ECT Can the Great Tribulation be far off?? Wake Up Christian!!
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
beameup
New member
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 2 Pet 3:8
I don't believe your concept of time is compatable with God's time.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Peter said that about God's patience. Explicitly (that is the topic). In Mt 24's intro, coming as it does after mentioning the destruction of Israel 3 times in 3 preceding chapters, he gives exact instructions to his believers that are supposed to be used right then, or a few months or years ahead. There is none of the flitting here and there that you imagine. If he meant that he would have said so.
The only gap mentioned is simply not stating when the final day would come; that only the Father knows. Otherwise we have a fairly tight time-stamped timeframe: he is first talking about the DofJ in that generation in Judea, then about the 2nd coming for worldwide judgment. Mix them and the result is utter confusion. But once you clear the events of 1st century Judea, yes, you are free to say that God could easily let things go several thousand years.
beameup
New member
You need to carefully read Daniel 9:24-27 (referred to twice by Jesus in the Gospels).
Replacement Theology is a Catholic creation from the 4th Century and "preterism" is its bedfellow.
Obviously God has a "long-range" plan and you simply cannot "grasp" it at present.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Why on earth would anyone think the sequence is supposed to be interrupted--as it reads in Daniel? the last verse is about the events of the 6th decade in Judea, called the rebellion that desolates in 8:13. I'm very familiar with the passage.
There is no need for a revisit of issues about israel. There is no need for a return to the land (I'm personally glad for anything that breaks up a monopoly of sharia states!). I mean in prophecy there is no need. It is nowhere in the NT. Ie, there is no indication that it matters besides there being no 'quote' about it. Rom 11 is way too qualified to jump to that kind of meaning; he was talking about what was emerging right then, using Isaiah historically.
There is no need for a revisit of issues about israel. There is no need for a return to the land (I'm personally glad for anything that breaks up a monopoly of sharia states!). I mean in prophecy there is no need. It is nowhere in the NT. Ie, there is no indication that it matters besides there being no 'quote' about it. Rom 11 is way too qualified to jump to that kind of meaning; he was talking about what was emerging right then, using Isaiah historically.