The dead in Christ. Per Pretrib, who all are they meaning?

[Spiritual Israelite]

Post # 20 is where I basically prove my point since Daniel 12:13 tells us exactly when OT saints initially rise from the dead.

Daniel 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days

Per Pretrib, the fact they have the rapture prior to the beginning of great tribulation, and that a rapture can't occur unless the dead in Christ rise first, and that if the dead in Christ include OT saints, when does Daniel 12:13 indicate Daniel, an OT saint, rises? It tells us right here---when the end be. Obviously, the end being at the end of the days.

The end of the days, even per Pretrib can't possibly be meaning prior to great tribulation. How can the end of the days be prior to great tribulation, when it is these same days involving great tribulation that need to be ended before Daniel can rise?

I agree, but, as I just pointed out in my previous post, there's also the fact that Daniel 12:2 indicates that both believers and unbelievers will be resurrected "at that time" of the great tribulation described in Daniel 12:1. Well, pre-tribs don't believe that both believers and unbelievers will be resurrected at the same time when the supposed pre-trib rapture occurs. So, the resurrection described in Daniel 12:2 can't possibly be part of a pre-trib rapture event if the assumption is that only believers will be resurrected when the rapture occurs. It would have to be post-trib instead.

This would leave pre-tribs with the option of either acknowledging that pre-trib does not line up with Daniel 12:1-2 or denying that the resurrection of believers mentioned in Daniel 12:2 is the same as the resurrection of the dead in Christ referenced in passage like 1 Thess 4:14-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, which I think is a major stretch.

 

[Zao is life]

Has it ever dawned on you, especially how you interpret Matthew 24:15, that that is not to be understood in a literal sense involving a literal temple involving animal sacrificing taking place in it, that neither is Daniel 12:11 to be understood in a literal sense, since it is involving the very same AOD Matthew 24:15-21 is involving?

It obviously never dawned on you when in your own mind you turned Daniel 12:11 into a "symbolic" taking away of the daily sacrifices, that your 1,290 and 1,335 days are symbolic too, in that case - since that days count is linked to your "symbolic" act of the daily sacrifices being taken away.

So why then in your imagination are you forcing a literal 1,290 and 1,335 days into the text of Matthew 24, somewhere between Mat.24:15 and Mat.24:31, if they are symbolic? There is nothing in Matthew 24 that even hints at such a thing, David.

It's not the daily sacrifices, nor the 1,290 and 1,335 days (which are both linked to the taking away of the daily sacrifices in the 2nd century BC), that Daniel 12 links to the end of the age we live in by way of type / antitype - it's the abomination of desolation in the holy place that was placed in the temple by Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC temple that is linked, because it became the type of the AoD to come at the close of the age we live in. This is also the reason why Daniel 12:2 & 13 mentions the resurrection of the dead - it tells us that what Antiochus IV did by placing an AoD in the holy place, will be repeated at the end of the ages, albeit not in exactly the same way with exactly the same idol in the temple, and not in the same temple either, but in the New Testament Temple.​

 

[Timtofly]

7 Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

No mention of the church being saved out of it. No mention of the resurrection. No mention of the rapture.

8 For it shall be in that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will break his yoke from your neck and will burst your bonds. And strangers shall no longer enslave him,
9 but they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up to them.

11 For I am with you, says the LORD, to save you. Though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you, yet I will not make a full end of you; but I will correct you in measure, and will not leave you entirely unpunished.

No mention of the church being saved out of it. No mention of the resurrection. No mention of the rapture. You Pretrib guys have written your own Bibles.

The church is not found on the earth when those verses take place. That is why you will not find the church in those verses.

You post trib guys who have the church on earth, even after Jacob has been removed, have written your own Bibles adding the church back in, where she does not belong.

Jacob will be healed out of, and removed as they are found on the sea of glass during the Abomination of Desolation. They have overcome the beast and his mark, and not even subjected to that experience.

"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints."

That is the fulfillment of your OT quote. Still no church found on the sea of glass. The church is in Paradise, not on the sea of glass. The church is found here:

"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;"

There is no distinction between anyone as this is the church. Jacob is distinct in the verses you quoted and distinct on the sea of glass. No church found in those Scriptures, as you pointed out.

The church was already removed.

You guys just don't get the fact the church has been gathering in Paradise since the thief physically died. The thief was resurrected along with Lazarus pre-burial and resurrection of even Jesus' physical body. The entire OT body of redeemed, the church, ascended to Paradise physically on Sunday morning with Jesus. That was pre-pentacost and the NT church. That was pre-NT great tribulation that Jesus promised to His 12 disciples as all were martyred or suffered great tribulation in this life but were all resurrected because the living could not prevent their resurrection, not even with theology that denies a pre-trib resurrection.

The church was removed before any tribulation you would go through or not. The church has already been removed before Jacob's trouble. The only ones left will be those alive at the time of the Second Coming. Which is when Jesus comes to remove Jacob who needs to be redeemed and healed first, at least a remnant. Because Jacob is not the church, nor part of the church at the Second Coming.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Pre-trib adherents are the only one's who understand.

 

[Zao is life]

"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;"

The church was already removed.

This gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come. At that time they will deliver you up to tribulation and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake.

Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand). Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains.

For then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.

And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of man shall appear in the heavens. And then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory.

And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

After these things I looked, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of all nations and kindreds and people and tongues, stood before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palms in their hands.

And one of the elders answered, saying to me, Who are these who are arrayed in white robes, and from where do they come? And I said to him, Sir, you know.

And he said to me, These are the ones who came out of great tribulation and have washed their robes, and have whitened them in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve Him day and night in His temple. And He sitting on the throne will dwell among them.​

"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;"

The church was already removed.

Sure. None of those mentioned in Revelation 7 above are going to believe you when the above prophecy is fulfilled.

Not even you are going to believe you.

 

[Zao is life]

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Even though 70 AD would be the future per that scenario, that's not the time period Jesus had in mind. WE can know this from Daniel 12 alone, because at the end of these days involving the AOD, that is when Daniel rises from the dead.

The text only says Daniel will rest and stand in his lot at the end of the days.

It's plainly obvious to some of us, and it's too bad that doesn't include you, that it has to be the days pertaining to verse 11 and 12.

LOL. What is plainly obvious to many besides me and too bad that doesn't include you, is that in your argument there is a daily sacrifice (for sin) that will be taken away AT THE END OF THIS AGE (because you say Daniel 12:11 is not referring to what Antiochus IV did),

and since you place that daily sacrifice (for sin) at the end of the age when Christ returns, you are talking about an antichrist putting an end to his own antichrist system in his own antichrist temple

- because the New Testament temple - which you say is what Matthew 24:15 is referring to - does not have daily sacrifices (for sin) taking place in it, since Christ is our once-for-all sacrifice for sin.

Your argument has daily sacrifices for sin taking place in the New Testament temple being taken away by the antichrist of Daniel 12, which is totally nonsensical, and many Christians besides me would be able to see that. Too bad that doesn't include you ;)

No antichrist is going to take away daily sacrifices for sin in any temple again. Because such sacrifices and such a temple will be his own antichrist temple, were it to exist before Christ returns.​

Does not the AOD in Matthew 24 involve great tribulation? Is it not sometime after great tribulation that the dead in Christ rise first followed by a rapture of the living? Why wouldn't what's recorded in Daniel 12 be the exact same timeline of events recorded in Matthew 24? But how can it be if some of you are insisting that verse 11 and 12 has zero to do with the AOD Jesus projected into the final days of this age, but is involving the days of A4E instead?

It's you who is taking a prophecy which is closing off the same prophecy about Antiochus IV and his desolation mentioned in Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31, and making as though that taking away of daily sacrifices (for sin) is referring to the end of this age

- because you have somewhere along the line convinced yourself that Daniel 12:11-12 must be linked to Daniel being told (when he expresses the fact that he does not understand), that he will rest, and in the end of the days he will rise again from the dead, and because Daniel 12:2 speaks about the resurrection of all the dead.

As a result you have an antichrist taking away the daily sacrifices (for sin) in an antichrist temple appearing before Christ returns - and this temple you say is the New Testament Temple, and somehow you don't see how bizarre that is.

As a result, though it is as plain as day in the book of Daniel, you refuse to have it that Daniel 12:11 is linked by the text in Daniel to Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31.

And though Daniel 12:7 is almost word-for-word the same as Revelation 10:5-7, you cannot understand that the abomination of desolation placed by Antiochus IV in the holy place of the 2nd temple, which is linked by the text in Daniel to the daily sacrifice (for sin) being taken away,

is a type of the abomination of desolation of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Matthew 24:15 which will appear in the holy place of the New Testament temple where there is no daily sacrifice for sin taking place,

and even if by that time there were such an abomination, the antichrist will not be taking it away in a hurry because it would be his own system in what he regards as his own temple.

Even if the body of Christ began performing daily sacrifices for sin, the antichrist is not going to be taking them away because it will be his own system and he will have turned the temple into his own (or that's what he will believe he has done).

So until you can explain why Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 fits with daily sacrifices for sin being stopped, you have a really ridiculous argument - because Daniel 12:11-12 links the 1,290 days and the 1,335 days to those daily sacrifices for sin being stopped, linking it to Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31.

But you cannot see it because you have come to believe what somewhere along the line you have convinced yourself of, despite all the evidence that counts against your assertions in this regard.​

Has it ever dawned on you, especially how you interpret Matthew 24:15, that that is not to be understood in a literal sense involving a literal temple involving animal sacrificing taking place in it, that neither is Daniel 12:11 to be understood in a literal sense, since it is involving the very same AOD Matthew 24:15-21 is involving?

What is evident is that it has never dawned on you that because Daniel linked the daily sacrifices for sin being stopped to the abomination of desolation in the temple and had already mentioned the same thing in earlier chapters, that you have no right to change the plain and obvious meaning of the verse - which is that daily sacrifices for sin were being taken away in Daniel 12:11,

Has it never dawned on you that the only other way of understanding this is that the first abomination of desolation in the holy place of the 2nd temple is a type of the last - but that the last will not involve sacrifices for sin or a physical temple (unless "Christians" start offering sacrifices to the man of sin, but there is no hint of such a thing in the New Testament)?
​

Trust me, I get your point about types and anti-types,

Trust me, you don't get my point. You're way too brainwashed by your (now you have then as "symbolic") sacrifices for sin being taken away in Daniel 12:11 (even though that taking away of the daily sacrifices for sin was already mentioned by Daniel in Daniel 8:11 and 11:31) for you to get the point.

And now. in order to make it fit your belief, you have changed literal sacrifices mentioned by Daniel 12:11 into "symbolic" sacrifices for sin, even though in history what was written was fulfilled, and the Jews have a whole annual festival based on the historic fact of it.
​

In the book of Revelation great tribulation appears to be involving 1260 days, thus the 42 month reign of the beast, yet Daniel 12:11 speaks of 1290 days then verse 12 speaks of of a 1335th day.

That alone should tell you that the 1290 days and 1335th day was fulfilled in the 2nd century B.C when Antiochus IV placed his abomination of desolation in the temple and stopped the daily sacrifices for sin that the Jews according to Mosaic law were to be offering.​

If we use Matthew 24 here, maybe 1260 days of that are involving the time period pertaining to verses 15-26, and the remaining 75 days are pertaining to Matthew 24:29, with the 1335th day meaning Matthew 24:30-31.

The fact that you needed to use the word "maybe" above shows up the error of your thinking. You are adding your imagination to the text of Matthew in order to force your 1,290 days and 1,335 days to fit in where it does not belong.​

IMO, having Daniel 12:11-12 involving the time of A4E is not interpreting Scripture with Scripture in this particular case.

IMO forcing 1,290 and 1,335 days into Matthew 24's text to get the text of Matthew 24 to comply with your theory, and your refusal to acknowledge that what took place in history in the 2nd century BC is the biblical type of what is coming (in terms of an antichrist and an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place - the sanctuary of God), is not interpreting scripture with scripture in the case of Daniel 12.

This is why you do not understand that this is exactly why the resurrection of the dead in the end of days is added into the text of Daniel 12 - because it's a type of the end of the age in our age.​

Having Daniel 12:11-12 involving the same time period Jesus is pertaining to in Matthew 24:15-31 is interpreting Scripture with Scripture

No it is not. It's interpreting scripture with an imagination which requires you to insert 1,290 days and 1,335 days into the text of Matthew 24 so as to fit a daily sacrifice for sin being abolished in a New Testament temple.​

clearly, verse 13 was not fulfilled at the end of those days. Neither of those scenarios are meaning when the end be.

Verses 2 & 13 of Daniel 12 have never been fulfilled, They are the only parts that were not fulfilled in Daniel 12.​

 

[Davidpt]

@Zao is life I typed the following up earlier. Haven't read your last post to me yet. I will do that here shortly.

In my mind I feel I'm holding the trump card. What Gill said below reinforces it for me.

Came across this this morning. Commentators are not my cup of tea, yet this little bit below by Gill is rather good.
----------------------------
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away,.... This is in part an answer to the above questions, as they relate to the end of things: some dates are given, by which it might in general be known when and how these things would end: and these dates begin with the removal of the daily sacrifice; that is, the doctrine of atonement and satisfaction for sin by the sacrifice of Christ, the antitype of the daily sacrifice under the law; this was taken away by antichrist, when he got to his height; when he established the doctrine of works, and opposed the merits of men to the merits of Christ, and his own pardons, indulgences, penances, &c. to the satisfaction of Christ:

and the abomination that maketh desolate; image worship; the abomination of the Mass, and other acts of idolatry and superstition:

there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days; from the beginning of the reign of antichrist to the end of it are one thousand two hundred and sixty days or years, or forty two months, which is the same, according to Revelation 13:5, here thirty days or years are added, which begin where the other end, and is the time allotted for the conversion of the Jews, and other things, making way for the kingdom of Christ; and which the reign of antichrist was an hinderance of, but should now immediately take place.

Daniel 12:11 Commentaries: "From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

biblehub.com

--------------------------


This is basically what I have been trying to say all along. IOW, you simply don't have the correct type and antitype by having A4E as the type. Gill has it correct when he said this---and these dates begin with the removal of the daily sacrifice; that is, the doctrine of atonement and satisfaction for sin by the sacrifice of Christ, the antitype of the daily sacrifice under the law; this was taken away by antichrist, when he got to his height; when he established the doctrine of works, and opposed the merits of men to the merits of Christ, and his own pardons, indulgences, penances, &c. to the satisfaction of Christ: and the abomination that maketh desolate; image worship; the abomination of the Mass, and other acts of idolatry and superstition

This is interpreting Scripture with Scripture., IMO. I don't know what you are doing by seeing A4E all over the place in the texts?. Clearly, A4E is mentioned nowhere in my Bible. Not in the OT and not in the NT. You need to rethink the type and antitype, because clearly, what Gill said here, which is what I have been trying to say all along, the doctrine of atonement and satisfaction for sin by the sacrifice of Christ, the antitype of the daily sacrifice under the law--makes far better Biblical sense than what you are going on about by making A4E being the one meant in Daniel 12:11.

IMO, none of this in Daniel 11 nor Daniel 12 pertaining to an AOD is to be taken in a literal sense involving a literal brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.
6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.


This is involving the same period that verse 11 and 12 are involving, where you have verse 11 and 12 involving the days of A4E. As if this---shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end--and this---it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished---fit the days of A4E somehow. But let's say that you agree verses 4-7 don't fit the days of A4E. And if so, why would you have verse 11 and 12 involving the days of A4E when those verses are involving what verses 4-7 are involving and that you agree verses 4-7 are not involving the days of AE4?

Take verse 2 in Daniel 12, for example. Obviously, that doesn't fit the days of A4E. So why do you have verse 11 and 12 fitting the days of A4E when that has zero to do with verse 2? You are all over the place here per your interpretation of Daniel 12, unfortunately.

People need to quit taking everything in the OT in the literal sense all the time, meaning in regards to this particular subject. By taking these things in the literal sense we end up seeing A4E in the text, 70 AD in the text, anything but 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves. God forbid we see that in the text anywhere in Daniel 8, 11, and 12.

Apparently, my idea of interpreting Scripture with Scripture is vastly different than how some of the rest of you think that works.

How is it that you and I can get pretty much on the same page in regards to Matthew 24:15-26, then be miles apart per Daniel 8, 11, and 12, which all are pertaining to the same future AOD Mathew 24:15-26 is?


I'll end with this. I want to bring this up again that I submitted above---it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished

Obviously, this a time, times, and an half fit somewhere within the 1290 days and day 1335 in verse 11 and 12. And if we then compare to Revelation 10, no one would apply any of that to the days of A4E.

Compare---it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished(Daniel 12:7)--with the following in Revelation 10.

Revelation 10:5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Once again, rethink your type and antitype here. Gill has that correct, IMO, not you, if you are seeing A4E as the type. What you have decided to be the type and antitype is not the only option to choose from.

 

[Timtofly]

This gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come. At that time they will deliver you up to tribulation and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake.

Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand). Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains.

For then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.

And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of man shall appear in the heavens. And then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory.

And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

After these things I looked, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of all nations and kindreds and people and tongues, stood before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palms in their hands.

And one of the elders answered, saying to me, Who are these who are arrayed in white robes, and from where do they come? And I said to him, Sir, you know.

And he said to me, These are the ones who came out of great tribulation and have washed their robes, and have whitened them in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve Him day and night in His temple. And He sitting on the throne will dwell among them.​

Sure. None of those mentioned in Revelation 7 above are going to believe you when the above prophecy is fulfilled.

Not even you are going to believe you.

They already believe me. You are the one claiming they are all in a state of death without a body.

 

[Davidpt]

LOL. What is plainly obvious to many besides me and too bad that doesn't include you, is that in your argument there is a daily sacrifice (for sin) that will be taken away AT THE END OF THIS AGE (because you say Daniel 12:11 is not referring to what Antiochus IV did),​

Yet, there are other ways to look at things rather than in the literal sense. But let's just ignore that.

and since you place that daily sacrifice (for sin) at the end of the age when Christ returns, you are talking about an antichrist putting an end to his own antichrist system in his own antichrist temple

No I'm not. I don't know what you are talking about here. I'm not a dispy Pretribber who thinks a temple gets built in Jerusalem and how they apply that the way they do.

- because the New Testament temple - which you say is what Matthew 24:15 is referring to - does not have daily sacrifices (for sin) taking place in it, since Christ is our once-for-all sacrifice for sin.

I for sure agree with you. Therefore, you are not even remotely understanding where I'm coming from. That is likely because the type and antitype you use is not the same ones I use.

Your argument has daily sacrifices for sin taking place in the New Testament temple being taken away by the antichrist of Daniel 12, which is totally nonsensical, and many Christians besides me would be able to see that. Too bad that doesn't include you ;)


No antichrist is going to take away daily sacrifices for sin in any temple again. Because such sacrifices and such a temple will be his own antichrist temple, were it to exist before Christ returns.

That is not my position. Therefore, I agree with you. Try and understand my position first if you are going to argue against it. All you are doing here is what we call a straw man. I don't think you are doing it on purpose, though. You are just not understanding what I'm arguing. In the my post prior to this one, maybe it's a bit clearer?

No need for me to address rest of your post since it's basically the same straw man as above. Once again, try and understand my position first before arguing against it.




[/QUOTE]

 

[Davidpt]

LOL. What is plainly obvious to many besides me and too bad that doesn't include you, is that in your argument there is a daily sacrifice (for sin) that will be taken away AT THE END OF THIS AGE (because you say Daniel 12:11 is not referring to what Antiochus IV did),​

Yet, there are other ways to look at things rather than in the literal sense. But let's just ignore that.

and since you place that daily sacrifice (for sin) at the end of the age when Christ returns, you are talking about an antichrist putting an end to his own antichrist system in his own antichrist temple

No I'm not. I don't know what you are talking about here. I'm not a dispy Pretribber who thinks a temple gets built in Jerusalem and how they apply that the way they do.

- because the New Testament temple - which you say is what Matthew 24:15 is referring to - does not have daily sacrifices (for sin) taking place in it, since Christ is our once-for-all sacrifice for sin.

I for sure agree with you. Therefore, you are not even remotely understanding where I'm coming from. That is likely because the type and antitype you use is not the same ones I use.

Your argument has daily sacrifices for sin taking place in the New Testament temple being taken away by the antichrist of Daniel 12, which is totally nonsensical, and many Christians besides me would be able to see that. Too bad that doesn't include you ;)


No antichrist is going to take away daily sacrifices for sin in any temple again. Because such sacrifices and such a temple will be his own antichrist temple, were it to exist before Christ returns.

That is not my position. Therefore, I agree with you. Try and understand my position first if you are going to argue against it. All you are doing here is what we call a straw man. I don't think you are doing it on purpose, though. You are just not understanding what I'm arguing. In my post prior to this one, maybe it's a bit clearer what I'm arguing?

No need for me to address rest of your post since it's basically the same straw man as above. Once again, try and understand my position first before arguing against it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yet, there are other ways to look at things rather than in the literal sense. But let's just ignore that.​

Except when it comes to Revelation 20, right? ;)

 

[Zao is life]

You need to rethink the type and antitype, because clearly, what Gill said here

Gill is not scripture. Gill is Gill's interpretation of scripture.

You have chosen to follow Gill's interpretation / imagination in his attempts to explain what daily sacrifices are being referred to in Daniel 12:11, which you and Gill have done so as to be able to fit a removal of daily sacrifices for sin into Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 i.e into what will take place when the man of sin is revealed.

Therefore it's you who needs to rethink the type and anti-type.

There is no longer any daily sacrifices for sin to be removed, no matter what Gill says about Roman Catholicism and its sacraments.
​

Sacrifices for sin never needing to be removed again depend on what Jesus has done - not on man - and despite what you and Gill believe, no amount of sacrificing for sin or anything contained in any church's sacraments needs to be removed - because Jesus own once-for-all removal of it IS FAR MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY IMAGINED MAN-MADE SACRIFICES FOR SIN.

I already said in an earlier post that the anti-type has nothing to do with daily sacrifices for sin being removed - but it has EVERYTHING to do with an abomination of desolation being placed in THE HOLY PLACE.

But you don't read everything I say. Then you create straw-man arguments like what you are doing in this post again. I'm also not saying you do it deliberately, but you do.

It's you who believes that in order for what occurred in the days of Antiochus IV to be a type of what is to come, then whatever - everything - that Antiochus IV did - has to be fulfilled A SECOND TIME in its entirety when the man of sin is revealed.
​

I don't believe that. It's the abomination of desolation he placed in the holy place that is a type of what is to come.

I'm the one saying that Daniel 12:11 was fulfilled when Antiochus IV caused the daily sacrifices to be removed AND placed an abomination of desolation in the temple. You are the one who wants BOTH the daily sacrifices being removed AND an abomination of desolation placed IN THE HOLY PLACE at the close of this Age. Not me.

You and Gill want it that way, that is. But not Gill and Matthew Henry, because they do not agree.
​

IMO, none of this in Daniel 11 nor Daniel 12 pertaining to an AOD is to be taken in a literal sense involving a literal brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem.​

Well that's your opinion but the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees and what's written in Josephus' history and the Jews' festival of Hanukkah wouldn't exist if Daniel 11 and 12 did not pertain to a bricks and mortar temple in Jerusalem. There is a mass of history and historic literature going against your opinion.​

But let's say that you agree verses 4-7 don't fit the days of A4E.

I do not agree that verses 4-7 don't fit the days of Antiochus IV. They DID fit the time of Antiochus IV and were fulfilled in the time of Antiochus IV - read 1 and 2 Macabeees and Josephus and ask the Jewish Rabbis to tell you about the history that occurred during that period BEFORE you go and change history to fit in with your own private interpretations of scripture.

verses 4-7 DID fit the time of Antiochus IV - and because this is a TYPE of what is to come - verses 4-7 ALSO fit the end of this Age.

You keep either showing or pretending that you do not fully understand what a type and and anti-type is in scripture.​

And if so, why would you have verse 11 and 12 involving the days of A4E when those verses are involving what verses 4-7 are involving

Verses 11-12 involve the days of Antiochus IV because verses 4-7 involve the time of Antiochus IV. Stop being illogical here.

The ONLY verses that do not involve the time of Antiochus IV are verses Daniel 12:2 and Daniel 12:13. THIS IS MEANT TO SHOW US THAT HE - ANTIOCHUS IV - AND WHAT HE DID - is THE TYPE of what is to come - the abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place.

In Daniel 12:7 the 3.5 years was still to come when Daniel prophesied, and these verses were fulfilled by Antiochus IV.

Now compare it with Revelation 10:5-7. In Revelation 10:5-7 the 3.5 years at the time of the close of THIS Age have already passed by the time Revelation 10:5-7 gets fulfilled.

THE ANTI-TYPE IS NOT THE SAME AS THE TYPE - BUT BOTH TYPE AND ANTI-TYPE OCCUR AT SOME POINT IN TIME. The anti-type never fulfills the type in exactly the same way - Joseph who was sold into Egypt by his brothers for 20 shekels of silver and married a Gentile bride etc etc is a biblical type of Jesus.

Not everything that happened in Joseph's day was fulfilled again by Jesus in Jesus' day. Not everything that was fulfilled by Antiochus IV will be fulfilled again. THE PART THAT WILL BE FULFILLED AGAIN - ALBEIT NOT IN THE SAME WAY - IS THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION IN THE HOLY PLACE. - NOT the removal of sacrifices for sins. IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT JESUS ALREADY DID THAT, ONCE AND FOR ALL.

The person of the anti-type is ALSO not the same as the person involved in the type.

The removal of sacrifices for sins was done by an Antichrist named Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC.

The next time daily sacrifices for sin were removed, they were removed once for all time, by Christ's sacrifice of Himself. Any continued or resumed sacrifices for sins is Antichrist.

Antiochus IV, and what he did regarding the placing of an abomination of desolation in the holy place, is the only part of what Antiochus IV did that became the type of what is to come. Jesus did not mention sacrifices for sins being removed in Matthew 24:15. You have inserted that into the verse with your interpretation.​

I don't know what you are doing by seeing A4E all over the place in the texts?. Clearly, A4E is mentioned nowhere in my Bible.

You will need to ask Jesus what He means by seeing the AoD spoken of by DANIEL all over the place. That argument of yours proves nothing. It does not support your argument, because either Jesus was referring to the abomination of desolation prophesied of by Daniel which did not result in the DESTRUCTION of Jerusalem OR of the temple (Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11-12),

OR He was referring to the abominations of Daniel 9:27 which DID result in the DESTRUCTION of both Jerusalem AND the temple (Daniel 9:26).

Alexander is not named in the Bible either. But what he did was prophesied. Your argument about Antiochus IV not being named in the Bible proves nothing either. Neither does quoting the commentary of someone just because he agrees with you. You wouldn't be quoting him if he disagreed with you. I could quote Matthew Henry because he agrees with me that Antiochus IV is a type of the Antichrist to come.

You're grasping at straws because you have not proved and cannot prove your point - the straw produced by Gill in his commentary about this.​

 

[Davidpt]

Except when it comes to Revelation 20, right? ;)

Let's look at it like the following.


A) Revelation 11:1-2, for example, not to be taken in a literal sense. Therefore, one should treat Revelation 20 and the thousand years in the same manner, thus be consistent at least.

Maybe you have a valid point here since I do not take Revelation 11:1-2 in the literal sense. Therefore, maybe good advice for me on your part. But then if we compare how you are treating the following, meaning B), maybe you don't have a valid point after all, in regards to A) since you don't seem to be doing with B) what you are doing with A), then thinking I should be doing with A) what you are doing with A). IOW, per B) you're not setting a good example for me to follow.

B) Matthew 24:15-21 is to be understood in a literal sense. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not to be understood in the literal sense.

Therefore, though you think I should be consistent per A) by treating both in the same manner, you fail to do the same thing with B) that you feel I should be doing with A).

First of all, why would anyone who doesn't take Revelation 11:1-2 in the literal sense think what Revelation 11:1-2 is involving, it's not the same thing Matthew 24:15-21 is involving? Why wouldn't it be if Matthew 24:15-26 is involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not to be taken in the literal sense the same way Revelation 11:1-2 is not to be taken in the literal sense?

Second of all, why would anyone who doesn't take anything in Revelation 11:1-2 in the literal sense think what Revelation 11:1-2 is involving, it's the same thing Luke 21:20 is involving? Clearly, they wouldn't, right? The reason why, because Revelation 11:1-2 can't be involving Luke 21:20 since that is pertaining to literal events involving 70 AD and that Revelation 11:1-2 is not to be taken in the literal sense.

Therefore, showing that what Matthew 24:15-21 is involving is not the same thing Luke 21:20 is involving. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 proving that. Yet, you think I should treat A) like you are treating it when you can't even treat B) like you are treating A).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let's look at it like the following.

I made a little joke and you made a big deal out of it. I should have known that would happen. I guess the thread has already gone off topic at this point, so why not. I guess I'll respond to what you said in this post even though it's not related to the topic of the thread.

A) Revelation 11:1-2, for example, not to be taken in a literal sense. Therefore, one should treat Revelation 20 and the thousand years in the same manner, thus be consistent at least.

Maybe you have a valid point here since I do not take Revelation 11:1-2 in the literal sense.

I actually didn't even make that point. Go back and read what I actually said and you'll see that. You sure are reading a lot into one short comment that I made. I think what you're saying here is a valid point as a general rule, but there can always be exceptions to general rules. Context is a more important consideration than rigidly sticking to general rules like this.

You said this: "Yet, there are other ways to look at things rather than in the literal sense. But let's just ignore that."

Then I said this: "Except when it comes to Revelation 20, right?".

So, the point I was making is that you should at least consider that Revelation 20 maybe should not be taken in the literal sense and that shouldn't be ignored. I was basically just saying that you should take your own advice as it relates to Revelation 20. Maybe you already have seriously considered that possibility. Doesn't seem like it, but maybe. That's my only point is that you should do the same thing you were telling someone else to do, which was to at least consider the possibility that a certain scripture shouldn't be taken in the literal sense.

Therefore, maybe good advice for me on your part. But then if we compare how you are treating the following, meaning B), maybe you don't have a valid point after all,

Again, it's not a point that I made. It's a point that you're somehow imagining that I made. For any given scripture we should first look at the context instead of making assumptions about it based on other scripture that contains similar wording. The similar wording may or may not mean that the passages are related. It depends on the context of each passage.

in regards to A) since you don't seem to be doing with B) what you are doing with A), then thinking I should be doing with A) what you are doing with A). IOW, per B) you're not setting a good example for me to follow.

Who said I was trying to set an example for you to follow? You're making all this up as if I said something that I didn't even say. It's ridiculous.

B) Matthew 24:15-21 is to be understood in a literal sense. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not to be understood in the literal sense.

Therefore, though you think I should be consistent per A) by treating both in the same manner, you fail to do the same thing with B) that you feel I should be doing with A).

When did I say anything about you needing to be consistent? All I said was "Except when it comes to Revelation 20, right?". I was just reminding you to do the same thing you were telling someone else to do, which was to at least consider whether a certain passage should be taken literally or not instead of assuming it has to be literal.

First of all, why would anyone who doesn't take Revelation 11:1-2 in the literal sense think what Revelation 11:1-2 is involving, it's not the same thing Matthew 24:15-21 is involving? Why wouldn't it be if Matthew 24:15-26 is involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not to be taken in the literal sense the same way Revelation 11:1-2 is not to be taken in the literal sense?

Because they don't have the same context.

Second of all, why would anyone who doesn't take anything Revelation 11:1-2 in the literal sense think what Revelation 11:1-2 is involving, it's the same thing Luke 21:20 is involving? Clearly, they wouldn't, right? The reason why, because Revelation 11:1-2 can't be involving Luke 21:20 since that is pertaining to literal events involving 70 AD and that Revelation 11:1-2 is not to be taken in the literal sense.

Sure.

Therefore, showing that what Matthew 24:15-21 is involving is not the same thing Luke 21:20 is involving. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 proving that.

No, 2 Thess 2:4 doesn't prove that. That's your opinion, but I disagree with that.

Yet, you think I should treat A) like you are treating it when you can't even treat B) like you are treating A).

And I said that when?

Look, David, here's the problem I have with how you interpret Matthew 24:15-21. I give you credit for looking at other scripture for help in order to interpret scripture with scripture. That's what you're doing by relating it to Daniel 12:1-2.

But, for some reason, you decide that those two passages are directly related but somehow Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are not. That makes no sense to me. Unlike Daniel 12:1-2, Luke 21:20-24 is part of the Olivet Discourse as is Matthew 24:15-21. I think it makes much more sense to relate those two passages together since they are part of the same discourse. It's clear to me that Luke worded some it the same and some differently only because he was writing to a different audience (the Gentiles) who wouldn't be familiar with Daniel's prophecy.

Another thing to consider is how the Olivet Discourse begins. I guess you could say in Matthew 24, it begins in verse 3, but right before that we see Jesus saying that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed. Would you not think that the disciples would ask a question related to that? Of course they would. And they did. They asked "when shall these things be?". As in, when shall these things ("these things" were the temple buildings) be destroyed? They also asked another question, but that's beside the point right now. So, since they asked when the temple buildings would be destroyed, we certainly would expect Jesus to have answered that question, right? And that question is recorded in Matthew 24. So, there's no reason to think the answer wouldn't be recorded in Matthew 24. And, yet, that is what you believe, that the answer to that question isn't found in Matthew 24. I don't understand that at all.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words...

Precious friend, Thanks So Much for: some of my favorite passages Of God's Word Of Truth!

...But who do Pretribbers assume is part of the dead in Christ that rise first?

No need to assume anything - simply study according to 2 Timothy 2:15 AV. - ie:

In God's Context Of His earthly kingdom, this assembly includes everyone from Adam
to the "Under The Law" Israeli remnant [ Represented By Twelve ], that existed at the
time of Israel's fall (Romans 11:11 AV), and [ continued in Prophecy below ]...

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):

In God's Other Context Of His Heavenly kingdom, this One Body Of Christ [ Represented
By One ] includes everyone saved "Under God's Grace" According to The Revelation Of The
Mystery, where we find Paul as the first 'member' of God's New creation, making him God's
'Pattern':

[ As with a lot of Scriptures, we find a double meaning ]:

"If any man { Paul first } be in Christ, there is a new creature [ creation, the​

"One New man (Ephesians 2:15 AV) ]: old things are passed away; behold​

all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17 AV)​

​

[ plus all individual 'members' of the New "One Body Of Christ" hereafter? ],
because God Teaches:

"Howbeit for this cause I obtained Mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might Shew​

Forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on​

Him to life everlasting." (1 Timothy 1:16 AV)​

​

Mystery / Grace ( Today's parenthetical Age ) Ends, as Paul [ our pattern ] expected 'in his day',

and as we continue to expect 'in our day', Today, These Comforting Words:​

[ answering the "who are part of the dead In Christ who rise first?" ]:

"...the dead [ since Paul who are ] In [ The One Body Of ] Christ shall rise first: Then​

we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds,​

to meet The Lord in the air *..." (vs. 16-17)...​

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):

...Then Prophecy [ Daniel's 70th week(?) for the nation of Israel and the nations ] resumes:

...and [ Israel's earthly assembly ] also includes those during The Time Of Jacob's (Israel's)
Trouble, who will not worship the man of sin, the son of Perdition, "and so all of Israel will
be saved" (Romans 11:12, 15, 26 AV) when Christ Returns "all the way to the earth!" in His:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prophesied Second Coming.​

Amen.

* More related 'pre-trib' Scriptural study: God's Great GRACE Departure!