The Revlation of the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ken,

I'm going according to statements of the AV 1611 Bible not the thoughts of Nelson, Ungers', Vines dictionaries or the writers of the ISBE. They messed your thinking up with false information.

The truth of the matter is that the FIRST covenant (with the nation of Israel) is NOT synonymous TO the Old testament. There were many covenants BEFORE Moses! (See Noah) When Paul speaks of the first covenant he's speaking of that made with the NATION. (Moses- Ex.19) It comes underneath the testament made with ADAM, being a subheading. The old testament is a covenant of works made with INDIVIDUALS. (See Adam-Gen.2-3) The old covenant is made with a NATION based on the testament of works.

The new testament is a covenant of grace made with INDIVIDUALS. (Rom.11, Matt.26) The new covenant is made with the the HOUSES of Judah and Israel, the nation of Israel based ON the new testament. (Jer.31)

The Old TESTAMENT started with ADAM. (Rom.5, Gen.3) It contains the SINS of those before the law which Christ Jesus also paid for. (Rom.3)
They were not imputed, but were paid for by Christ Jesus due to the BREAKING of the testament by ADAM.

The "false" SUPPOSITION that they are the same comes from those who assume the body of Christ IS the nation of Israel.

Not so. Paul always SEPARATED the body of Christ FROM the nation. The nation is LOST, while the body is NOT. (1 Thess.2, Rom.10-11)

Very easy. Many people just go by books instead of studying the Book.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl
 
Upvote 0
Carl,

There is only ONE covenant, that God already made with Abraham about the seed. God's covenant is eternality.

The Old covenant in the during Old Testament times, they do offerings, sacrifices to forgive often and often.

When Jesus came to earth, he told them , that He give the new testament(covenant) with many of his blood on the Calvary - Mark 14:24.

Old covenant was fulfilled by Calvary, Christ's blood cover our sins is the New Testament.

Calvary fulfilled Daniel 9:24-27.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!
 
Upvote 0
Deadposttrib,

No son, there's more than one covenant. Read your bible. There's ONE OT, and ONE NT. There are many covenants, which lie UNDER the testaments.

Abraham's covenant was a PROMISE of grace, which concerned a land, seed, and blessing.

Yes, I'm a saint. (1 Cor.1) All saints are not IN CHRIST. (Job 5) Those weren't. They were there before Christ got here.

No the events are not the same, you just mistake them due to the same form of the word, gather, in them both. Read the OT, you'll find it over and over again.

Yes, I know the coming of verse 1, is the coming of verse 8. I also know the gathering of verse 1 is CONNECTED to the REVELATION of verse 2 and 8. The revelation is before the destruction which puts the gathering before the coming.

Sorry bud.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl
 
Upvote 0

stumpsitting101

Senior Member
Dec 30, 2002
491
6
Ala.
Visit site
✟775.00
Faith
Protestant
Quote:
"I'm going according to statements of the AV 1611 Bible not the thoughts of Nelson, Ungers', Vines dictionaries or the writers of the ISBE. They messed your thinking up with false information."
Not wanting to make assumptions, nor answer for another, I will ask these questions:
Just because one does not use the KJ Authorized Version 1611, and its notes, does this make one unable to write a Bible Word Study, Dictionary, Encyclopedia, or Commentary which would be Holy Spirit inspired?

Is there any possibility that some of these above mentioned men, may have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to start and finish these works?
Blessings
Ken
 
Upvote 0
Ken,

Typical response.

You failed to respond to my statements made and the verses for prooftext. I'm not the least bit interested whether you or I think the men were inspired or not. If their statements don't match the Book, they're wrong. Some of them don't match it. See that was simple.

Now, I'm interested in how you REFUTE what I just said by the Holy Bible.

The statements are still up there.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl
 
Upvote 0
All saints are not IN CHRIST. They were there before Christ got here.

Jesus said to them, ""Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." - John 8:56.

Jesus already met Abraham during Old Testament time.

Jews do not understand what Jesus was talking about, because they noticed Jesus looks so young around age 30 - John 8:57

Then, Jesus said to them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, BEFORE Abraham was I AM"

Obivously, Jesus was there during Old Testament time. Jesus IS God.

Yes, ALL saints of Old Testament are IN CHRIST.

What is the purpose of Calvary??

Now discuss on covenant.

Galatins 3:14 -"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the GENTILES through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

All of us who are Gentiles believe in Jesus Christ by the faith, we have part of Abraham's seed - covenant.

Gal. 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of man; but as of ONE, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

All saints of the Old Testament have their faith on God- Jesus Christ! And our seed through Jesus Christ by our faith.

Gal. 3:26 "For ye are ALL the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

Paul telling us, that ALL of us both Jew and Gentiles are children of God through faith in Christ. Even, include ALL Old Testament saints faith in Jesus Christ same as we faith in him! All Old Testament saints are God's children! WE are all children of God!

Gal. 3:28-29 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are ALL ONE in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs accroding to the promise."

It is very clear telling us, that both Jew and Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ, ALL are ONE in Christ. Even include all O.T. saints also!

We are part of Abraham's seed - God's promise! It is eternality salvation life.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!
 
Upvote 0
The revelation is before the destruction which puts the gathering BEFORE the coming

The gathering cannot occur first till Christ shall be descend from heaven for the coming first - 1 Thess 4:15-16.

The gathering cannot occur without Christ comes first.

The gathering must occur right follow the coming of the Lord.

When, we shall be gathering together to meet Christ at the coming, and then He shall destroy Antichrist at the Second Advent - 2 Thess 2:1 & 8.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stumpsitting101

Senior Member
Dec 30, 2002
491
6
Ala.
Visit site
✟775.00
Faith
Protestant
Not to be read in a harsh voice, just inquiring.

Yes, I did not give prooftext, then again you did not ask for prooftext in post #61 and #67. With the same line of thinking, neither did you give prooftext using scriptures, in proving the KJ Authorized Version 1611 is God Authorized and not just mearly another version which a king (King James the 1st) authorized to be translated.
Then also give prooftext from scriptures, that KJAV 1611 is the supreior and only true translation compaired to other translations. But again I noticed that you did not say you got your information from scriptures but you did mentioned getting the ideas "according to statements of the AV 1611."
Are you sure these men's or at lest some of these men's works were not guided by the Holy Spirit? I agree if their statements don't match the original thought, pattern and usage in scripture, we should disregard them. The question ask must be then: if their statements don't match the Book, according to my personal thoughts and interruptions, does this in itself make their statements positively inaccurate?
Their statements may match the Book, and we just don't acknowledge it.
Every personal event in life is not written down in Black and White on the pages of scriptures, not just the KJAV, but any versions. This is why one is to  be lead by the Holy Spirit, then scearch the scriptures to see if these things be.
I still consider you as a Brother. Different views, yes, but still a Brother.
Peace and Blessings
Ken
 
Upvote 0
Deafpostrib,

In Christ is a doctrinal term explained by Paul and initiated by the Holy Spirit through baptism. (1 Cor.12) No Abraham WAS NOT baptized by the Spirit for nobody was UNTIL Acts 2. (Acts 1, John 7)

Abraham "seeing" Christ's day has nothing to do with being "in Christ". He didn't TALK to Jesus. Jesus was a MAN born of Mary. (Matt.1) Get it.

You fellas just reason yourselves OUT of the Book instead of READING and BELIEVING it states.

No, son. All OT saints put their faith in God NOT Jesus Christ. They didn't even know his name. Paul's discussion concerns the SEED of Jesus Christ. When he came, WHEN THE FAITH OF Jesus Christ APPEARED, those who believe, are made one.

The context is NOT speaking of OT saints believing of Jesus Christ. You are mistaken as usual.

I've showed you the verses. You can't READ them.

Let me put this in ENGLISH for you.

Here are the verses for the pretribulation rapture.

(1 Thess.4-5) It shows the gathering is before the day of the Lord, when the woman is in travail. We ESCAPE the day, the time, and the wrath CONNECTED with them.

(1 Thess. 1) It shows that we are delivered from the wrath to come.
The wrath to come testified by Mattthew, John the Baptist, Jesus, Luke, Paul, and John is the time of Jacob's trouble, the great tribulation, which starts at the midst of the week. (Matt.3,24, Luke 3,21, 1 Thess.1, Rev.2,7)

(2 Thess.2) It shows that our GATHERING is at the revelation of the son of perdition, NOT his destruction. The revelation is before his destruction, 42 months before. His revelation is in the midst of the week. It shows the our gathering is ON the day of Christ, NOT the day of the Lord.

Now those are the verses which teach a pretrib rapture. Some people can't read them.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl
 
Upvote 0
ken,

Let's see. Did you post any verses from any bible which refuted what I said. No, you didn't. You're continuing in another vein of thought away from the subject of the testaments and covenants.

You want to argue about WHAT the word of God is. You can if you want. No wonder you have to post from dictionaries. See, in your "logic" you have no absolute truth, and have no way to PROOFTEXT anything you believe. According to you, you be wrong at any time, just because you don't believe the whims and thoughts of someone else.

Total confusion.

If you don't know, can't find, don't believe, or want to belittle the Bible which millions of Christians believe and died for, go ahead.

It ain't worth the time and space to post to you.

I happen to believe the word of God. Sorry, that you don't.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl
 
Upvote 0

stumpsitting101

Senior Member
Dec 30, 2002
491
6
Ala.
Visit site
✟775.00
Faith
Protestant
Quote:
"Did you post any verses from any bible which refuted what I said. No, you didn't."
In your opinion I didn't, but then again neither did you refute questions I asked you, outside of applying personal definations to the interpretation of the ideas and words used. Sorry, as I see it, you also have side step the questions.

I see we need to go back to where this started: The use of the word "Infidel"
Quote:
"I showed "how" I used the term in the post, but let me give it to you clearly."

This quote shows me that this is a personal defination, not the consistent defination used in scripture.

Quote:
Dead are those who don't hear. Let the dead bury the dead.
Infidels are unbelieving, whether in SALVATION or PRACTICE of the faith, which covers your verses.
A dead infidel can be any Christian, who has TURNED from the WORDS of the Book, and doesn't HEAR them. He shows no fidelity to the Book. In other words, he's an infidel, NOT lost.

Infidel is used only twice in N.T. Let's see just how it is used and what it speaks about. The Greek word which is used else where, is translated, unbeliever, faithless, believe not, in the sense that these people were never counted as believers, they never at any time were believers. It in no way refers to a Believers who no longer shows fidelity to the Book, as you have stated. How can a Christian then be an infidel outside your personal definition? How can an infidel then be "in Salvation" at any time of their past or present life?

2 Cor 6:15
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
KJV
Contrast by comparison: Christ/Belial (not in Christ)---he that believeth(in Christ)/infidel (In Belial--not in Christ).

1 Tim 5:8
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
KJV
Denying the faith makes one worse than an infidel (unbeliever-one which has never previously believer or has never been in the faith of Christ). Seems that one who denies the faith is considered by scriptures to be in a worse state than one who never believed. It does not call them infidels (unbelievers, faithless), but something worse. There is a differance between one of little faith, faithless, and one who was in faith and turns their back on Christ.

Quote:
"According to you, you be wrong at any time, just because you don't believe the whims and thoughts of someone else."

I simply used the first person, "my, me", trying to keep from pointing fingers at others. I could have just as easy used the second person.

Again I ask, are your statements made from personal definations of the word, or actually consistent definations and usage of the word as used in scriptures?

Quote:
"If you don't know, can't find, don't believe, or want to belittle the Bible which millions of Christians believe and died for, go ahead."
Sorry if you took it that way, I do not mean to belittle any version of Holy Scriptures. I simply asked the question: what makes you feel that this is the only version, and the only source to find deeper meaning and understanding to the scriptures?

Quote:
"It ain't worth the time and space to post to you."
Sorry you feel this way, I still consider you a brother.

Quote:
"I happen to believe the word of God. Sorry, that you don't"

According to your presonaly views. A very strong assumption on your part, especially since you have never met me and actually don't really know me.

Blessings
Ken
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ken,

Let me make it simple.

You came to disagree with what I said on this thread.

I called you on what you said.

I gave the explanation of verses on infidel, which are true, as I said. You haven't refuted those yet.

You need to do a little more reading! Those who are NOT SHOWING "fidelity" (forgot that didn't you?) are showing their INFIDELITY, as INFIDELS, to the words and doctrine of God. (Titus 2) That classifies BELIEVERS, right along with infidels, as to PRACTICE, just like I said, fella.

An infidel is unbelieving of the text in truth and practice. (Titus 1:15-16) A believer can "certainly" be classified with an infidel, as to his REJECTION of the truth and practice of it. That's what Paul was "straightening out" by Titus, friend. He said REBUKE them, that they might be SOUND in the faith. It sure wasn't the unbelieving INFIDELS, but the unbelieving Christians, showing infidelity to the TRUTH of God. I know plenty of Pentecostals who are infidels (unbelieving in truth and practice) when it comes to the Bible.

Sorry, you blew it again.

You disagreed with testament and covenant.

You posted dictionaries and commentaries.

I explained again the difference between testament and covenant.

You have not refuted those as of yet.

Bud, we know what you said and what you meant about the Bible. You have a prejudice against anyone who believes the King James Bible is the word of God and states it.

Of course, you can't produce any evidence to prove it's not. You can only ask, where did you PROOFTEXT that the King James is ONLY to be used?

Like I said, we know what you said and meant. Don't kid me.

I deal with you from what you have STATED. That's how I know what you believe. See, what I believe IS stated.

Now, son, do you have anything to REFUTE the original post. If not, this will be my last response to you.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl
 
Upvote 0

JesusServant

do not stray too far left nor right but CENTER
Dec 5, 2002
4,114
29
✟19,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
ken,

Let me make it simple.

You came to disagree with what I said on this thread.

I called you on what you said.

I gave the explanation of verses on infidel, which are true, as I said. You haven't refuted those yet.

You need to do a little more reading! Those who are NOT SHOWING "fidelity" (forgot that didn't you?) are showing their INFIDELITY, as INFIDELS, to the words and doctrine of God. (Titus 2) That classifies BELIEVERS, right along with infidels, as to PRACTICE, just like I said, fella.

An infidel is unbelieving of the text in truth and practice. (Titus 1:15-16) A believer can "certainly" be classified with an infidel, as to his REJECTION of the truth and practice of it. That's what Paul was "straightening out" by Titus, friend. He said REBUKE them, that they might be SOUND in the faith. It sure wasn't the unbelieving INFIDELS, but the unbelieving Christians, showing infidelity to the TRUTH of God. I know plenty of Pentecostals who are infidels (unbelieving in truth and practice) when it comes to the Bible.

Sorry, you blew it again.

You disagreed with testament and covenant.

You posted dictionaries and commentaries.

I explained again the difference between testament and covenant.

You have not refuted those as of yet.

Bud, we know what you said and what you meant about the Bible. You have a prejudice against anyone who believes the King James Bible is the word of God and states it.

Of course, you can't produce any evidence to prove it's not. You can only ask, where did you PROOFTEXT that the King James is ONLY to be used?

Like I said, we know what you said and meant. Don't kid me.

I deal with you from what you have STATED. That's how I know what you believe. See, what I believe IS stated.

Now, son, do you have anything to REFUTE the original post. If not, this will be my last response to you.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl

 (1 John 4:20) If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

(1 John 4:21) And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
 
Upvote 0
You have now attacked me personally.

Paul spoke the truth in love. (2 Cor.10, 1 Cor.9) It was "sometimes" a LOVELY BLAST of HOT wind to the ears of the "arrogant". (2 Cor.11,13, 1 Cor.4)

Many thin skinned sissies (1 Cor.5) get offended at authoritative speech and "think" you hate them.

They then become the "pious" JUDGES of evil thoughts by "judging the motives" of Christ's servants, and their love for the brethren.

Last post to you bud. You're a smartaleck.

I came to post what I believe, and defend it.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl
 
Upvote 0

JesusServant

do not stray too far left nor right but CENTER
Dec 5, 2002
4,114
29
✟19,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
(Romans 16:17) Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

(Romans 16:18) For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Carl,

Please do not follow Ruckman's example of his attutide criticize on any Christians, pastors, religions, colleges, etc.. about the doctrines. They are Christians.

Himself divorced three times.

Please do not follow his example.

Please respect Christians' beliefs and intepreting. Of course, you might not agree with them. But, the most important thing, that we all agree Christ came to earth as virgin birth, died on the cross for our sins. He raised from the death. He is coming again!

That's the most important thing, we all agree.

Eschatology doctrine is the most debate doctrine than any other doctrines.

Eschatology have do nothing with salvation, you know that.

Please be positive with us, and respect each other in love.

Also, please do not act like as pharisee. I have seen so many Christians include baptists are act like pharisee. There too many are hypcroisy.

Carl, please stop criticize, and blunt on us.

I hope you respect us, and be cooperative with us in positive.

Thank you! :clap:

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.