Could Judas Iscariot be the antichrist?

When you compare what happened in AD70 with what the Scripture describes, it is impossible to honestly say that that was the return of the Lord Jesus in power and glory on the clouds with his angels. There was no return in power and glory; He did not come on teh clouds; there were no angels. When the text of Scripture is king, these notions are not even entertained. You simply cannot look at the and honestly tell us that that fits the text of Scripture.

If that was his coming, why are we here in teh condition we are in??? If that was his coming, why is there still abundant unjudged sin?? You yourself pointed out the verse that he would come to judge sin. Yet that has not happened.

This is not even a matter that should be seriously entertained. You do not have to agree with the pretrib/premill viewpoint. But to suggest that AD70 was the second coming of Christ flies in the face of plain Scripture.

This gets back to the simple matter of Scripture. And it is amazing that people of your persuasion accuse dispensationalists of reading the Bible while looking at the headlines. It is you that are guilty of that.

 

see previous post. Then read the Old testament.

 

Matt.24
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.

 

I have done both and that is why I reject your view. It does not match the OT ... or the NT for that matter.

 

Are you sure you read my previous post?

If so, will you at least answer this one question?

No, you clearly miss the point. The transfiguration was a foretaste of the return of Christ. His disciples saw Christ in teh glory of the Father.

Let me try again. You say vs. 28 refers to the Transfiguration, does vs. 27? Yes or no?

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.
28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

Obviously not since at that time, Christ did not come in judgment on sin. That seems patently clear. It also shows an undeniable problem with preterism. In AD70, Christ did not come in power and glory on the clouds with angels in judgment on sin.

As I said, No, you clearly miss the point. The transfiguration was a foretaste of the return of Christ. His disciples saw Christ in teh glory of the Father. This was a foretaste of the events of v. 27. I am not sure how else to put that to make it clear.

 

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This was a foretaste of the events of v. 27. I am not sure how else to put that to make it clear.

How was the Transfiguration a foretaste of angels and Judgement(vs.27). Jesus said SOME, not ALL would see Him come in His Kingdom, not a foretaste of His Kingdom. Who is reading their preconcieved beliefs into scripture?

You can't understand the second coming in 70AD, therefore you have to twist verses like this instead of allowing it to speak for itself.

It also shows an undeniable problem with preterism. In AD70, Christ did not come in power and glory on the clouds with angels in judgment on sin.

This shows your problem with Old Testament language and symbolism.

You want Jehovah in clouds? OK.

Isaiah 19

1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, Jehovah rideth upon a swift cloud, and cometh unto Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall tremble at his presence; and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

Read all the references to coming in the clouds in the O.T.

How about Judgement? OK

Is 13
9 Behold, the day of Jehovah cometh, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger; to make the land a desolation, and to destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause its light to shine.

Was that a visible coming?

The 1st. century Jews were very familiar with this language and knew exactly what it meant.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.

 

And yet not a single first century Jew writing under the inspiration of the Spirit saw the events of the first century as you do. Every single one, without exception, disagreed with you, even 25 years after AD70 when John said these things were still to come.

The difficulty is that you have decided what your position will be and you will do whatever necessary to find it in the text. The bottom line is that the OT and NT prophesy of a coming, the appearing of the glory. That coming is unlike anything ever seen. The first century does not qualify. I have pointed out obvious reasons before but you are not listening to either history or the text. On this, we will simply disagree. I cannot find one ounce of scriptural proof for you position that does not involve the denial of the text. I just can't do it. If you can, more power to you.

 

And yet not a single first century Jew writing under the inspiration of the Spirit saw the events of the first century as you do.

If all the NT was written prior to AD70 it would be hard for them to write about what they saw.
If Revelation was post 70AD why is not the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple not mentioned? Seems like a significant event to me.

When I first started studying this I came with an open but skeptical mind. I had to erase almost 40 years of futuristic thinking that was engrained in me. But I wanted to know as much of the truth as possible so I went in with an open mind and any beliefs I accepted would have to be backed by scripture.

The "time-indicators" were the first thing I looked at, because they were the easiest to understand. Soon means soon, "at hand" means "at hand" near means near, quickly, "this generation", "last days", "last hour" etc........

To say these mean anything but the obvious, to me ,is to say the are meaningless or misleading. But I continue to study these things with an open mind, and maybe my views will change. If it were not for Old Testament language Preterism would be tough to swallow, but I believe it must be used to understand NT language and symbolism.

Funny, I agree with almost everything you say on these boards with the exception of Eschatology. I've enjoyed the back and forth with you.

 

Because it wasn't significant for John's purpose. The evidence of history and the text is overwhelmingly in favor of a late date for John. There is no reason to reject that.

It is funny how you connect the "time indicators" and their obvious meaning with the OT, whose obvious meaning I contend that you reject. I cannot see how you can read the passages concerning the Kingdom of God and shoehorn them into anything but a future kingdom. To me, the obvious meaning is clear. The time references are easy to deal with because of the meaning of the words. The OT passages are hard for your side to deal with because of the meaning of the words.

As have I. I usually stay out of the these eschatological conversations. They seem to never end ...