So what? -- why all the fuss about eschatology (final events)???

[Jamdoc]

No doubt Jesus wants everyone to accept the Gospel - accept Christ as Savior etc be born again. That is "a given" in the OP.

But you yourself have already admitted that the one who knows nothing about the rapture (pre-trib or not) -- is at no risk at all as long as they are a Christian and given that they know that the dark ages "Happened" - they will simply find out about the rapture when they get to heaven.

so...
then...
no risk.. no bad consequence.

Which is the point of the entire thread



1. all the warnings in the Bible about upcoming crisis events have dire consequences for those that choose to ignore that warning and its escape plan. (see the example of Noah and the flood).
I think we have seen this a few dozen times on this thread by now.

2. All the popular eschatology scenarios for second coming - have no consequence - do not matter - for the born-again Christian that ignores them all -- by the admission of their own proponents.

3 So then that is an obvious sign that they are ALL flawed in some way. The idea that all Bible examples work one way - then suddenly a bunch of johnny-come-lately modern scenarios ignore all the Bible examples and leap out onto a "no consequence does-not-matter" platform for interpreting Bible warnings about the end-times.. should be a "wake up call".




Those three points have been made over and over - I am only stating the most obvious part of the entire discussion where everyone agrees to the "does not matter" part - as you yourself also did regarding the born-again Christian that rejects your view and is "pre-trib raptured anyway" with no risk at all.



you yourself admitted it when you said the person who knows nothing about your view is at no risk at all -- how could this be any more obvious?

Well, I think it does matter, if you consider the possible outcomes being fleeing off the grid and being sustained by God until the rapture, vs being captured and tortured and martyred. Does it matter for eternal destination? No. But it does matter for what happens to you in the last days on earth. I guess it depends on if you consider having your head cut off to be a consequence or not.

Revelation also mentions a blessing for reading and keeping the words of that book as well.
Revelation 1:3

3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

I guess it depends on if you don't mind missing blessings or not

 

[fwGod]

No doubt Jesus wants everyone to accept the Gospel - accept Christ as Savior etc be born again. That is "a given" in the OP.

But you yourself have already admitted that the one who knows nothing about the rapture (pre-trib or not) -- is at no risk at all as long as they are a Christian and given that they know that the dark ages "Happened" - they will simply find out about the rapture when they get to heaven.

That is not what I meant.

I said that a person who gets saved does not need to know about the rapture.

In my head what I wrote was what I meant, but this is what I was thinking,

that the person doesn't need to hear a teaching about the rapture first in order to be eligible for salvation.

Do you see how that fits into the words.. in blue..that I wrote above?

But you interpreted it entirely different.

I can think back and recall now how you basically went bonkers in my view on all of your following posts, but I had not the slightest idea why.

Because I hadn't said anything wrong.

So now I know that you've been saying without saying it.. that you are waving that red flag of how wrong you think I am at me. So now I can enlarge on my views.

Yes there's a risk of not having a hunger and desire to learn God's word, His ways and live to please Him.

If a new Christian doesn't do those things then they stay spiritual babies. That clearly was not going to continue for the spiritually baby Christians that the apostle Paul was responsible for.

Which is the point of the entire thread

1. all the warnings in the Bible about upcoming crisis events have dire consequences for those that choose to ignore that warning and its escape plan. (see the example of Noah and the flood).
I think we have seen this a few dozen times on this thread by now.

Do you remember what I said in I think was my first post..

I said that they'd be punished, die in the flood because they paid no attention to the warnings that Noah gave them.

I said that they needed to repent for their sins.

Did you see some red flag go up right then?

2. All the popular eschatology scenarios for second coming - have no consequence - do not matter - for the born-again Christian that ignores them all -- by the admission of their own proponents.

Recall that you misinterpreted what I said. And so you saw red flags all over the place. But in reality it was a false alarm.

Now that I know what all of this has been all about.. I'll just say this. According to the apostle Paul who had to instruct those spiritual babies, and Peter who said that like (natural) babies all Christians from the time they get born again are to desire the milk of the word of God in order to grow thereby.

Not being hungry, not desiring to grow would be abnormal. And when a person has a Bible, can go to church and hear preaching, and with all of the ways to hear and learn concerning God's word, there's no acceptable excuse not to study and show themselves approved.. etc.

3 So then that is an obvious sign that they are ALL flawed in some way.

No it's not.. unless you are entirely sure that you fully understand their views. But you haven't concerning mine.
You misunderstood what I'd said. And I'd like to say that you have not been very clear in your posts to me either.. that you were testing me to see if I measure up.

But then you get all secret code and use vague innuendoes. Because you want me to get the hint without you coming right out and speaking plainly.

But the problem is that when you talk about other people being the one's at fault. I assume that you are speaking the truth and being honest. Actually talking about other people.

Because I didn't actually say anything wrong! You misunderstood what I said!

So all this time you've been posting 5 or 6 posts off one lickedy split after the other. And you have no idea that I'm not use to answering all of them in one sitting one after the other.

The last time I tried that was the day before yesterday. I'd gotten so exhausted, so frustrated to be repeating answers that I repeated to the different poster before that one.

It takes me a very long time to compose a post. So I spent around two hours on each of them. I was spending more time with that than I should have been spending with my own family. I ached, I had a headache so I finally just said that I had to quit.

Then I come back the next day and see your posts. Then it went into high gear marathon of reading and answering all five or six posts from you.

As if I had nothing better to do with my time.

And now I figure out what your problem was.

You were suffering from red flag false alarms so you spent ssssoooo much time at not being straight with me, so when you could have taken the way of getting clarification by saying something like..

Let me be sure that I understand you... now did you actually mean [...] when you said [...]?

But you didn't do that.

So I thought that you were obsessing about those nameless someones.

I just don't have time for all of these shenanigans. I've got a life and a family that I care for more than your stupid nonsense.

All of this has shown me that I do not want to discuss anything with you anymore.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, I think it does matter, if you consider the possible outcomes being fleeing off the grid and being sustained by God until the rapture, vs being captured and tortured and martyred.

Things over which you have no control. So then whatever form of good or bad outcome in terms of temporal goods -- it will not change "because you guessed right about some future event" in those scenarios.

But it does matter for what happens to you in the last days on earth. I guess it depends on if you consider having your head cut off to be a consequence or not.

That is not logical -- unless you are trying to argue the claim that born-again Christians who fail to guess the right sequence (Assuming that is your sequence) at the end of time - will have their heads cut off.

So far - I have not heard of anyone proposing such a thing.

Agreed. My argument is not that the actual Bible has the "does not matter if you ignore this" teaching ... my argument is that ALL the popular forms of eschatology have that teaching by their own admission and I think this post of yours also illustrates the same point

 

[Jamdoc]

Thinks over which you have no control. So then whatever form of good or bad outcome in terms of temporal goods -- it will not change "because you guessed right about some future event" in those scenarios.



That is not logical -- unless you are trying to argue the claim that born-again Christians who fail to guess the right sequence (Assuming that is your sequence) at the end of time - will have their heads cut off.



Agreed. My argument is not that the actual Bible has the "does not matter if you ignore this" teaching ... my argument is that ALL the popular forms of eschatology have that teaching by their own admission and I think this post of yours also illustrates the same point

Well, Jesus does give an instruction when the abomination of desolation happens, to flee, just, drop everything you're doing and head into the mountains. (at least those in Judea) so I suppose those who hear and keep His words and do them will escape, where those who don't will be martyred.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
No doubt Jesus wants everyone to accept the Gospel - accept Christ as Savior etc be born again. That is "a given" in the OP.

But you yourself have already admitted that the one who knows nothing about the rapture (pre-trib or not) -- is at no risk at all as long as they are a Christian and given that they know that the dark ages "Happened" - they will simply find out about the rapture when they get to heaven.

That is not what I meant.

I said that a person who gets saved does not need to know about the rapture.

In my head what I wrote was what I meant, but this is what I was thinking,

that the person doesn't need to hear a teaching about the rapture first in order to be eligible for salvation.

Indeed - but you never got to the point of claiming that a christian who is born-again will not be raptured unless he/she guesses the right sequence for the rapture. A pretty easy thing to "say" if you actually believed such a thing.

Do you remember what I said in I think was my first post..

I said that they'd be punished, die in the flood because they paid no attention to the warnings that Noah gave them.

Yes - I think we all agree that there was a "clear and obvious consequence" for anyone ignoring the solution to the flood crisis that God gave Noah.

That is the one thing consistent in all the posts no matter who posts it.

No it's not.. unless you are entirely sure that you fully understand their views. But you haven't concerning mine.
You misunderstood what I'd said.

You said the born again Christian that does not know if the pre-trib view is right or not - goes to heaven at the pre-trib rapture whether they guessed that scenario is correct ahead of time -- or not?

And I'd like to say that you have not been very clear in your posts to me either.. that you were testing me to see if I measure up.

This has nothing to do with "do you measure up" -- where in the world did you get that?

But then you get all secret code and use vague innuendoes....

whaaaat?????

 

[BobRyan]

My point/question is not whether you agree with my understanding of Bible prophecy regarding the end-time scenario I view as the right one - my question is whether you know what I am saying on this thread? Do you know the position I am taking?

Yes. You believe the Bible teaches the post-trib rapture.

You can read the OP or page 1 from dawn till dusk and you will not find me saying that this thread is about my idea that there is a post-trib rapture. This thread is about ALL popular views - including popular post-trib rapture, are flawed and I name the flaw in the first two posts of this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, Jesus does give an instruction when the abomination of desolation happens, to flee, just, drop everything you're doing and head into the mountains. (at least those in Judea) so I suppose those who hear and keep His words and do them will escape, where those who don't will be martyred.

That's in Matt 24 -- When Jerusalem was surrounded by armies - the Christians took it as a sign - and when the armies left without firing a shot - the Christians left. Years later when Rome came back to resume that onslaught - the Christians had already left.

It is not clear at all that any of them were debating "the rapture", Jesus said in John 16 that persecution of Christians would come as it did in the first century and 2nd century and every century since then. We have no record of Christians saying they were not expecting to find persecution.

 

[BobRyan]

If a Christian lives a godly live, God knows him and therefore he is prepared for death and therefore there is absolutely no risk in ignoring eschatology.

That seems to be "The lesson" being taught by ALL the systems of eschatology we see commonly taught.

 

[BobRyan]

Salvation in Christ is the main topic of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. There is nothing even close, regarding importance.
.

ok so once someone accepts Christ as Savior - what difference does it make if they don't "guess" the right end-time scenario?

 

[Jamdoc]

That's in Matt 24 -- When Jerusalem was surrounded by armies - the Christians took it as a sign - and when the armies left without firing a shot - the Christians left. Years later when Rome came back to resume that onslaught - the Christians had already left.

It is not clear at all that any of them were debating "the rapture", Jesus said in John 16 that persecution of Christians would come as it did in the first century and 2nd century and every century since then. We have no record of Christians saying they were not expecting to find persecution.

You're taking the preterist stance, but here's the thing.
The disciples didn't say "Lord what are some things that are happening to Jerusalem that we should know about?"
They asked
Matthew 24:3

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

To see 70AD as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies is to make the claim that Jesus dodged their most pertinent question, and only answered the question about the destruction of the temple
But Jesus not only gave them the abomination of desolation and great tribulationes as a sign of His coming He also gave the rapture timing and time of the day of the Lord, of His wrath, the end of the world.

To claim that Jesus was answering their questions fully AND claim that 70AD was fulfillment, is to take extreme liberty with the way Jesus said "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" in Matthew 24:29. over 1900 years is not immediately after. It's also taking extreme liberties with how Jesus described the great tribulations following the AOD as being worse than anything the world has ever seen before, or would ever see again. We've seen worse than 70AD.

Either that or it's making a claim that Jesus returned in 70AD and we just missed the rapture.

No friend, what Jesus said hasn't happened yet. We're still watching and waiting for it. The signs Jesus gave are still relevant.

 

[solid_core]

ok so once someone accepts Christ as Savior - what difference does it make if they don't "guess" the right end-time scenario?

You already asked me that. None.

 

[BobRyan]

You already asked me that. None.

Which is the point being made in the thread.

 

[BobRyan]

You're taking the preterist stance,

No - for the sake of this thread I am just asking for anyone holding any view at all to state that not knowing their view "Matters" in the way that ignoring Noah's message or ignoring john the baptizer's message or ignoring any major warning message in the Bible - always matters.

BTW - on a side note: historicist is not preterist.

 

[Biltong65]

In all of scripture - God's warnings, rightly understood, were given to spare people some dire consequence. So then this is about people ignoring that warning and then experiencing the event being warned about, where you need the information God gives to come out on the right side of survival/fail.

And of course his end-times warnings in the Bible are "off the charts" loud and in your face drastic. (See Rev 13 for example)

=======================
Here is the BIG question

If you look at the subforums and each of their titles for this area of the board - all the different end-times scenarios... then:

1. "What difference does it make?" - for the one ignoring all of it?

In other words "so what"?

Can you name any risk at all for the person who says
"I accept Christ as savior - I read only the 4 gospels... (but not Matt 24 or any section dealing with end times) .. I ignore everything in the Bible that talks about the last days... that's it"??

Do any of the end-time options so popular today - claim that such a person who is choosing to "ignore it all" - has even one iota of risk??

They all have that same problem: (all that are commonly seen today) -- so that includes
pre-trib pre-mill
mid-trib pre-mill
post-trib pre-mill (the common form of post trib)
post-mill
amill
etc.

2. Second question: Can you name one single instance in scripture where a big crisis event was coming up - and lots of dire warnings about it in the Bible from God Himself - and YET - deliberately ignoring that warning results in "no risk at all" for the one doing it??

Test case example ------------------------------------------

Someone in Noah's day - chooses to serve God, not worship any false God's - say prayers and be positive ... and also ignore everything related to Noah and his message staying right where he is 1200 miles from Noah. He is saying "I have never seen it rain - and I don't know who did or did not speak to Noah... too hard for me to figure out so I am going to stay right here and be good".

That person would most certainly be "at risk" if he considered drowning in a world-wide-flood along with all his family and friends -- a negative thing.

Noah's message warned of a harsh consequence - but if a person decided that they don't really mind suffering that harsh consequence well then they get what they expect. The whole point of the warning was to avoid the harsh consequence.

So what about today? In today's world do all these warnings have any downside at all for the one choosing to ignore them? As long as that person is born-again and reads those 4 gospels (sans the sections warning about end times?)

(Some might point out that if you die before the event happens that you are being warned about even happens -- then it STILL does not matter how much you knew about the warning. That scenario is "a given" - I don't think anyone debates against it.)

==================================== bottom line
If the scenarios are defective then one sign of it will be that the information they claim to convey in the scenario they describe - has no negative consequence (no risk) for someone who has very basic Christian understanding but refuses (or neglects) to be informed by the scenario.

I.e. their answer to "so what?" is "so nothing".

"In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity"

While it can be interesting to speculate on End-Times narratives (there is a "scary-movie" element to it all), I think this can be categorized as a "Non-Essential", as to Soteriology.

Are the long passages of "so-and-so begat so-and-so" necessary for salvation? No. Do they point to the line of David leading to Jesus? Yes. Are there arguments about why they differ? Yes. Do they differ only in what each "God-breathed" writer chose to highlight? Yes. Is it worth arguing these points? No.

Does a person, perhaps less educated, "gain" by such knowledge? No.

 

[Jamdoc]

No - for the sake of this thread I am just asking for anyone holding any view at all to state that not knowing their view "Matters" in the way that ignoring Noah's message or ignoring john the baptizer's message or ignoring any major warning message in the Bible - always matters.

BTW - on a side note: historicist is not preterist.

Having the right interpretation matters in the way that I said, Jesus gave believers a warning sign (Abomination of Desolation) and an instruction (flee into the mountains).

If you have a preterist/historicist (and in this case, it is the exact same thing, you believe a prophecized event was already fulfilled even though Jesus didn't return around that time) interpretation you're not going to be watching for fulfillment, so when it is fulfilled, you won't obey the command, because you don't think you need to, and because of that, there are at least earthly consequences.

 

[BobRyan]

Having the right interpretation matters in the way that I said, Jesus gave believers a warning sign (Abomination of Desolation) and an instruction (flee into the mountains).

Which they did in 70 A.D.

2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” -- 70 A.D.

“Tell us, when will these things happen -- 70 A.D.

AND "and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
(so then the historicist part includes both)

both-AND not "either or"

If you have a preterist/historicist (and in this case, it is the exact same thing, you believe a prophecized event was already fulfilled even though Jesus didn't return around that time)

temple destroyed with "not one stone left on top of the other" in 70A.D. but that was not the second coming because it is "AND" -- both AND -- so then a sweep of time.

And the point remains that not knowing whatever your view is - does not stop the saved born-again Christian from being saved -- and post-trib means "trib" for the saints not "no trib" as we probably both agree.

In the historicist model - the 70A.D. prediction was exactly fulfilled and it is also a type of the end time event of that same type.

But I digress - the point is that nothing in your proposed model spells doom for anyone who is a Christian already and does not study your scenario

 

[Jamdoc]

Which they did in 70 A.D.

2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” -- 70 A.D.

“Tell us, when will these things happen -- 70 A.D.

AND "and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
(so then the historicist part includes both)

both-AND not "either or"



temple destroyed with "not one stone left on top of the other" in 70A.D. but that was not the second coming because it is "AND" -- both AND -- so then a sweep of time.

And the point remains that not knowing whatever your view is - does not stop the saved born-again Christian from being saved -- and post-trib means "trib" for the saints not "no trib" as we probably both agree.

In the historicist model - the 70A.D. prediction was exactly fulfilled and it is also a type of the end time event of that same type.

But I digress - the point is that nothing in your proposed model spells doom for anyone who is a Christian already and does not study your scenario

Disregards that the sign of His coming is "immediately after" the tribulation of those days.
Context would indicate that He was referring to the great tribulation that happens after the abomination of desolation.
Which if you consider 70AD to be a fulfillment of that, then Jesus should have returned then, He didn't.

also, if you go back to Daniel, Daniel gives a prophecy that involves daily sacrifices beginning, and 2300 days later the sanctuary is cleansed. Within those 2300 days, the sacrifices will stop and the temple will be trodden underfoot. First daily sacrifices had been happening in Herod's temple for a lot longer than 2300 days, second the temple was not cleansed 2300 days later, around 70AD, the temple was destroyed completely.

So we still have a standing commandment to watch for the signs that Jesus gave of His return, and if we don't, it'll come on us like a thief in the night, and we're more likely to be captured and tortured to death before the end. So there are consequences for considering prophecy to already be fulfilled so we don't have to watch, or just not wanting to pay attention to prophecy at all.

 

[fwGod]

To Bob Ryan,

/threads/so-what-why-all-the-fuss-about-eschatology-final-events.8177102/page-8#post-75310737

Bob Ryan: Christ said to believers --

37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.
It is AT that great future "flood event" (the second coming) where one is taken and the other left - it comes as a surprise and it happens after the tribulation according to Matthew 24.

FwGod: Correct.

However, the apostle Paul did not teach that to the Church Body of Christ. What he taught us is that we will not experience any wrath as those on the earth will. "God has not destined us for wrath." We will depart in the pre-Trib rapture.

It is pre-Trib because the cyrus type can only "be revealed after He who restrains lawlessness is taken out of the way." In Revelation he is first mentioned to arrive or is revealed to the world in the first verse of Chapter 6.

/threads/so-what-why-all-the-fuss-about-eschatology-final-events.8177102/page-9#post-75314637

Bob Ryan: The point of this thread is to show that none of the scenarios you are mentioning matter to the one who is at the very basic first step Christianity 101 or any level beyond that in their understanding of the Bible.

Where is the "beef"?? in the models that you select from?? They all do not matter once we get to "I have accepted Christ as my Savior"

My response today: That sounds like to me that you are saying that the recently saved Christian doesn't need to hear about a rapture doctrine.
So why was it a 'red flag' to you for me to say that a new Christian wouldn't need to hear about the rapture?

But apparently it's an entirely different story as far as your concerned.. that a new Christian needs to hear about the post trib rapture doctrine.

So, you state that no pretrib rapture doctrine would matter to a recently born again christian...
I replied that it matters to me. But I should have said it this way.

If the recently born again person attended a church that only believed in the post trib rapture. To them it does matter.
And for the same reason the recently born again Christian that attends a church that has the pretrib rapture doctrine.. it equally matters.

As far as doctrinal differences.. it's doctrinally unfounded and hypocritical for you to raise a red flag at what I have said.. you must of taken it to imply that the new Christian doesn't need to hear of the post trib rapture doctrine and that's why you went ballistic with quickly posting 7? posts in a row,

while at the same time when you said that it isn't important for a new Christian to hear about the pretrib rapture.. I didn't quickly post 7 posts in a row with each one giving an alarmed red flag at what you said.

So really.. since the point of the thread is to ask why raise such a fuss?.. why then did you raise such a fuss?

 

[BobRyan]

Disregards that the sign of His coming is "immediately after" the tribulation of those days.

I am post-trib... so that is not one of the things I prefer to disregard.

 

[BobRyan]

Context would indicate that He was referring to the great tribulation that happens after the abomination of desolation.

No doubt.

but that is not when "not one stone is left on top of another" for the temple -- that happened in 70A.D.

The disciples asked about all of it.

Jesus pointed them to the temple they were looking at - and predicting its destruction. That has to be 70A.D.

Matt 24
Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

That is 70 A.D. future to them.. not future to us.