Valiant effort but I must say it falls short. It's always interesting when an interpreter takes a position that says exactly the opposite of what the Bible says.

Note, you said that God does not change His law, in particularly the covenant he made at Sinai. Well, if that's true, how did Israel go from pre-Mosaic law to living under the law of Moses. Exodus 19:1ff, clearly marks such a change. See also Deut. 5:1-2.

In addition, note what Paul, a Hebrew of the Hebrews and inspired by the Holy Spirit (God) to write in Hebrews.

"Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. (Heb. 7:11-12)

In fact, that was one of the reasons Stephen was stoned to death, because the Jews knew that he preached that God would change the customs (laws) "which Moses delivered to us." (Acts 6:14)

The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 was God's message to the world that the Old Covenant was gone forever, spoken of as the fading garment that would be folded, changed and discarded, (Heb. 1:11-12; 8:13; 12:26-27).

You're pontificating. I'm sure it's because you're frustrated that you can't make a logical defense of your position. If you make any further responses without attempting to offer logical arguments you will be ignored. I don't have time to banter back and forth.

Yes, you can wait, as you and other Dispensationalists have been waiting for centuries and nothing happens. You'll wait for 2,000 more and yet be waiting, because you're looking in the wrong direction. The apostles waited, but their wait was short. It ended in the first century. They received what they were waiting because they looked according to the scriptures.

First, some Preterists teach Nero is the beast but not all of them do. Also, some Amillennialists and Postmillennialists do as well. Whether they do or don't does not change the time of Christ's coming from past to future. The abomination of desolation is associated with the temple which was destroyed in A.D. 70. See Mat. 24:15. That again was fulfilled, according to Matt. 24:34. So, no stretch of your imagination can make it future. Your brand of eschatology can only lead to war, bloodshed and death. You're trying to relive the past. It's gone. Let it go.

You're starting out with the same premise as before which demonstrates that you're not paying attention to the replies. If Matthew 24:29-31 is the time between the 6th and 7th seal, then consider. The 7th seal is the time of the end, i.e. which would come to pass before the 1st century generation passed, (Matt. 24:34). The events of Matthew 24 happened in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was defeated by Rome, Luke 21:20-22, 32. Therefore, the 7th seal occurred in A.D. 70. Since the events of Matthew 24:29-31 happened before and leading up to the time of the 7th seal, then they occurred in connection with Jerusalem's fall, all before that generation passed.

Secondly, you site Rev 19:11-21. This event is the coming of the Lord which follows the wedding of Rev. 19:7-8. But the wedding of Matthew 19:7-8, follows the judgment upon the "great city" and harlot, i.e. upon Old Covenant Jerusalem, the city where the Lord was crucified which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt. Again, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans who destroyed her flesh with fire, (Rev. 17:16-18, until the word of God was fulfilled, (same as in Matthew 24:34). See also in Mathew 22:1-7, where the marriage is made, men spurn it, until their city is burned and destroyed, after which comes the wedding. The same is seen in Matthew 24 and 24. After the city is destroyed per Matt. 24, the wedding follows in Matt. 25. See also Eph. 5 which speaks of the wedding of Christ, after the fight with beasts at Ephesus, (Eph. 6;11f).

Now, are these all different weddings of Christ? How many times does he get married? How many brides does he have. You're claiming Christ is a polygamist if each of these end times wedding events describe a different coming. Yet, they're all associated with the destruction of the city, called the harlot and which answers to Jerusalem of the first century. Further only one wedding of Christ is taught in Scripture to consummate the end time. So I suggest you reread them again and set aside your literalism because it gets you into a tangled web of contradictions.

Well, it's clear that you've impaled your own teaching by bringing up the subject of the antichrist. Here's what John wrote about it. ""Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that the Antichrst is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they thad been of us, they would have continue with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."

First, John said it is the last hour. He wrote that in the 1st century not the 21st century. If they were in the last hour of time, that last hour lasted longer than the entire Jewish age of 1500 years! How much sense does that make.

Secondly, John said the proof that it was the last hour was the presence of the Antichrist who already had come. That's how they knew it was the last hour.

Thirdly, the antichrists went out from among the church. They could not go out from among them had they not been with them. You can't leave or go out of your house unless you are in it. That shows all of these events were first century events. That means that a view which places the antichrists in the 21st century is a heretical view because John never says, the antichrist went out from the 21st century church. Nor was John ever in the 21st century church on earth. See also 2:22; 4:2-3; 2 John 2:7. See my latest posts on the "End of the world" to understand meaning of the "earth being burned up."

You have made the assertion but you offered no proof. Jesus never said, he would come again, and again, and again. He said he would go away and come again. One going, for one coming. Since you did not make an argument here but only an assertion, (thus, we have to take your word for it), then it only needs to be met with another assertion, namely, all those texts you mentioned refer to one and the same coming. Now, if you'll offer proof of your assertion, I will demonstrate the fallacy of it in my reply.

Your views lack the comprehensive treatment of scripture they deserve. You have pulled all of these passages out of context and projected them into the future without justification. This is a common mistake for those who believe Christ is yet to come. The conversation Jesus had the night before He was crucified did not end in 14:4. It continued through chapter 17. And when you read John 16:16-19, Christ is yet discussing his going away and coming again mentioned in ch. 14. However, he adds the time statements, "a little while." This takes us back to the prophecy in Haggai 2:6 which is also quoted in Heb. 10:37."For yet a little whie, and He who is coming will come and will not tarry (delay). Heb. 10:37. The Lord's coming was imminent, as the end of the age had come upon them, 1 Cor. 10:11, Phil. 4:5; James 5:8-9, 1 Pet. 4:7, 17; 1 John 2:18-19; Rev. 1:1, 3, 22:6, 10. Ignoring these scriptures renders your view a one legged horse, not very believable.

In addition, you quote from Matthew 24. You again ignore that Jesus promised the generation then living would not pass until all things things came to pass. See Matt. 24:34 Are you by any stretch of the imagination claiming that Peter, James, John, or Andrew are yet walking the earth today? Are any of the first century generation yet living on earth? That's a terribly flawed omission in your futurist view.

Next, you quote 1 Thess. 4:17. Well, take a look at versus 15 and 17, only this time read slowly enough to take note of "we who are alive" and remain until the coming of the Lord." Paul quotes from the Lord in Matt. 24:34, saying "for this we say to you by the word of the Lord." So, he affirmed the resurrection of 1 Thess 4, as Christ did in Matt. 24:31, that it would occur before that generation passed, --in the lifetime of those then living. Were you living at that time? Was anybody on earth today living then, so that Paul could say of you, "we who are alive and are remaining [alive]. I don't think so.

Finally, the last oversight is from 2 Peter 3:4. The scoffers mocked because Christ had not yet come when Peter wrote in about 64-67 AD. Now ask, why would scoffers, living in the days of the Holy Spirit inspired apostles mock that Jesus had not come in their lifetime? It's because they knew that the apostles had taught Jesus would come in that generation. If they had taught he wasn't coming until the 21st century, they would have no grounds for mocking. But the fact of the matter is, Peter used the same words of Christ to teach that the end was coming "in a little while" (1 Pet. 1:6). Then he said God was ready to judge the living and the dead and that the "end of all things" had drawn near. 1 Pet. 4:5-7. He then stated that the time of the judgment had come, and (the definite article "the" ) is in the Greek text, thus it is "the judgment" not "a" judgment.

Now, when you read the first few verses of 2 Peter 3, he tells his readers that he is reminding them of what he already told them in the first epistle about the parousia (coming) of the Lord. What was that? That Christ would soon come. If you deny that, then you become a scoffer and say the same thing they did. They denied Jesus was coming soon, in their generation. So, always get the complete context. Otherwise, you'll wind up looking for a space ship from heaven to take you off the earth. That simply is not going to happen, but if it does, you'll be going to Mars and not to heaven.

In the beginning, God created the literal heaven and earth, (Gen. 1:1) and the literal sun moon and stars, (Gen. 1:14-17). These are for signs, seasons, days, nights and years. In addition they were also to "rule over the day and over the night, dividing the one from the other. From this text we learn that "sun, moon and stars" are used as "signs" (to represent something they are not) as the sun, moon and stars are not days, nights and years, etc, but represent them. They also are to "rule" over the day and night. Thus, their second application is that they are "rulers."

Now, when we look at those two concepts, we see how the prophets "figuratively" used sun, moon and stars, to be "signs" and "rulers" when they discussed prophetic themes. The first mention of the "sun, moon, and stars" used "figuratively" or as metaphors is found in Gen. 37:9) where Joseph dreams that the "sun, moon and stars" would come and bow down to him. Jacob understand that Joseph was not speaking of the literal "sun moon and stars" of the creation per Gen. 1:1). He interpreted the boys statements as meaning that he, (the sun and ruler of the household) Joseph's mother (the moon) and his eleven brothers (the eleven stars) would bow down to him. (Gen. 1:10). This literally came to pass when during the famine in Canaan, his family came to Egypt to find food and bowed before Joseph.

So, the context determines the meaning and use of "sun, moon and stars." I would encourage you to do a search on the blog for posts I have made on the topic to show how these are used figuratively in both Old and New Testaments. To make it simple and short. Whenever God says he is going to destroy the world or the sun, moon and stars would fall, it is always a figurative use of the term, i.e. meaning to destroy a nation and the rulers of a nation. This is because God has promised never to destroy the earth, Gen. 8:21-22; Psa. 89:34-37; and that the sun, moon and stars will continue before him as the throne of Christ, Jer. 31:35-37. Since God's throne has no end, (Isa. 9:6-7; Lk. 1:32-33), then the sun, moon and stars have no end. If they did, then Christ's kingdom surely could not be said to endure as the sun and have no end.

I'm not sure I understand what all or specifically is being asked in your question. However, one thing it means is that the fellowship that was broken between God and man is now restored for those in Christ. He came in the fullness of times, (Gal. 4:4) to establish the kingdom (Mk. 1:14-15), that all in heaven and earth would be reconciled in Him (Eph. 1:10). That is not an abandonment by God, but an "acceptance" (Eph. 1:6). The "hope" of glory was "Christ in you" (Col. 1:27). God now dwells "in his people," (2 Cor. 6:16) not in "temples made with hands," (Acts 7:48).

Of course there is an after life. "Write: 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.'" Yes says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them." See also John 8:51-52; 11:25-26; Matt. 8:11-12, Lk. 20:36-38.

As noted above, God's relationship is with those in Christ, i.e. in the kingdom, which has no end, (Lk. 1:32-33) and thus he always will remain with them and they with him as long as the latter continues in faith. Thus we are "ever" with the Lord. Those of this generation who do not know the Lord should establish a relationship with him. It is the same for every generation.