The Jesuit Roots of Preterism
- Thread starter Victoria
- Start date
All the translations here say "it". Multiple from multiple dates with different takes. Not one says "he". Consider with Irenaeus that this was either 65 years prior or 45 years prior to Irenaeus. This is like going to the bookstore and not asking about books from 1940 because they would be ancient, so impossible to find. This would be like saying that the Ford Edsel is ancient history. The model T being prehistoric.
I believe I explained that this statement is just saying that Irenaues went back as far as he could through the copies of Revelation, going back as close as he could to the original, to see where a scribe may have changed 616 to 666 in relation to the number of the beast. So by saying ancient copies, he was speaking of those closest to the original. New copy, older copy, ancient copy. It doesn't mean that the manuscript is ancient, just the oldest.
It isn't "almost in Domitian's day". It was "almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." That is around 96AD. The John Mark you speak of died around 68AD at the age of 56, traditionally in Alexandria. Irenaeus believed it was the apostle John who wrote the book of Revelation. No surprise since he is a disciple of Polycarp, who was the Bishop of Smyrna having been recommended by John the apostle. Smyrna is also where John went after his exile on the Isle of Patmos ended when the Senate nullified the decree that exiled Romans, including John and Domitian's daughter to the Isle of Patmos, and other Romans exiled elsewhere. John the apostle died after 100 AD. Given what Jesus said to Peter about taxes, John wasn't 18 yet when he was Jesus' disciple. The only taxes paid were for Jesus and Peter. That tax is to be paid for all over the age of 18.
John 8
"54 Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is [o]your God. 55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”"
This is actually the verse mentioned I believe by Iranaeus, or someone explaining why Iranaeus said what he said. This is why Irenaeus said what he said. It isn't wrong to take it that way, as that is what it appears to say. Did they say this because Jesus was older than 40? If you were 30, would you want someone saying you are almost 50?
But the Bible specifically mentions TWO, and that by name.
If you go by Luke 21 and Matthew 24, it cannot be AD 70. Impossible. Also, you dismiss prophecies and decrees of God from the Old Testament. Consider Nebuchadnezzar's statue. The rock no hewn by hands is Christ's kingdom. IT hits the statue and destroys the whole statue showing the end of the time of the Gentiles, and the coming in of Christ's kingdom. The Roman Empire continued up to 1453 AD, when the Turks took Constantinople ending the Eastern Roman Empire. However, there was no incoming millennial kingdom. The reason being is that the iron/clay part of the statue did not represent Rome, but represented Imperialism, of which Rome was the first Imperialistic Empire.
God had Daniel revisit the statue in the form of four beasts.
"“Thus he said:
‘The fourth beast shall be
A fourth kingdom on earth,
Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
And shall devour the whole earth,
Trample it and break it in pieces."
Again, this is Imperialism which literally took over the whole world. There are Dutch people in South Africa. Israel was part of the British Mandate. (Palestinian Mandate). As such, we are waiting for the 10 toes. One person said that there will be a one world government, which will then break down into 10 region states. And we move on from there.
There is no reason to believe that Revelation has been fulfilled. When you consider Matthew 24 and Luke 21 in their full context, it becomes clear that they are not speaking of the same event. Luke 21 speaks to AD 70, while Matthew 24 speaks to the future. Luke says that the persecution of the church and all that is written about that in Luke happens BEFORE the wars, nations against nations and kingdoms against kingdoms. This persecution started in 64AD and didn't end until 313AD. Luke says that when you see the city surrounded by armies, RUN. If you don't you die by the sword, or are exiled amongst the nations. It says then that Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles comes to an end. After that is when Jesus returns. (Which marks the rock destroying the statue of the gentile empires in Daniel, and His kingdom enveloping the world.)
In Matthew it says that the persecution comes AFTER the wars and rumors of wars, and the nation against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. Those must be the same as what Luke writes about. However, in Luke they come AFTER the persecution that ends in 313 AD. So Matthew must be long after 70 AD. Note that Matthew says that Jesus second coming is immediately after the Great Tribulation, while Luke has it after the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Do note that the end of the times of the Gentiles is denoted by the destruction of Nebuchadnezzar's statue by the rock not hewn by human hands. Do note that if we consider the iron/iron-clay legs to be the Roman Empire, so that it is destroyed by this rock... the Roman Empire did not end until 1453AD.
I guess that is why it is good to know that Jesus didn't come back in 70AD. Now the timeline works FINE. If that is all it takes to fix the timeline, perhaps that is exactly what it is. Jesus didn't return in 70AD, but has yet to return. This would probably explain why those in the early church who believed Jesus had already returned, were also those who, as one can read about in I John, did not believe Jesus came in the flesh. Hence he had a spiritual return in 70 AD, since his first coming was spiritual and not physical... He did not come in the flesh, so why would He return in the flesh? We don't here much about it today, because the heresy that sprung it was crushed in the 1st/2nd century, as was this heretical eschatological belief.
Irenaeus was mistaken in this, as he was on a number of things he wrote. The Apostle John, son of Zebedee, did not write Revelation. He and his brother James were both scheduled to be martyred soon after Christ ascended, as Christ predicted for them both in Matthew 20:23. James the son of Zebedee had already been slain by the time Acts 12:2 was written.
But the "beloved disciple" was the one who was going to "tarry till I come", Christ predicted in John 21:22. This "beloved disciple" was the writer of the Apocalypse, and his name was John Eleazar / Lazarus. This bodily-resurrected man remained on earth until Christ's AD 70 return, at which time he left this planet with the rest of the bodily-resurrected saints in that year's "rapture".
The Bible specifically mentions THREE resurrection events, and Paul listed these three in chronological order in 1 Cor. 14:22-24. The first one took place in AD 33. The next one took place at Christ's coming in AD 70. The future resurrection at "the end" will take place I believe in AD 3033 at the close of seven thousand years of fallen mankind's history on this planet.
If you go by Luke 21 and Mathew 24, the AD 70 return of Christ Jesus is the inevitable conclusion. I don't dismiss the OT prophesies of the statue in Daniel. That statue was completely destroyed in AD 70 by Christ the "rock" kingdom. Ancient Rome was represented by the "iron" element, and the "clay" was the nation of Israel ("we are the CLAY and you our potter..." - Isaiah 64:8). The nation of Israel in God's eyes disappeared in AD 70 along with the physical temple and its functioning high priesthood being eliminated for all time. That is why this Daniel statue cannot possibly exist past the destruction of the "clay" of the OT nation of Israel.
You are presuming that the empires represented by that statue continue until the end of fallen mankind's history. They don't. Those images representing all those 4 ancient empires were all destroyed "TOGETHER" at the same time by a single blow by the "rock" kingdom of Christ. Since those ancient empires fell at various points on the timeline of history, this image being destroyed "together" at one time has to represent something other than just the governmental structure of those empires.
You wish to interpret this statue as representing the general concept of "imperialism" being destroyed at one time. That's getting closer, but it's not quite on target. This simultaneous destruction of Daniel's statue was of the members of the Satanic realm which had been operating behind the scenes of those four various ancient empires, trying (without success) to work against Christ's plans for the redemption of mankind. God slew every member of that Satanic realm in AD 70, which is why He is pictured as wearing those "MANY crowns" in Rev. 19:12. By then Christ as the "rock" kingdom, with a single blow, had conquered the "prince of the kingdoms of this world" and had reduced that creature and all his legions to dust which blew away on the wind.
Nonsense. Luke 21 and Matthew 24 were quoting the very same original material spoken of by Christ on the same occasion. And Luke has Christ saying that the ENTIRE list of events given in Luke 21:8-35 were "about to take place" (Luke 21:36) in that first-century generation. And that included Christ's second coming return which Matthew said would be "immediately after" all those events.
There is every reason to believe that Revelation has been fulfilled. The single exception to this first-century fulfillment is Revelation 10:4, because those prophesies were "sealed up" for times in the distant future for John's first-century readers.
Also nonsense. Although the early church experienced periods of persecution from the Jews almost immediately after Christ ascended, persecution of believers across the world has never really ended. As a general rule, "yeah, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution". "In the world ye shall have tribulation" is a more or less constant state of affairs if one is a believer. But this is distinct from "the tribulation of THOSE DAYS" which was an unprecedented and never-to-be-duplicated "great tribulation" for those in Judea and Jerusalem in particular (which lasted from AD 66-70). Those days were "shortened" in order to save the physical lives of God's elect.
Based on what I was able to find in research, Lazarus died again before 1,2,3 John were written, and before Revelation was written, even given the date that you put on it. Lazarus would know nothing of 70 AD because he died around 60AD. Which means he never met Polycarp, and did not push to make Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna which history says John the apostle did.
The beloved disciple was John the apostle. Lazarus had already fled after the religious leaders tried to kill him. He is a part of the history of the Orthodox church, where they built a church above his tomb. John did taste of the cup of Christ, however, he didn't die. He lived to be the one who would see the Kingdom (in vision) before dying. It is strange that the beloved disciple is mentioned every time that John the son of Zebedee is around. That is more than a coincidence to me. You have to consider
First of all, according to tradition, 6000 years after the creation of the world was over 1600 years ago. Even by AIGs number, 6000 years came and went some time ago. (A few hundred years I believe). Also, consider what I Cor. 14:22-24 says:
"22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are [f]out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all."
There are three resurrections, okay. However, there are only two NAMED resurrections, and they are both in Revelation. Before the 1000 years, and after the 1000 years. Jesus resurrection was the archetype for future resurrections, and thus Jesus is the first fruits. He resurrected alone. Sure, there were people with bodies who came out of the grave, and then died again, as their resurrection was not to glorification. Jesus' resurrection was. The resurrection before the 1000 years is to glorification. They aren't sticking around on Earth. They are the martyr's who now go from being souls under the altar, waiting for vengeance on those who killed them, to this resurrection to glorified bodies. The second resurrection after the 1000 years is to final judgment. Those in the first resurrection aren't subject to this judgment, as Revelation says.
So Rome ceased to exist as Rome in AD 70? Really now...
Do not corrupt the context. Daniel already said what the clay is, and that most certainly is not it. Israel has no part in the Gentiles, now matter what you say. The statue speaks to the times of the GENTILES. The iron and clay together shows that there is division in the final presentation of the Gentile empires. And that is clearly visible in todays day and age. And Israel is still... separate from all of that. If Daniel's statue stopped existing, then Gentiles stopped existing. The statue speaks to the Gentiles, and the four great Empires. (though the head speaks to a man, and the legs/feet to a form of empire, where within the whole of that empire, there is division amongst the people. When you consider how imperialism establishes itself, it is clear as to why.)
You spiritualize scripture too much. If you look at the prophecies of the Old Testament that we know have been fulfilled, it should strike you how there is no spiritualizing of the passage necessary to see it has been fulfilled. The fulfillment is clear. That is why so many people HATE the book of Daniel. It is the CLEAREST sign of predictive prophecy fulfilled as written. It basically proves God exists. So they try to say it was written at a later date. Then God answers by some 18 year old finding the oldest existing copy that basically proves it was written exactly when it is says it was written. So the idea that someone wrote it after the events, and then wrote it as though it was prophecy, is patently false. So don't remove Isaiah 64:8 from context. It stops working once you go to the other version of the statue, the four beasts. If it doesn't fit both prophecies, then it is obviously wrong.
What you are forgetting is that , just as was the case with the dreams given to Pharaoh, this prophecy was given twice to Daniel. The first time as a statue, and the meaning was full of praise to Nebuchadnezzar and to those who come after. This is man's view of the empires/kingdoms of the Gentiles, and the times of the Gentiles. God gives the prophecy again to Daniel, which is from God's view of the times of the Gentiles, given in the form of four beasts. It is not the glorious view we have given in the form of Nebuchadnezzar's statue, but the ugliness and ferocity of beasts. The fourth beast terrified Daniel. It was horrible and terrifying to him to see what the fourth beast is and does. And what God has to say about the fourth part of the statue, the fourth beast presented to Daniel:
"23 “Thus he said:
‘The fourth beast shall be
A fourth kingdom on earth,
Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
And shall devour the whole earth,
Trample it and break it in pieces.
24 The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.
25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute[j] the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time.
26 ‘But the court shall be seated,
And they shall take away his dominion,
To consume and destroy it forever.
27 Then the kingdom and dominion,
And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.’"
The story of the statue, but given in the imagery of beasts, with the stone being presented here as His Kingdom given to the saints of the most High, which is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey Him. So when this history of the kingdoms, these beasts, the statues, are destroyed by God, here it basically says, then, immediately, at that time is Christ's Kingdom, and all dominions on Earth AT THAT TIME, will worship and obey God/the Messiah.
Again, it isn't that these government structure are destroyed at the same time. The imagery of the stone destroying the WHOLE STATUE, is that the WHOLE STATUE is not a kingdom, and isn't representing a kingdom, but represents the times of the Gentiles. Jesus second coming marks the end of the times of the Gentiles, and the stone becoming a Kingdom covering the Earth marks the PHYSICAL/VISIBLE coming of the Messiah's Kingdom to Earth. It's capital will be Salem/Jerusalem. The Messiah is of the seed of David, and the line of Melchizedek. Poetic that the location of Salem, Melchizedek's capital city either is Jerusalem, or is located in Jerusalem.
What you seem to be missing is that it states clearly here that that fourth beast is different then all the others. Why? It isn't a single kingdom/empire like the others were, and the administration is completely different. Imperialism. It devoured the whole world. It took over the Orient, Asia, Asia minor, India, Africa, Australia, North and South America... it devoured the whole world. And it most certainly would appear horrifying and terrible to Daniel. All the slaughtering of people, oppressing of people, etc. In the past, someone would be taken from that country and made a puppet ruler. They were not independent, but they still had a form of self rule. Not so with Imperialism. Starting with Rome, they took over the area. They sent in governors, proconsuls, etc. to rule over the area with an, ahem, iron fist. (iron foot?) And that continued to be how it was done even to this day. Right down to the USA being an empire (that's how quite a few have viewed us, right down to the Native Americans) with the same political system as Rome... a Republic. However, we are much weaker then Rome when it comes to unity. That just happens to sound like what Daniel says about the iron and clay. Understand the clay in Isaiah is speaking about clay that can be molded. The word for clay in the prophecy speaks of fine pottery, not raw clay. Just as strong as the iron, but doesn't mesh. Not at all the image being portrayed in Isaiah.
No. I'm not sure why you miss it. Perhaps because you have your own caricature of what I believe, and are having trouble listening. There isn't one single kingdom destroyed, because that is not what God is showing. It is the destruction of the whole statue that is the point. What that statue as a whole represents. The time of the Gentiles. Man against God. Consider the iron and clay shows that the kingdom gets so large (see fourth beast) in devouring the world, that the various groups that make up this HUGE "kingdom" do not mesh. There are conflicts ALL THE TIME. I mean, Trump ended like, what, eight of them? And they continue up until the end.
The world would be a completely different place if there was no longer a satanic realm. Exorcism would have never been made, because there would be no true story to base it off of. The world would be totally different. Ouija boards wouldn't work. There would be no UFOs. There would be no alien abductions. (You should read up on alien abductions and born again believers. It is quite fascinating. No born again believers have ever reported alien abduction. However, there are those who are now believers who were, prior to becoming believers, terrorized by "aliens" and abductions. In one case, they were about to be abducted, the house was shaking, they were at the door (I believe that is what they say), and he cried out to Jesus and it stopped instantly.
Not at all. Not nonsense at all. This is the Olivet Discourse. How long does it take you to read the Olivet Discourse in Matthew? 30 seconds? Do you really think the discourse, being called a discourse, lasted 30 seconds? Perhaps it lasted a half hour, or even an hour. By the questions asked as recorded by Luke, he was recording the AD 70 section of Jesus' discourse. Why? He was writing for the Gentiles, to a Gentile. They do not know, and do not understand Jewish eschatology. So Luke didn't deal with the Jewish eschatological questions the disciples asked. Then he included Jesus second coming, but that was not in response to the questions, as one can see if one reads the questions. It is given it's own section in Bibles. It doesn't even use language connecting it to the previous events, so it seems to come after, and later. In Matthew, he is writing for the Jews, so he glosses over the AD 70 part, and deals with the eschatological questions the disciples asked. What will be the sign of your coming (definition of the Greek word here being related to a king making a royal visit), and then sings of the (in the Greek) completel end. That is the consummation of EVERYTHING. There is nothing to come after. No continuing life on Earth. The complete end of this temporal age/world. Hence Jesus speaks of the final judgment, and even says, well, there are no signs. Why not? Even Jesus doesn't know when, only the Father. All he can say is that liffe will be going along as usual, and then... DONE. No signs. Just, boom, people taken to judgment, and its over. Like with Noah. People were told it was coming, but there was no sign. It just started to rain, and it was over.
There is NO reason to believe that Revelation has been fulfilled. There no reason to believe that there is anything left to be fulfilled for the end times to begin. There are plenty of prophecies left to be fulfilled, however, they are in the end times. According to Peter, the world is moving on by God's PATIENCE, not because there are any prophecies left to fulfill. Not wishing for any of the elect to perish, but that all [the elect] come to salvation. So once the last person God has chosen to salvation comes to salvation, it's on.
Luke speaks to a very specific persecution, and that persecution has an end date of 313AD. A specific period of persecution. It also defines this persecution in terms. This persecution will be such that those martyred will have the opportunity to testify before death. And since the people will know what they are talking about, the arguments will be such that there is no answer. It is that which fuels the anger to the persecution. (I am thinking of Steven this whole time.) The Jews knew exactly what Steven was saying, and in the end, they had no response. It got to the point that to stop him, they martyred him. They had no argument to stand against the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that Steven was uttering. No answer except a building anger and wish to destroy/kill him. And the other martyrs had opportunity to testify as well. Even Polycarp, long after AD 70. This tribulation/persecution spoke of in Luke is a program. Yes there is persecution going on around the world, but it isn't a specific program. It may be more like that now, as we get closer to Matthew's upcoming persecution following WWI and WWII. However, I would see it as once we have a one world order, and then that breaks down, since it will be a unified government, there can be, and I would say will be, a program of persecution like in the first-fourth century.
John did face death, however, he didn't die and was exiled to the isle of Patmos. That's history. John the apostle didn't die until after 100 AD. Polycarp was his disciple, which is also history. Papias was Polycarp's disciple. Ignatius was John the apostle's disciple when Polycarp was. There is a lot of history out there that you are ignoring. John the apostle is the reason Polycarp became the Bishop of Smyrna. It is said that John went to Smyrna after his exile to Patmos.
Apparently you didn't do much research on Lazarus. It is believed that he fled after the religious leaders tried to kill him in John 12. He fled over 200 miles away. Then he became the Bishop of Ketonia. There is a church built over his tomb which has the inscription identifying him as the one who was four days dead, resurrected by Christ. (Paraphrase) He died at 60 years of age, 30 years after Jesus called him out of the tomb. Jesus already said that Lazarus situation was special. The tomb was discovered in 890 AD.
I have no idea what tongues have to do with Resurrection.
I Corinthians 14:
"22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:"
Also, given the calculations even from the church fathers, 7000 years is long before 3033AD.
Israel has no part with the Gentiles, and the Gentiles no part in Israel. The church is the inbetween, neither Gentile nor Jew in nature. Also, if you looked up what that word clay used in the Hebrew, it is not the same word used in Isaiah 64:8. hahomer in Isaiah 64:8 and hasap in Daniel 2:42. English does not matter. Translation can be difficult. hasap - clay vessel, potsherd, jar. hahomer - clay as in a material of vessels, or simile of God forming man. They are not the same. The iron and clay together refer to a kingdom (huge as we know), where not all parties get along. They clash. Not like the Roman Empire where things were united. The harshness of Imperialism over the centuries has caused much conflict between those oppressed and the oppressors. You get corruption when you make your own interpretation of what is already clear.
The statue as a whole refers to the times of the Gentiles, and is broken down into four parts representing the great kingdoms/empires of the Gentiles. So no. Israel has no place in the statue.
Remember this from 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."
However, when Rome came into Jerusalem, there was no abomination that maketh desolate set up. In fact, Titus had plans to do so, except that the destruction of the temple prevented it.
Where did you ever get a strange idea like that? What I am stating is that the statue on its own, without divisions, represents the times of the Gentiles.
The STATUE is destroyed with all that represents the times of the Gentiles. The statue is not about the four kingdoms. The times of the Gentiles is brought to an end by the coming of Christ. Notice that the antichrist's kingdom is present in the feet. The very last of the kingdoms of imperialism. This is what you are missing.
You aren't even getting closer, but further away. Again, it speaks to the end of the times of the Gentiles. It is, when the rock destroys the statue, the times of Christ's Kingdom in Israel. His Kingdom will spread throughout the Earth from Jerusalem. And... no, God did not slay every member of the Satanic realm in AD 70. The demons, also known as devils or unclean spirits, are still here today.
On demons:
"
14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.
15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
16 And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.
19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges."
You saying demons do not exist runs contrary to what Jesus Himself has said. The word in greek used for devil/demon in Luke 11:14 is daimonion. Which is Neuter of a derivative of daimon; a demonic being; by extension a deity -- devil, god.
I thought you said the word isn't used in the Bible?
The problem you have is that the Olivet Discourse wasn't 30 seconds long. It could have been a half hour, or an hour. There could have been A LOT said by Christ covering many different questions, of which Matthew chose some questions with their answers, and Luke chose some questions with their answers. Consider the audience. Matthew was writing to Jews who would understand Jewish eschatology and the future. Luke was writing to a Gentile who would have no idea about Jewish eschatology of the end. As such, Luke didn't deal with that part of the Olivet discourse, and only with the part that speaks to the questions the disciples asked about AD 70. After that he speaks to Jesus return. That was not given in answer to the disciples questions. IT is not connected to what Luke writes first. It just says... then. That means after. After what? Given what he said previously... after the times of the Gentiles. What comes after the times of the Gentiles? See what Paul said in Romans. The redemption of Israel follows the times of the Gentiles.
There is nor reason to believe that Revelation has been fulfilled, unless you ignore all that is in the Old Testament.
Just say you don't understand what Jesus taught. He is talking about a specific program of persecution, and this started with Steven and continued with the Romans, and did not end until 313AD. So, in the future, we are looking for another program of persecution to come. It will be such that it can be recognized. Perhaps once there is a one world government, it will come with a set program of persecution against the church and Israel. It seems entirely possible, considering what proponents of a one world government think of Christians/Jews.
Consider this. Revelation 19. The beast and all the armies of the Earth, those who do not/will not believe, gather to attack Israel. There are two possibilities given Jesus return is at this time. The first is, the armies do attack and destroy Israel. So, Israel is gone, and it is these armies and the beast that survive... except Jesus returns and destroys them all. No flesh left on Earth. OR... Those army gather and Jesus comes back BEFORE they destroy Israel, cutting the tribulation short that the elect of Israel are saved. That is keeping in line with what Revelation 19 says, and keeps what Jesus said about cutting the Tribulation short for the sake of the elect... in Israel. And it isn't cutting the Tribulation short in time as in days, but interrupting the very final act of the tribulation (the armies rolling over Israel), and destroying them before they destroy Israel instead of after.
