Where in Revelation is a Rapture Mentioned?
- Thread starter precepts
- Start date
- Status
Archmike
Active Member
Thought it was a cool way to say his name.
As to the rest, Lt Col :
I think my two witness scripture....again....is self-explanatory. The Rev John is destined to phrhesy again in the future ( Rev 10:11 ). And I find it VERY CURIOUS that IMMEDIATELY after that last passage in chp 10, chp 11 begins, where it discusses the two witnesses. This is no coincidence. This was intended. Therefore, I feel the Rev John ( and I say "rev John" cause he IS NOT John the Beloved. For if he was, then the early church fathers would have known the answers to the riddles of The Revelation, because Johnthe Beloved was in Thessalonica after The Revelation was sent to those churches. ) is one of the two witnesses....AND HES CHRISTIAN ! The other witness is, again, obvious: Malichi 4: 5/6. Elijah is JEWISH.
Ill leave that there for now....
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
What Is Replacement Theology?
In a nutshell, its the belief that God is an untrustworthy liar that broke all of his previous promises to Israel, and then gave all of those promises to the Church. Even though he has shown himself to be a liar that is willing to break previously made promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, believers in Christ can rest assured that he’s not lying to us because of… words.
Romans 11:1-2............
“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying…” .
Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church. Promises made to Israel will be fulfilled in Israel and not the Church.
Jeremiah 31:35-37...........
“Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.”
The church set forth in the New Testament rests upon seven cardinal principles:
- the death of Christ
- the resurrection of Christ
- the ascension of Christ
- the sending of the Holy Spirit by Christ
- baptism by His authority
- baptism "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins"
- salvation in the name of Christ.
A few months before His death, Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church".
As stated, the church was not then existence in Matthew 24 and 25 and those Scriptures were referring to the Jews.
SEVEN Year Tribulation Period
Jere. 30:7.......
"Alas! That day is so great there is none like it; it is a time of distress for Jacob; yet he shall be saved out of it."
Jere. 30:3-7.........
"The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their ancestors to possess,' says the LORD." 4These are the words the LORD spoke concerning Israel and Judah: 5"This is what the LORD says: "'Cries of fear are heard- terror, not peace. 6Ask and see: Can a man bear children? Then why do I see every strong man with his hands on his stomach like a woman in labor, every face turned deathly pale? 7How awful that day will be! No other will be like it. It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it."
Daniel 9:27 .........
"And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, (7 YEARS) and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
I can hardly believe that I am having to post these Scriptures.
The 1000 Year Rule of Christ.
Revelation 20:2-3..........
"He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended........And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. "
Upvote
0
Like the following, which shows the error of the pretrib doctrine...
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Nobody can be under the blood of the Lamb and not be a part of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ.
Maybe you think this is just a "random" verse.
It is really not that difficult to show the error of John Nelson Darby's Two Peoples of God doctrine, which was brought to America about the time of the Civil War.
.
Upvote
0
Replacement Theology:
The true form of "Replacement Theology" replaces the one seed, with the many seeds in Galatians 3:16.
It replaces the children of the promise, with the children of the flesh in Romans 9:8.
It replaces the word "so", which is an adverb of manner, with the word "then", which is an adverb of timing in Romans 11:26.
It replaces a Church which began on the Day of Pentecost with about 3,000 Israelites and later included Gentiles, with a Church made up only of Gentiles.
It replaces the "son" as the "heir" to the land in Matthew chapter 21, with those who reject Him as the "chief cornerstone".
It replaces a Gospel only of Grace, with one that includes race.
It ignores the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.
It replaces the New Covenant of Christ, with a "treaty" broken by an antichrist not found in the chapter, by adding a "gap" of time not mentioned by the angel Gabriel, in Daniel 9:27.
It is the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology, which is the true form of "Replacement Theology".
.
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Sorry brother but I can not agree with you. I am not sure how you came to your conclusions but I for one must reject them.
From the 1st century to today, orthodox Christians have almost UNANIMOUSELY agreed that the writer of the Revelation is the Apostle John.
Dionysius was the 1st to dispute John as the author and he did that on the grounds that he disagreed with the theology and its grammer.
His objections were quickly and discarded by the important early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Terulian, Hippolytus, Clement, and Origen.
From my knowledge, practically ALL of todays Bible scholars accept John the Apostle as the author of Rev.
Yes, I am aware that Erasmus, Luther and Zwingli questioned John as the author but that was because of the LITERAL 1000 year reign of Christ.
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And right there is the root of misunderstanding. When anyone confuses Replacement theology it effects the foundation of the Scriptures and allows for errors to rise up.
Israel came to be through a sovereign act of God, creating a nation out of the direct descendants of Abraham in Gen. 12:2.
Later He narrowed this down to include only those who came through Isaac, in Gen. 26:3-5, and Jacob in Gen. 28:13-15.
Theirs is a national covenant conditioned upon obedience as seen in Ex. 19:3-6.
The Church consists of individual members from every nation, tribe, people, and language who have been adopted directly into the family of God, based on our personal belief that Jesus died for our sins and rose again and that is seen in John 1:12-13, Gal. 4:4-7, Rom. 10:9-10. Ours is a personal covenant conditioned upon on faith.
You could say that God’s position with Israel is based on a national religion, but His position with the Church is based on a personal relationship.
Now you can reject that and twist that and change it to fit your belief, but that is what the Bible says my dear brother.
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Now think for just a moment. Why would God take Elijah to heaven without seeing death to than bring him back just to see death?????
Then how and why would God bring back John who died to live again just to die again.
Upvote
0
- Dec 19, 2017
- 3,485
- 1,045
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Let examine these verses carefully:
Romans 11:1
[1] I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
[1] I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Paul says, 'I say then' [oun], meaning accordingly or consequently. This because in chapters nine and ten, Paul had many things to say which are disturbing about the nation of Israel, their disobedience, the Jews obstinacy, and their standing with God. The phrase, I say then, or I say subsequently, is in reference to these preceding chapters where Paul was explaining how God called not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles.
Romans 9:24
[24] Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
[24] Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Selah!
He is explaining how those who were not His people, are now called His people, and how Isaiah also cried concerning Israel, that though their number be as the sand of the sea, yet only a 'remnant' should be Saved:
Romans 9:27
[27] Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:He spoke of how the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained righteousness, but how that Israel, which followed after the law, have not attained to righteousness:
Romans 9:30-31
[30] What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
[31] But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
And in chapter 10 he continued in the same vein explaining how his prayer was that Israel might be saved, but how they are ignorant of the righteousness of Christ (10:1-4):
Romans 10:1-4
[1] Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
[2] For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
[3] For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
[4] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
And how there is 'no difference' between the Jew and the Greek:
Romans 10:12
[12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Paul writes how whosoever should call upon the name of God will be Saved, regardless. Chapter ten concludes with Isaiah's prophesy which spoke of this:
Isaiah 10:20-21
[20] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.[21] The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.
So the truth is that God is a light found of the Gentiles, while the nation Israel, having been judged of God, lies in darkness.
After addressing Israel's fall in chapters nine and ten, Paul turns to the subject of what this means with regards to the promises made. It is in this context that the rhetorical question is asked, 'so consequently, has God cast off His people?' And Paul answers clearly, No, God hasn't cast off Israel, because he himself is an Israelite and God has not cast him off. By saying this he proves by his own example how unreasonable it would be to conclude the nation Israel was cast off. For he himself is an Israelite, thus the conclusion is proven false! Selah!
Not only an Israelite, but Paul gets right down to his very tribe declaring that he is of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. The Hebrew word Benjamin [binyamiyn] means, "son of the right hand." And the families of God, through Christ, are sons of the right hand, even as Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father.
Deuteronomy 33:12
[12] And of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; and the LORD shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders.
[12] And of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; and the LORD shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders.
The beloved of the Lord dwells in safety by Him because Christ dwells at the right hand of the father, and they in Christ. It is in the true Son of the right hand, that the promises to the Children of God are fulfilled. The right hand is the favored one. Just as today, most people are right-handed, or favor their right hand. We are the sons of favor, through Christ. By Paul mentioning He is of the tribe of Benjamin, He is proving that he is one of the children of Israel, the chosen of God, and yet he has not been cast off. Therefore, this proves that the promise was not abrogated. This is an important declaration because it is declaring that the promise is sure and Israel is being saved in the prophesied remnant, of which he himself is one. His words here cannot in any way be construed as saying that later, more than a remnant will be saved. On the contrary, he has used himself as "an example that the promise is being kept" right then and there in Jews like himself. If we ascribe anything more than this to the text, we are reading it "into the passage," rather than reading "from the passage." As He declares himself an Israelite after the promises, it is proved that God's favor indeed rested on Israel.
Has God cast off His people? His reply is [me ginomai], literally 'forbidden come to be.' God forbid this is true! The Romans, and indeed all of us, are not to misunderstand election but realize that the elect or chosen people of God to which the promises were made, have always been a remnant! Just as in Romans chapter 9, where corporate Israel, God says is "not Israel," and the election Israel, which God says is!
The message here is that indeed Israel has come under judgment (branches broken off), but it is the reason why THIS Israel in blindness is NOT the Israel to which the everlasting Promises were made (as Paul says he is living proof of that, being an Israelite, and not being blinded). God is not saving Israel through 'favored nation status' like you believe but rather through 'favored people status' or "particular redemption." Paul declares he is an Israelite, which means the promise was not abrogated by part of Israel being blinded. One Israel was blinded, but the election is in the favored son. A remnant Israel, showing that there is an election of Grace, not of Race nor nation, and that this has always been God's plan for Israel's future.
The overview of verse one is that God is illustrating that the part of Israel that is spoken of in this chapter as having been cut off, are those of Israel who have rejected Christ. And the part of Israel which has not rejected Christ (of which Paul declares he is one) are the elect of Israel who is not cast off, and to whom the promises pertain, and that does not lie in unbelief. Paul says God forbid that the Lord has cast away his people, for he also is an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. And this truth of election is also reiterated clearly in the verses that follow.
Now let check with verse two:
Romans 11:2
[2] God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
[2] God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Mant theologians love to quote Romans 11:1 of God not casting away His people, but seem to completely ignore the fact that verse two is the context that defines verse one. God has not cast away his people that He foreknew. Note that his statement is accompanied by a qualifying clause. The stipulation of those he has not cast off is, 'His people which He foreknew.' These are the remnant of Israel whom He foreknew, not the "whole nation of Israel." These are the election Chosen by Grace, and predestinated unto salvation. These phrases like "He foreknew," and "His People," are not used carelessly, they are divinely inspired to illustrate that God's people are those whom He elected before the foundation of the world. Clearly not an elect nation Israel, but an elect people of Israel.
Matthew 1:21
- "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for He shall Save His people from their sins".
- "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
If Israel's rejection of the gospel was both consistent with God's eternal plan, and Israel's own choosing (Romans 9), then of necessity this means that God never intended for all the nation of Israel to be saved. For they lie in unbelief. His plan all along was for a remnant according to the election of Grace. Israel was restored in the New Covenant body of Christ. It is not, and indeed can never be restored in Old Covenant "types and shadows" represented by Temple buildings, which is passed away. There is no possibility of a restoration of an Old Covenant style the Kingdom of Israel. Christ has confirmed a New Covenant with Israel, and thus the Old has passed away (Hebrews 8:13). And if this is the New Covenant Church, then the New Covenant has come, not "will come." And the promise of the New Covenant to replace the Old has been kept.
The overview of verse two is that we are being instructed that God has not cast away his people that he foreknew. And to illustrate this, we are pointed to the scriptures where Paul under the inspiration of God makes the analogy between what has occurred in Israel, and what happened in the days of Elijah. God is saying, remember what the Holy scriptures declared of Elijah, and how he made intercession to God and pleaded with the Lord about the children of Israel. And what he said is declared in the next verse which you youself can read and figure it out!
What is this one week (seven) that follows the cutting off of Messiah (after the 62 weeks or sevens)? God was not talking about 7 literal years here. Rather the number seven in Scripture signifies complete of whatever is in view. This week is not literally 7 years that the New Covenant is confirmed by Christ, but the whole New Covenant period from the cross to the consummation! It is the church whom God has confirmed with and for the purpose of the building of his kingdom while Satan was bound. That period celebrates the week of the Feast of Tabernacles which is something you need to study first.
I am aware of a lot of speculation and guessing of what the week means. We've heard everything from 7 years to 70 years. The reason that we have all these different ideas about this final week, is because people are not letting the scripture interpret this week. They are doing a lot of assuming, and their studies dripping with speculation of when and who this Covenant is confirmed.
Christ has already established His Kingdom on earth, Spiritually, through the Church for a thousand years. The number 10 (and its multiples 100, 1,000, etc.) signifies fullness of whatever is in view. God was not talking about 1,000 literal years.
Upvote
0
Archmike
Active Member
I don't know. You know ?
Hey, that's what it says....or are you like the "scholars" and use this excuse, and that excuse, and this translation, and that translation, and this "expert opinion" , and that "expert opinion", and this commentary, and that commentary?
....thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Mt 11:25
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
- Dec 19, 2017
- 3,485
- 1,045
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Poor baby. You're saying this because you couldn't refute the verses I quoted.
Upvote
0
Archmike
Active Member
Why-o-why then did not the church Fathers in Asia Minor question....at GREAT length....John, when he was with them with the book he sent to them, The Revelation, before he died ? And as to those early church fathers : They were wrong in their dogmatic interpretations of The Four Horseman as well. So, it is clear to me that John the Revelator was NOT John the Beloved. Neither did John the Revelator see himself on any of the 24 elder's seats.
MAJOR1 QUOTE:"Bible scholars of today accept John the Apostle as the writer of The Revelation"
Another reason to not believe the "scholars".....they have comfort in numbers only....
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 19, 2017
- 3,485
- 1,045
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
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
seventysevens
Well-Known Member
You speak of John the Revelator , but you have no idea who he is ?
A simple study is easy to prove that Apostle John , close friend of Jesus while Jesus was on earth during his earthly ministry is the same John who wrote the Book of the Revelation of Jesus the Christ ! Apostle John was exiled to the island of Patmos in 95 AD , if you take some time to research this matter you will find an abundance of evidence that Apostle John was exiled on the island and while there Jesus called him up to heaven in spirit - there is no other biblical writer named John that wrote the Book of the Revelation of Jesus the Christ -as the book is all about revealing Jesus at Jesus return in the 2nd advent
you are mistakenly believing things are false
Upvote
0
seventysevens
Well-Known Member
Post your scripture reference please
Post your scripture reference describing 144k Christians please
Please post the scriptures that clearly show what you claim
No John is not at all likely to a one of the Two Witnesses
what scripture do you have that supports this notion ?
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If I were you Mike, I would look at the sources of your information as I for one question your comments with due respect of course.
Actual, real historaical facts tell us that the Revelation’s early reception was Outstanding. Perhaps as much as any other NT book, we have evidence for an early, widespread, and consistent reception of Revelation.
The evidence goes back as early as Papias (c.125) and also includes Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen which I have already listed for you ant That is an impressive list.
In addition, it is worth noting that almost every one of these church fathers accepted the book of revelation on the same grounds, namely the belief that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee was the author.
Additionally, the fingerprints of John the apostle are all over the apocalypse. For example, Jesus Christ as the Lamb is referred in both these books.
Also, John, and John alone, identifies Jesus as the Word, or Logos (John 1:1, 14; Revelation 19:13).
Likewise, John alone identifies Jesus as the true witness (John 5:31–47; 8:14–18; Revelation 2:13; 3:14),
It is John who most exploits the Mosaic requirement of two witnesses (John 8:12–30; Revelation 11:1–12).
Who wrote the Book of Revelation?
With mention of this single name as John, with no attempt to clarify any further on it, obviously indicates that he was well-known to his first readers, to whom no further identification was necessary. This conclusion is supported by most ancient historians.
If you reject all of these historical facts to then rest upon your own opinion, then there is nothing left for me to help you with Mike.
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
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Now, being as nice as I can possibly be, do you really think that people (ME) are going to read such a long lost???????
The reason why some people (YOU) post so much information is to validate to themselves that what they believe is correct because there is knowledge in a mass of words.
Sorry brother but I aint one of them. If you want to pursue your false ideas with me, shorten your comments by about 98 %. If not.......see ya.
Upvote
0
- Status
