Levi of Gischala claimed to be Israel's Savior and stood in the temple, causing Rome to destroy the Temple, when Rome did not plan to do so.


That is incorrect. The span of years for the 70 weeks of Daniel involve NO GAP at all. The years between the cross and AD70 are NOT part of the seventy weeks. The seventy weeks of Daniel does not include 40 years after the cross. You make a common error of our views by thinking we believe the 3.5 years of the siege that ended in AD70 is part of the 70th week of Daniel. We do not believe that at all. The last 3.5 years of the 70th week occurred immediately after the cross and ended with the Gentiles coming into the church in Acts.

It is actually the result of confusing your own belief of a 3.5 year trib period in the future with our claim the 3.5 year trib occurred at AD70. And since you think that was part of the 70th week of Daniel, you believe we feel the same way, when we do not believe the trib period was part of the 70th week at all but just that it occurred at a different time than you do.

God bless!

Brother Jason, can you present an argument with scripture (chapter and verse) how Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 has thousands of years of gaps of time? You have yet to produce an credible argument that is based on Biblical facts. Also I'm fascinated to hear how you propose the third temple will be built with the same requirements that were required in Ezra, and Nehemiah.

I await your post Brother Jason.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Maccabees 1:20-64

(20) And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt,...

Brother Blume when do you say the AOD happened? Between the testaments or in the first century?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason

Brother Blume when do you say the AOD happened? Between the testaments or in the first century?

Again, you are missing something I am saying. That's fine, though. But let me clarify more.

The particular parts of Dan 8 and Dan 11 you refer to occurred between testaments, but not Dan 9:27. An actual swine was offered on the altar in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. That is not the same event foretold in Dan 9:27.

Dan 9:27 was mentioned Matt 24:15 as future after Christ's time. This occurred in AD70 when the Romans erected idols in the temple. I did not say Dan 8 and Dan 11 referred to AD70. Just Dan 9:27.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Jason either you don't understand English, or you are an expert at dodging questions when you are asked them. Jason, here is where the mix up is, the above is not an answer. The above didn't answer anything. The reason being, is that you don't explain yourself.

Brother, do you know the definition of answer?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, you believe in a rebuilt temple? Didn't I ask you before if you believed in a rebuilt temple?

Yes, I do.
However, I do NOT believe that the temple that will be built has to do with God's redemptive plan. I believe that the Jews will build a temple (they have plans to) and will begin animal sacrifice again. It will be short lived, because the antichrist will stand in the temple, claim to be God, and cause the sacrifice to cease.

It is my understanding that the Jews will do this because they rejected the Messiah, and they are under the impression that they need a temple to practice their religion and bring on the Messiah. (of course this is unneccessary, since Messiah has already come-which is why the door is wide open for the anti-Christ to claim he is the Messiah). I also believe that when they offer the first animal sacrifice, the false prophet will (or at least appear to)bring fire down from heaven-that consumes the sacrifice as it did in the Old Testament, and He will use His influence to further empower the anti-christ (or beast). Revelation 13

As for the wording "Temple of God", I believe this is in reference to a Jewish Temple on the temple mount. There are many temples in this world, but a temple on that spot, dedicated to the God of the Jews, would certainly be unique from all other "temples" on this earth.

In review:
1)I do believe a temple will be built again
2)I do not believe it has anything to do with the plan of salvation
3)I believe that animal sacrifices will start up again, but likely for only a VERY brief time frame
4)Early on (perhaps even as early as the dedication of the temple) the ani-christ will stand in the temple and claim to be God.
5)I believe that the most likely scenario for a false prophet pulling fire down from heaven would be at the dedication of the temple, though the bble doesn't say specifically when this event will happen, only that it will.

BTW-what is preterisms explanation of Revelation 13:13?

I know you won't agree with me, but hopefully I have spelled it out clearly enough that you guys won't twist it around. Then again, I won't hold my breath.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Jason if the gap is between Matthew 24:14 and 15, would you care to explain with chapter and verse how that works in your world?

I've never claimed there is a gap there between those two verses.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You never prove anything, you just make statements and hope that we will accept your statements, which are not based on Biblical facts.

Yet another case of the full preterists pot calling the kettle black.
You just perfectly described your very own posistion.

I say Jesus has yet to return, I offer as proof 1)scripture 2)reality-the world we live in, and the activity of Satan (who in FP eschatology is bound). If Satan is bound, i don't want to see what this world would be like if he gets loosed. I am arguing from a future fulfillment point of view, thus there are certain things that have yet to happen. You guys are arguing from a past fulfillment view, so if these things happened, it should be easy to prove. Like being a Monday morning quarterback, but you guys have a eschatology where Jesus came back, and no one even knew-even Clement and his contemporaries, in the late first century AD were talking about the Lord coming back in the future. So if He came in the first century, every one missed it, and has been missing it for 2000 years.