The Prophetic Timeline: Why Jesuit Futurists/Jesuit Preterists Ignore It

[Douggg]

That's not the question, as you're well aware. The quotes are obviously claiming that the pope is another Christ, i.e. an antichrist. But you unsurprisingly insist on denying the obvious, which you must in order to perpetuate your antichristian Jesuit futurism.

Your inability to provide a credible alternative explanation for the quotes identifies your denials as illogical, irrational, and indefensible.

I did not make those quotes, nor agree with them. But those quotes do not make the pope/papacy the Antichrist.

In Matthew 24:15-21, Jesus said that them in Judea should flee to the mountains as soon as they see the abomination of desolation standing in a holy place. Because what will follow will be the great tribulation. Then His return in Matthew 24:30.

What has any of that have to do with the pope/papacy ?

You, nor any of the reformers, have any time line charts of those events.

 

[covenantee]

I did not make those quotes, nor agree with them. But those quotes do not make the pope/papacy the Antichrist.

If they do not make the pope/papacy antichrist, what do they make him/it?

In Matthew 24:15-21, Jesus said that them in Judea should flee to the mountains as soon as they see the abomination of desolation standing in a holy place.

The Judaean Christians heeded Jesus' warning and fled prior to 70 AD.

Thankfully, not one of them was a Jesuit futurist.

 

[Phoneman777]

The church in the wilderness was not the church of Jesus Christ. Judas Iscariot hung himself before the church of Jesus Christ came into existence in Luke 24:44-48.

Wrong - the church began as soon as Jesus called Andrew and Peter.

The church of Jesus Christ did not exist until Luke 24:44-48, because his church is built on the gospel of salvation, which the disciples did not understand until Luke 24:44-48.

Wrong again - the church is built upon Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" and Andrew himself reported, "We have found the Messiah".

Judas Iscariot could not have committed apostasy of something he did not understand. The gospel of salvation was not understood by the disciples until Luke 24:44-48.

He understood Jesus was the Christ, was His chosen disciple, partook of Holy Ghost power which is not available to sinners, and had betrayed "innocent blood".

What other proof do you need that Judas "went out" from the church of Jesus Christ?

Judas Iscariot did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God messiah or else Judas Iscariot would not have betrayed him for thirty pieces of silver.

Since when is acknowledgement of Jesus as the Son of God a barrier to rebellion against Him? Satan knew full well the pre-incarnate Jesus was the Second Person in the Godhead, yet rebelled in spite of it.

Please stop with the subjective reasoning and stick with Scripture, friend.

None of the disciples, including Judas Iscariot, understood the gospel of salvation until after the resurrection and Jesus appearing to them in Luke 24:44-48 to open their minds to understanding it.

I've placed loads of evidence for why the church began the moment Jesus called Andrew and Peter on one side of the scale and you've placed only one thing: lack of understanding on the part of disciples.

Now, by your logic, the Bereans weren't church members because they lacked understanding concerning the Holy Spirit, the very Spirit whereby church members are born again to become church members, right?

It should be clear to all who might be reading our discussion that the only "evidence" you've placed on the scale for why the church didn't begin until after the Cross has been disqualified.

By his own words, Andrew knew Jesus was the "Christ" aka "the Messiah" (John 1:41 KJV), the very knowledge upon which Jesus Himself says His church is built in Matthew 16:16-18 KJV.

 

[Phoneman777]

The Antichrist is the instead of and against the true King of Israel messiah - Jesus. The pope/papacy is not qualified to be the King of Israel messiah, therefore cannot be the Antichrist.

Does Scripture say the Man of Sin antichrist sits on a Jewish throne and shows himself to be a king?

No.

It says he sits in the "temple of God" and show himself to be God. That's what the popes do as they sit in the "temple of God" - the church.

 

[Phoneman777]

The two individuals in Revelation 19:20, who will be cast alive into the lake of fire, are two men. "The papacy and Apostate Protestantism", differently, are organizations of made up of many men.

So try again.

Yes, they are two literal men, and in chapter 13 a literal seven headed, ten horned beast is coming up out of the sea, right?

Hello...the book was "sent and signified" aka "sign-i-fied" in signs and symbols which require interpretation - the "two witnesses" are not literal men, the "false prophet" is not a literal man, the "whore riding the beast" is not a literal woman riding a creature, etc.

 

[Douggg]

Does Scripture say the Man of Sin antichrist sits on a Jewish throne and shows himself to be a king?

No.

It says he sits in the "temple of God" and show himself to be God. That's what the popes do as they sit in the "temple of God" - the church.

the Antichrist:
The common name for the end times person of evil. He begins as the little horn person > then becomes the prince who shall come > then becomes the Antichrist > then becomes the revealed man of sin > then becomes the beast-king.

The Antichrist will reveal that he is man of sin, and not the messiah as the Jews will have initially thought for the first 3 years thereabouts of the 7 year 70th week.

His act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to have achieved God-hood is the transgression of desolation act of Daniel 8:12-13, during the 2300 days of the little horn person.

SDA mistakenly thought (still thinks) that the 2300 days are 2300 years, claiming that the little horn is the pope/papacy. And thus in 1844, when Jesus did not return, as they projected, the non-event was called the great disappointment. Which Ellen G. White came up with her "investigative judgment" teaching about there being a cleansing going on in heaven, beginning in 1844.

Phoneman777 you are following defective eschatology teachings.

As soon as Gog/Magog takes place and is over, the Antichrist person will be anointed the King of Israel thought to be messiah. That person cannot be the pope.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I did not make those quotes, nor agree with them. But those quotes do not make the pope/papacy the Antichrist.

In Matthew 24:15-21, Jesus said that them in Judea should flee to the mountains as soon as they see the abomination of desolation standing in a holy place. Because what will follow will be the great tribulation. Then His return in Matthew 24:30.

What has any of that have to do with the pope/papacy ?

You, nor any of the reformers, have any time line charts of those events.

The great tribulation that occurs before Christ's return is global and what is described in Matthew 24:15-21 is not global (let them in Judea flee, not everyone in the world). You have no way around that. The global tribulation that will occur before His return is described here:

Matthew 24:9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

And here:

Matthew 24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.

The great tribulation that occurs before Christ's return is all about a high level of deception, resulting in many turning away from the faith, many hating each other, many false prophets and false Christs appearing and deceiving many, and a significant increase in wickedness. This lines up with what Paul said would occur before Christ's return in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. You have your focus on an individual Antichrist while Jesus said nothing about that and instead talked about many false Christs appearing. You have your focus on physical tribulation while Jesus focused on spiritual tribulation that would occur before His return.

 

[Phoneman777]

Except that I'm not. You're being foolish by accusing me of that.


LOL. Get over yourself. You make me laugh.

You're absolutely follwing Jesuit ideas, friend. Might as well get that copy of "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're absolutely follwing Jesuit ideas, friend. Might as well get that copy of "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine".

You have no clue of what you're talking about. None. Not even close. Your false accusations do nothing but make you look like a liar.

 

[Phoneman777]

the Antichrist:
The common name for the end times person of evil. He begins as the little horn person > then becomes the prince who shall come > then becomes the Antichrist > then becomes the revealed man of sin > then becomes the beast-king.

The Antichrist will reveal that he is man of sin, and not the messiah as the Jews will have initially thought for the first 3 years thereabouts of the 7 year 70th week.

His act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to have achieved God-hood is the transgression of desolation act of Daniel 8:12-13, during the 2300 days of the little horn person.

SDA mistakenly thought (still thinks) that the 2300 days are 2300 years, claiming that the little horn is the pope/papacy. And thus in 1844, when Jesus did not return, as they projected, the non-event was called the great disappointment. Which Ellen G. White came up with her "investigative judgment" teaching about there being a cleansing going on in heaven, beginning in 1844.

Phoneman777 you are following defective eschatology teachings.

As soon as Gog/Magog takes place and is over, the Antichrist person will be anointed the King of Israel thought to be messiah. That person cannot be the pope.

"Antichrist" is no where mentioned in Daniel 9. The only two princes that can qualify as "the prince that shall come" are "Messiah the Prince" or "prince Titus" which history shows came and destroyed Jerusalem.

Understand? "Messiah the Prince" or "prince Titus" - and that's the only two princes God's Bible knows about in Daniel 9.

 

[Phoneman777]

You have no clue of what you're talking about. None. Not even close. Your false accusations do nothing but make you look like a liar.

I don't make false accusations. If you're waiting for a future Man of Sin to come, you're a Jesuit Futurist and if you believe the Man of Sin has already come in the first century, you're a Jesuit Preterist.

Pick one.

 

[Douggg]

"Antichrist" is no where mentioned in Daniel 9. The only two princes that can qualify as "the prince that shall come" are "Messiah the Prince" or "prince Titus" which history shows came and destroyed Jerusalem.

Understand? "Messiah the Prince" or "prince Titus" - and that's the only two princes God's Bible knows about in Daniel 9.

No, not Titus. The 7year 70th week is end times. The covenant to be confirmed is the Mt. Sinai covenant, the only covenant referred to in Daniel 9.

That covenant is found in Daniel 9:4 at the beginning of Daniel's prayer. Daniel also referred to the law of Moses, which the stipulations of that covenant because the children of Israel was told of it by Moses that if they drifted away from worshiping God to other gods, then there would be a curse, in Daniel 9:11

Moses, in addition, set forth the requirement to confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant on a 7 year cycle, by the method he prescribed in Deuteronomy 31:9-13. That's where the confirm the covenant for 7 years in Daniel 9:27 comes from.

The 7 years 70th week of Daniel 9:27, corresponds to the 7 year following Gog/Magog in Ezekiel 39:9.

I show that adjacent to each other on the diagram for that reason.

 

[Phoneman777]

No, not Titus. The 7year 70th week is end times. The covenant to be confirmed is the Mt. Sinai covenant, the only covenant referred to in Daniel 9.

Jesus is the "Messenger of the Covenant" (Malachi 3:1 KJV)
Jesus came to "confirm the promises" (Romans 15:8 KJV)
Daniel said the covenant is confirmed for "many" (Daniel 9:27 KJV)
Jesus said His blood of the New Covenant would be shed for "many" (Matthew 26:28 KJV)
Isaiah said God would give Jesus to be a "covenant" (Isaiah 42:21 KJV)
Paul says Jesus confirmed covenant salvation in Person then through the disciples - 7 years (Heb 2:3 KJV)

God says Leviathan aka Satan makes covenants with no one...right or wrong? (Job 41:4 KJV)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't make false accusations.

Oh, yes you do and you have made false accusations towards me. Now, you're lying.

If you're waiting for a future Man of Sin to come, you're a Jesuit Futurist

I'm not waiting for that if you're talking about an individual Man of Sin as I assume you are. I very specifically told you this. I explained my understanding of the man of sin and you apparently ignored it or didn't bother reading it.

and if you believe the Man of Sin has already come in the first century, you're a Jesuit Preterist.

I don't believe that either! And I've told you this. You are either not carefully reading what I'm saying, ignoring what I'm saying, or you have terrible reading comprehension skills. Which is it?

 

[Phoneman777]

Oh, yes you do and you have made false accusations towards me. Now, you're lying.

Nope - you absolutely follow Jesuit doctrine, and I can prove it.

I'm not waiting for that if you're talking about an individual Man of Sin as I assume you are. I very specifically told you this. I explained my understanding of the man of sin and you apparently ignored it or didn't bother reading it.

My understanding is that you said you're waiting for a future "man of sin" so whether you think it's a man or a system is irrelevant - it's still based on the lie of Jesuit Futurism!

I don't believe that either! And I've told you this. You are either not carefully reading what I'm saying, ignoring what I'm saying, or you have terrible reading comprehension skills. Which is it?

If you're waiting for a future "man of sin" kingdom or individual, you're a Jesuit Futurist.
If you point to a past "man of sin" that already came in the 1st century, you're a Jesuit Preterist.

It's that simple.

Which are you?

 

[Douggg]

Nope - you absolutely follow Jesuit doctrine, and I can prove it.

My understanding is that you said you're waiting for a future "man of sin" so whether you think it's a man or a system is irrelevant - it's still based on the lie of Jesuit Futurism!

If you're waiting for a future "man of sin" kingdom or individual, you're a Jesuit Futurist.
If you point to a past "man of sin" that already came in the 1st century, you're a Jesuit Preterist.

It's that simple.

Which are you?

Terms like Jesuit Futurism makes about as much sense as SDA Historistism

 

[Phoneman777]

Terms like Jesuit Futurism makes about as much sense as SDA Historistism

Terms like "Jesuit Futurism" accurately describe the origin of Futurism, as does the term "Protestant Historicism" accurately describes the origin of Historicism.

Who but Jesuit sympathizers could ever be pleased with the notion that Jesuit eschatological ideas are the most trustworthy when the papal organization to which they belong can't even figure out that salvation is by grace through faith ALONE?

 

[Timtofly]

In what universe is this not Jesuit Futurism?

The point of it is to direct the attention of the people away from the papacy toward a future expectation of the rise of the Man of Sin, and idea which was born out of the papal Counter-Reformation which sole purpose was to overthrow the Protestant Reformation - because the entire Christian world at that time was pointing to the papacy as the Man of Sin!

You all are wrong!

The only "man of sin" is Satan, not any human, not even the apostate popes.

Adam was the original sinner, but the father of sin, father attributed to a "human male", is Satan.

The Millennium reign of Christ cannot start until all humanity is shown who and what Satan has done since the Garden of Eden.

The church under submission to the Holy Spirit has been holding back Satan from having full control over the earth. Many claim Satan has been confined. But only because of the Holy Spirit and the church at work. Not bound in the pit, as that is reserved for the Day of the Lord.

Saying the papacy is the man of sin, is no different than any other eschatological view that claims something about a human as the man of sin.

Satan will have a short time on earth deceiving people after the Second Coming. Covering up the fact that Satan is this man of sin has been an erroneous choice by the church throughout history.

Even Jesus pointed out to the religious people of His day, they are of their father, the devil. That should have been enough to know who the man of sin was, and still is.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nope - you absolutely follow Jesuit doctrine, and I can prove it.

My understanding is that you said you're waiting for a future "man of sin" so whether you think it's a man or a system is irrelevant - it's still based on the lie of Jesuit Futurism!

If you're waiting for a future "man of sin" kingdom or individual, you're a Jesuit Futurist.
If you point to a past "man of sin" that already came in the 1st century, you're a Jesuit Preterist.

It's that simple.

Which are you?

LOL. Circus clown or comedian. Which are you?

Using your terribly flawed and nonsensical logic, you are both a Jesuit Futurist and a Jesuit Preterist because you agree with at least one thing that each of those ridiculous end times systems teach. Using your ridiculous logic you also are a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon and a Muslim. And a bunch of other things. Congratulations.

 

[Phoneman777]

You all are wrong!

The only "man of sin" is Satan, not any human, not even the apostate popes.

Adam was the original sinner, but the father of sin, father attributed to a "human male", is Satan.

The Millennium reign of Christ cannot start until all humanity is shown who and what Satan has done since the Garden of Eden.

The church under submission to the Holy Spirit has been holding back Satan from having full control over the earth. Many claim Satan has been confined. But only because of the Holy Spirit and the church at work. Not bound in the pit, as that is reserved for the Day of the Lord.

Saying the papacy is the man of sin, is no different than any other eschatological view that claims something about a human as the man of sin.

Satan will have a short time on earth deceiving people after the Second Coming. Covering up the fact that Satan is this man of sin has been an erroneous choice by the church throughout history.

Even Jesus pointed out to the religious people of His day, they are of their father, the devil. That should have been enough to know who the man of sin was, and still is.

According to the prophetic timeline and history, the Man of Sin is Papal Rome that was restrained from arising by Pagan Rome. See, the prophetic timeline tracks Babylon to MP to Greece to Rome, to the Ten Barbarian Horns which arise out of the ashes of Rome, to the Little Horn "Man of Sin" which arises after Rome falls.