the "covenant" of Daniel 9 27

[tingrin]

I read with interest your interpretation of the last week of the 70 week prophecy.

What do you interpret the "covenant" that is being confirmed here by the people of the prince is?  (The people of the prince that will destroy the city and the sanctuary ....causing the sacrifice....to cease ...make it desolate....(Kaliyah Omar? Muhammed?)

I only see covenant in the Bible being used as the new covenant ...old covenant (same thing except one is written on the heart).   Is there an "anti covenant" out there as well....I assume Satan has an opposite for everything TRUE. 

[ExMilitary]

Read the words of Daniel in this passage about the prince and what will happen when he comes, then what happens after the covenant... Then read the last 5 verses in Matthew 23 and the first 5 in Matthew 24 and compare what Jesus says in Matthew to the words in Daniel. Hopefully you'll be able to see that the "he" that makes the covenant is Christ. And that after Christ, there is no more sacrifice for sin (see Hebrews).

[BLKsheep]

I'm a full futurist and agree with you on Daniel 9.  I've never fully accepted the gap theory.  But when I did, I thought the covenant tingrin is asking about could be the Psalm 83 or Ezekiel 38 alliance.  One thing for sure is that this IS NOT a peace treaty.  A 'covenant' is an alliance or confederation.  Those things are made with friends.  Peace treaties are made with enemies.

[PeteWaldo]

I read with interest your interpretation of the last week of the 70 week prophecy.

It might save redundant posting if we discuss it on that thread, if you read about it in the forum.

But I think things will fall into place a little better if you don't begin with interpretation of an Old Testament prophetic dream, but instead begin with the literal language of literal passages, that are not open to interpretation.

What do you interpret the "covenant" that is being confirmed here by the people of the prince is?  (The people of the prince that will destroy the city and the sanctuary ....causing the sacrifice....to cease ...make it desolate....(Kaliyah Omar? Muhammed?)

I believe the people are Muhammadans, as the people of "the prince of the power of the air" aka Satan, via his messenger THE false prophet Muhammad.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/daniel_s_70th_week.htm

I only see covenant in the Bible being used as the new covenant ...old covenant (same thing except one is written on the heart).

A covenant can be made between any group of people that agree to make it. Like witches for example.

Is there an "anti covenant" out there as well....I assume Satan has an opposite for everything TRUE.

And IS the opposite - the "prince of the power of the air" as directly opposed to the "Prince of Peace". The father of lies as opposed to Jesus that IS truth.

Consider our latest example. Even though the poor fellow can see that it would have been impossible for the tens of thousands of copies of the Gospel, that were penned in every popular language and had been read all over the known world for centuries, so that after Muhammad's day its whole subject would become the exact opposite of what it had been, he will nonetheless continue to parrot that preposterous Satanic lie even though he knows it is impossible.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4714.msg18120#msg18120

Here is just how opposite THE false prophet Muhammad and his Islamic kingdom beast are. First, each of his followers must deny the crucifixion of Christ as an article of their faith in Muhammad alone. His followers are even taught that to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, or even to pray in Jesus name, is to commit the single most "heinous" and ONLY unforgivable sin in Muhammadanism. As opposed to child rape or cold-blooded mass murder, for example, which may be forgiven (and both of which as it happens, Muhammad was guilty of). Denying that Jesus is the Son of God makes each and every one of Muhammad's followers an antichrist, according to the scriptures.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm

[PeteWaldo]

I'm a full futurist.....

I used to be too, before I overcame John Darby's 19th century eschatology to return to the traditional approach to Bible prophecy of historicism, that available evidence suggests was the approach to bible prophecy of the church for its first 1800 years.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm

As you look around the world today, and consider the last 1400 years of imperialistic conquest and subjugation of the false prophet Muhammad's Islamic kingdom "beast", did it ever strike you as peculiar that futurism necessarily precludes you from even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation?
http://www.christianeschatology.com/#limitations_futurism_preterism

This even though his followers are each and every one necessarily an antichrist, as an article of their faith in Muhammad alone? Each and every one must deny the shed blood of the Lamb of God as an article of their faith in THE false prophet Muhammad alone? That 1/3 of mankind in the world today believe that Christ was crucified, died and resurrected from the dead and saves us from sin through His shed blood, while another 1/4 of mankind is required to deny it because of their faith in THE false prophet Muhammad alone?
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict

As a futurist, what do you make of this prophecy of Jesus:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Didn't Jesus usher His kingdom in during the first century as He prophesied?
http://www.christianeschatology.com/futurism_dispensationalism.htm#futurism_vs_gospel

[ExMilitary]

As a futurist, what do you make of this prophecy of Jesus:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Didn't Jesus usher His kingdom in during the first century as He prophesied?
http://www.christianeschatology.com/futurism_dispensationalism.htm#futurism_vs_gospel

I believe the near fulfillment of that prophecy is contained in the seven verses that follow the prophecy as well as the accounts in the synoptics.

[PeteWaldo]

As a futurist, what do you make of this prophecy of Jesus:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Didn't Jesus usher His kingdom in during the first century as He prophesied?
http://www.christianeschatology.com/futurism_dispensationalism.htm#futurism_vs_gospel

I believe the near fulfillment of that prophecy is contained in the seven verses that follow the prophecy as well as the accounts in the synoptics.

As it seems to expresses a future event, I believe Jesus may have been making reference to the time after He was crucified, and after He arose from the dead, and particularly after He ascended unto our Father after which He returned to this world.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

After which He literally did "come", that is did return to earth from our Father in heaven, in His glorified body. Eventually proclaiming:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

I believe we can however rest assured that He did come in His kingdom during the first century because of that prophecy, and because of confirmation such as our brother John proclaiming we are his companion in THE tribulation and in THE kingdom of Jesus Christ:

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

I wonder how our brother BLKsheep, being a futurist, resolves all that?
Particularly believing the kingdom of Jesus Christ will be of this world?

Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

http://www.christianeschatology.com/futurism_dispensationalism.htm#premillennialism

[BLKsheep]

As you look around the world today, and consider the last 1400 years of imperialistic conquest and subjugation of the false prophet Muhammad's Islamic kingdom "beast", did it ever strike you as peculiar that futurism necessarily precludes you from even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation?

For the longest time I thought Muhammad WAS the false prophet.  He most certainly is a false prophet and originator of the false religion of Islam, i.e. Babylon the Great," but I've reconsidered and THINK he may not be the end-time false prophet who I think is someone who will 'rise' and exist in the last days. 

I also thought bin Laden could be the false prophet too since he called for holy war in 1998.  I still believe bin Laden is the rider of the white horse of the first seal which represents, 'holy war.'  However, Muhammad STILL could be the false prophet....but I tend to think it's a man living at the time the events of Revelation take place.  Baghdaddi would be a good candidate.

As a futurist, what do you make of this prophecy of Jesus:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

That passage is what fuels preterism and historicism.  But then again, to accept it as such, in my view, contradicts a host of other verses.

I have a different view of Mathew 16:28 and I know what most futurist and preterist believe about it as well.  First, in every instance, the passage is followed by the transfiguration. 

Doug Bachelder said,

If you go to Mark chapter 9 it's the same story.  I like Mark's version a little better because it gets right to the point.  In Mark 9 verse 1, Jesus said, 'Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste of death till they see the Kingdom of God present with power.'  Now the way that's translated from the Greek I understand, He's saying you are going to see a presentation of the Kingdom coming....

Now follow this:  Jesus was glorified.  Moses was there, who represents those who died and are resurrected.  Elijah was there, representing those who are translated without seeing death.  God the Father comes in a cloud and says, 'This is my Beloved Son.'  What they had was a miniature microcosm, a picture of the Second Coming.  Jesus said I'm going to give you a snapshot, before you die, of my Kingdom coming.  And that's what happened on that mountain right after He made that statement.

http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/media/e/1073/t/explain-matthew-1628-about-some-not-dying-until-they-see-the-kingdom
_________________________________________________________

To accept this verse as the preterist do actually contradicts Mathew 24.  The Lord cannot return to his kingdom until he establishes it. 

So in my view, there are too many contradictions to accept this in a historical or preterist context.  The word 'coming' also means 'to go.'

I'm not sure but I tend to believe the Lord IS referring to either the transfiguration (likely) or the ascencion. (another possibility)

This passage doesn't imply as most preterist do that the Lord returned in 70 AD.

An old woman once told me that, "prophecy was written to fool us."
I say she's right!  But more so that we fool ourselves.

[PeteWaldo]

As you look around the world today, and consider the last 1400 years of imperialistic conquest and subjugation of the false prophet Muhammad's Islamic kingdom "beast", did it ever strike you as peculiar that futurism necessarily precludes you from even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation?

For the longest time I thought Muhammad WAS the false prophet.  He most certainly is a false prophet and originator of the false religion of Islam, i.e. Babylon the Great," but I've reconsidered and THINK he may not be the end-time false prophet who I think is someone who will 'rise' and exist in the last days.

We're all pretty familiar with Darby's eschatological scheme. At least most, or likely a unanimity of us, are former futurists.

[PeteWaldo]

Mark 9:1  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

That passage is what fuels preterism and historicism.

More specifically amillennialism.
http://christianeschatology.com/#red_herrings

But then again, to accept it as such, .......

You mean to accept it for what it literally says?

....... in my view, contradicts a host of other verses.

Perhaps you could share a few of the "host of other verses" you believe make that prophecy false (unless you can suggest an option besides true or false), bearing in mind that sound exegesis of scripture should begin with the literal language of literal passages that is not open interpretation, before turning to interpretation of the figurative language of prophetic dreams and visions.

Futurists believe a temple will be rebuilt from which Jesus would rule on earth for 1,000 years.
But didn't Jesus already build that temple through His crucifixion, death and resurrection?

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.  20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm

[PeteWaldo]

By the way, if you use the method of quoting described at this link it helps keep posts that are repetively and sucessively quoted from getting goofed up.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=39.0

[BLKsheep]

Perhaps you could share the verses you believe make that prophecy false (unless you can suggest another option), bearing in mind that sound exegesis begins with the literal language of literal passages that is open to interpretation, before turning to the figurative language of prophetic dreams and visions.

I'm not saying that the prophecy is false.  Only peoples understanding and interpretation of it.  The passage can't be explained by one who believes that Christ literally returned in 70AD because there's no record of Him returning!  And to look at this from a futurist view, people who witnessed Christ words about "not tasting death" would be 2,000 years old today.  It just doesn't work for me.  I lean toward the idea that the passage implies the transfiguration or the ascension.  What passages does it contradict?

ALL of Mathew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 contradict Mathew 16:28!! 

Futurists believe a temple will be rebuilt in which Jesus would rule on earth for 1,000 years. But didn't Jesus already build that temple through His crucifixion, death and resurrection?

I believe that a Millennial Temple will also be built.  I'm not sure on just how much CHRIST will rule during that time.  I disagree that a temple needs to be rebuilt before the Lords return.  The Dome area complex is sufficient to authenticate the man of sin and fulfill prophecy.

The word 'temple' is used figuratively as the body and abode of the Holy Spirit.  It's also used as a literal temple.  Context usually determines which is implied.

[PeteWaldo]

Perhaps you could share the verses you believe make that prophecy false (unless you can suggest another option), bearing in mind that sound exegesis begins with the literal language of literal passages that is open to interpretation, before turning to the figurative language of prophetic dreams and visions.

I'm not saying that the prophecy is false.  Only peoples understanding and interpretation of it.

The problem with that is it is a literal verse in a literal passage that is not open to interpretation.

The passage can't be explained by one who believes that Christ literally returned in 70AD because there's no record of Him returning!

There is a record of it that I included in that post. After He was resurrected from the dead, He ascended to our Father in heaven, after which He returned to earth. Your denial is like you didn't even read it.

And to look at this from a futurist view, people who witnessed Christ words about "not tasting death" would be 2,000 years old today.

That's not at all correct. They witnessed His words, and did not die before the Son of Man ushered in His kingdom. Exactly as the verse indiicates.

It just doesn't work for me.

And we fully understand why. Most of us followed Darby"s 19th century recycled 16th century Roman Jesuit doctrine too.
http://christianeschatology.com/futurism_dispensationalism.htm#history_of_futurism

I lean toward the idea that the passage implies the transfiguration or the ascension.

Please review that post again.

What passages does it contradict?

ALL of Mathew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 contradict Mathew 16:28!!

But only because you can't reconcile them with the eschatology you have been taught.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/matthew_24_olivet_discourse.htm

And if those verses actually did as you suggest, you could discard your Bible as being uninspired. I wouldn't even consder your latest suggestion as being borderline, but full on blasphemy. All because you can't reconcile John Nelson Darby's eschatological scheme (the "father of modern dispensationalism and futurism") with the Gospel.
http://christianeschatology.com/futurism_dispensationalism.htm#history_of_futurism

[PeteWaldo]

ALL of Mathew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 contradict Mathew 16:28!! 

Futurists believe a temple will be rebuilt in which Jesus would rule on earth for 1,000 years. But didn't Jesus already build that temple through His crucifixion, death and resurrection?

I believe that a Millennial Temple will also be built.

So then the temple that Jesus built through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, just wasn't sufficient to get the job done eigh?

And so the Lord that built His emple in 3 days, that doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, that dwells in the true tabernacle that the Lord built and not men, whose kingdom is not of this world, is going to change His mind about all that?

Doesn't it seem that suggesting that would be at least borderline blasphemy from a Christian perspective?

I'm not sure on just how much CHRIST will rule during that time.  I disagree that a temple needs to be rebuilt before the Lords return.  The Dome area complex is sufficient to authenticate the man of sin and fulfill prophecy.

The word 'temple' is used figuratively ............

No it isn't. Jesus literally built His temple in 3 days, just as He said He could. He and His people ARE literally the temple of God, just as the literal verses state. The fact that it is a spiritual temple rather than physical, doesn't make it any less literal. Christ and His people are a very real temple. Certainly it is, at least, for me. Particularly for the saints that have passed on and today occupy the other side of the kingdom of jesus Christ.

.......... as the body and abode of the Holy Spirit.  It's also used as a literal temple.  Context usually determines which is implied.

Not the context but the word. Two separate Koine Greek words are used.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm#koine_greek_temple

[BLKsheep]

What does it really say?

Lets see.  After the passage in question, Mathew 17 and Mark 9 say after 6 days they went up to the mountain.  Luke says 8 days after.  Who is 'literally' right?

Matthew 16:28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 17:1  And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

Mark 9:1=2  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Luke 9:27-28  But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.  And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

At least Luke says ABOUT 8 days.

There are a host of events that are reported on differently by the gospel writers.  Mark says, "till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."  Luke says, " till they see the kingdom of God."  Mathew says, " till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Which do you take literally?  After each passage, the transfiguration is mentioned.

I will never be convinced that Christ returned around 70 AD.  The evidence just isn't there. And no man living at the time these words were recorded can be alive today to see Christ return.  So again.  It's illogical for me to accept EITHER of those beliefs.  It's more logical to view this as the transfiguration or the ascension.

[BLKsheep]

You know what Pete.  I'm done.  You've already misquoted me several times, and now you're off on the blasphemy kick.  This is going to be a complete waste of MY time...and yours.

See you later!  BYE

You may as well cancel my membership.  I can deal with debate.  But not people telling me I'm calling God a liar, or you telling me I'm blasphemous.

[PeteWaldo]

For the longest time I thought Muhammad WAS the false prophet.  He most certainly is a false prophet and originator of the false religion of Islam, i.e. Babylon the Great," but I've reconsidered and THINK he may not be the end-time false prophet who I think is someone who will 'rise' and exist in the last days.

Never ceases to amaze me. Are you even aware that 1/4 of mankind in the world today are taught that to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, or even pray in Jesus' name, is to commit the single most "heinous" and only unforgivable sin in Muhammad's 7th century cult?
http://petewaldo.com/unforgivable_shirk.htm
That makes each and every Muslim an antichrist, as an article of their faith, in Muhammad alone.
http://falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
Let alone that each and every Muslim must deny that Christ was crucified (and thus reject the blood He shed for us all), as another article of their faith in the false prohpet Muhammad alone.
http://falseprophetmuhammad.com/
That a near unanimity of John's "whole world" (outside of the Holy Land) carries the mark of the false prophet Muhammad's Islamic kingdom "beast".
http://christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm#mark_of_the_beast
The same beast that is commanded to fight, slay as binding on them in the Quran, and conquer and subjugate the "people of the book", that has been slaughtering Jews and Christians for 1400 years because of our faith in Yahweh,

Yet because of your faith in John Darby, are we to suppose that 1/4 of mankind that has been following Satan through his messenger for 1400 years, are going to convert to some as yet unknown religion, of some as yet unknown false prophet, and all within, what, 3-1/2 years?

[PeteWaldo]

You know what Pete.  I'm done.  You've already misquoted me several times, and now you're off on the blasphemy kick.  This is going to be a complete waste of MY time...and yours.

See you later!  BYE

You may as well cancel my membership.  I can deal with debate.  But not people telling me I'm calling God a liar, or you telling me I'm blasphemous.

I even bolded and enlarged the operative word when I quoted. Looking back I could have arranged the post a bit more tactfully. Also I am not used to real time exchanges, so I generally have an opportunity to review posts and edit, usually for hours before they are seen. Also I am just coming off a several day exchange with a Muslim that went the way those exchanges typically do. So I'm sorry brother for causing you the the offense.

But how would you charactize your very casual suggestion that verses of scripture contradict each other?

ALL of Mathew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 contradict Mathew 16:28!!

What your comment actually means is that your understanding, that causes you perceive it to be contradiction, is the product of the futurist doctrine you hold. But then futurism contradicts the Gospel at every turn, as illustrated through most all of the other verses I quoted.
http://christianeschatology.com/futurism_dispensationalism.htm#futurism_vs_gospel
 
Can you understand that what you wrote caused me offense, and how that could explain my imediately hostile reaction?
Did you intend to write something other than you wrote?

[PeteWaldo]

I will never be convinced that Christ returned around 70 AD.  The evidence just isn't there. And no man living at the time these words were recorded can be alive today to see Christ return.  So again.  It's illogical for me to accept EITHER of those beliefs.  It's more logical to view this as the transfiguration or the ascension.

I think that's because you are confusing my pointing out that He did in fact return in His glorified body, after He went to our Father, with thinking that I was referring to the Second Coming of Christ.
While I believe the evidence is overwhelming that He did indeed usher His kingdom in during the first century, just as He promised those that He was speaking to in front of Him, that they wouldn't die before He came in His kingdom.
Through the traditional approach of historicism, I of course I do not believe that the Second Coming has happened yet.

The problem you are having comes from attempting to understand an entirely separate approach to New Testament prophecy, while trying to wring it through the filter of the pre-conceived notions you harbor, through your current approach of futurism. It is also typical for futurists to incorrectly assign preterist elements to historicists because they are accustomed to having discussions with preterists. It is amazing though, that futurists and preterists must each consider the other to be virtually 100% in error regarding their understanding of Revelation after chapter 3 - since a 1900 year gulf divides the two views - and so it should come as no surprise that both are necessarily precluded from even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation. Isn't that Ironic?

[PeteWaldo]

What does it really say?

Lets see.  After the passage in question, Mathew 17 and Mark 9 say after 6 days they went up to the mountain.  Luke says 8 days after.  Who is 'literally' right?

Matthew 16:28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 17:1  And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

Mark 9:1=2  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Luke 9:27-28  But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.  And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

Which would make absolutely no difference to the message of those scirptures if Luke's recollection had been off by two days or it was a scribal error. But it wasn't either. You yourself even bolded the answer.

At least Luke says ABOUT 8 days.

Exactly! Luke says "about" 8 days, indicating that he was uncertain. If I knew my recollection could be imprecise I would likely use the very same word. Yet you are abusing Luke's own admission of uncertainty - that you even recognized - as if it provided you license to annul any verse that you please willy-nilly, no matter how important, simply because it doesn't fit John Darby's eschatology.

There are a host of events that are reported on differently by the gospel writers.  Mark says, "till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."  Luke says, " till they see the kingdom of God."  Mathew says, " till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Same God same kingdom, except perhaps to the Jehovah's Witnesses.
But then they are another subject altogether.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=11.0