Are the rapture and the second coming the same event?
- Thread starter chiamoni
- Start date
- Status
Some thoughts....
In a sense you're each off in some ways, but for the same reason... one, you attempt to arrive at the intended sense of a passage through Paul's "the Greeks seek after wisdom" type of reasoning through a thing - "might it possibly be..., or maybe what it means is..., or perhaps..."
The Lottery has better odds than the soundness of that system, lol.
That's not a bad question - but it then has to be followed up with seeking the answer through other passages no matter where they lead.
Example, Paul refers to the Body of Christ as one new man - there is a "he." Elsewhere, as in Ephesians 5, where the Greek is in the feminine.
When women say to their female friends "guys, we need to talk," or what have you, are they referring to men? A foreigner might be thrown off by that. There's your problem - the language is still foreign to you.
It is a figure of speech describing a literal sense of comradeship crossed over from one context to another where, and only where they both share that same sense between them.
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away he sin of the world." A figure of speech based on a literal sense in their culture and that, within the context of their animal sacrifices. And if that is not perplexing enough, John does not even know what He means by that, as He is inspired to utter it. Only after the resurrection does anyone understand He was to die for sin, despite His having told them He would die, etc.
Luke 7:
20. When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
The answer has to be sought by that means - the multiplicity of passages as to those Things That Differ, as well as to those That Have Concord- and not through our own attempts to reason at a thing until we come up with a solution, on top of which, appears to fit to us because, well it feels right...
And not through the grammar alone, unless it is used to seek out the sense of a word back to its generic sense first, and then to its sense within any passage, an that, in light of an overall perspective, as in, Philippians 3's "work out you own salvation," for example. Its proper understanding itself is based on a proper understanding of the word salvation in both its generic first, and then its specific sense in the passage - in light of Paul's overall perspective on salvation as he preached it.
And all this requires much time in the Word, dealing there with God and His things - not in books supposedly based on the Word, as the truth of the matter on this is that much that is written in books supposedly based on the Word is actually based on the above same errors compounded further with reasoning through a thing that is based on the theology the above errors have resulted in.
Once, may years ago, while dealing with a Pentecostal who hurled several passages from the writer of Hebrews at me, asking me to get back to him, I grabbed an index card, numbered one through fifty and marked off each time I'd read through Hebrews towards my goal of reading it at least that many times before even look into the issue we had discussed.
My "reasoning" was this - when someone asks us about the location of a store in our neighborhood - a store we have never even been in - the reason we know that store is where it is, is due to constant exposure to its presence as a result of every time we have gone through our neighborhood.
Scripture works the same way - the more time in it, the more you know both, where things are, and where their related things, as well as where the Things That Differ are.
As a result, all sort of passages come to your mind when you are attempting to sort a things out - for you having "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom" Col. 3:16, which how we are "filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding" Col. 1:8.
Note - one passage desires that for you, the other tells you how to acquire it - a bottomless ocean in 66 seemingly endless Books in one - "instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be throughly furnished unto all good works" 2 Tim. 3:17.
In a sense you're each off in some ways, but for the same reason... one, you attempt to arrive at the intended sense of a passage through Paul's "the Greeks seek after wisdom" type of reasoning through a thing - "might it possibly be..., or maybe what it means is..., or perhaps..."
The Lottery has better odds than the soundness of that system, lol.
That's not a bad question - but it then has to be followed up with seeking the answer through other passages no matter where they lead.
Example, Paul refers to the Body of Christ as one new man - there is a "he." Elsewhere, as in Ephesians 5, where the Greek is in the feminine.
When women say to their female friends "guys, we need to talk," or what have you, are they referring to men? A foreigner might be thrown off by that. There's your problem - the language is still foreign to you.
It is a figure of speech describing a literal sense of comradeship crossed over from one context to another where, and only where they both share that same sense between them.
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away he sin of the world." A figure of speech based on a literal sense in their culture and that, within the context of their animal sacrifices. And if that is not perplexing enough, John does not even know what He means by that, as He is inspired to utter it. Only after the resurrection does anyone understand He was to die for sin, despite His having told them He would die, etc.
Luke 7:
20. When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
The answer has to be sought by that means - the multiplicity of passages as to those Things That Differ, as well as to those That Have Concord- and not through our own attempts to reason at a thing until we come up with a solution, on top of which, appears to fit to us because, well it feels right...
And not through the grammar alone, unless it is used to seek out the sense of a word back to its generic sense first, and then to its sense within any passage, an that, in light of an overall perspective, as in, Philippians 3's "work out you own salvation," for example. Its proper understanding itself is based on a proper understanding of the word salvation in both its generic first, and then its specific sense in the passage - in light of Paul's overall perspective on salvation as he preached it.
And all this requires much time in the Word, dealing there with God and His things - not in books supposedly based on the Word, as the truth of the matter on this is that much that is written in books supposedly based on the Word is actually based on the above same errors compounded further with reasoning through a thing that is based on the theology the above errors have resulted in.
Once, may years ago, while dealing with a Pentecostal who hurled several passages from the writer of Hebrews at me, asking me to get back to him, I grabbed an index card, numbered one through fifty and marked off each time I'd read through Hebrews towards my goal of reading it at least that many times before even look into the issue we had discussed.
My "reasoning" was this - when someone asks us about the location of a store in our neighborhood - a store we have never even been in - the reason we know that store is where it is, is due to constant exposure to its presence as a result of every time we have gone through our neighborhood.
Scripture works the same way - the more time in it, the more you know both, where things are, and where their related things, as well as where the Things That Differ are.
As a result, all sort of passages come to your mind when you are attempting to sort a things out - for you having "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom" Col. 3:16, which how we are "filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding" Col. 1:8.
Note - one passage desires that for you, the other tells you how to acquire it - a bottomless ocean in 66 seemingly endless Books in one - "instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be throughly furnished unto all good works" 2 Tim. 3:17.
Upvote
0
iamlamad
Lamad
- Jun 8, 2013
- 9,620
- 744
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
Why would anyone ask such a question? The moment of conception, a spirit is created who has eternal life. Every human spirit who has ever come is still in existence, either on earth, under the earth or in heaven. God has not lost one. We are created in HIS image and after HIS likeness. God is eternal and so is man. The only part of man that ceases to live is our body that turns back to dust. However, the spirit and soul continue on forever. So this rich man was eternal or immortal at the moment of conception. Our body gains immortality at the resurrection when the spirit and soul are joined once again with a body (for those who have died).
Upvote
0
iamlamad
Lamad
- Jun 8, 2013
- 9,620
- 744
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't think so. In Paul's argument, all this takes place AFTER the departing, THEN the man of sin does His thing. John used a Greek Aorist verb for has sat down. Sorry, but Young took too much liberty there, for an Aorist verb HAS NO tense. It shows NO TIMING information at all. For the rest, John used present tense verbs showing that once the departing [rapture] has taken place, then the man of sin will do all these things. However, Paul said the departing must come FIRST.
For those that want to jump the gun, THIS IS STILL FUTURE. The departing is future and what the man of sin will do is future.
Upvote
0
You're a bit off there - Adam was created in God's image and after their likeness [the Godhead] but then fell.
As a result, we are "by nature the children of [the] disobedience" Eph. 2; Rom. 5.
Thus, Paul's "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" 1 Cor. 15:22.
I like your passion for these things. And in this, I suspect you might have a hope some may never have - to come to a place in how you approach your attempts to understand things to where God's Word rules your reasoning process...through His Word.
Towards this we need to constantly seek to find holes in our own arguments - seeking out Scripture until enough of its passages together result in their understanding of an issue.
Genesis 5:
3. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
Respectfully...
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by Interplanner
The Thess passage is about the historic events of the 60s in 1st century Judea. The evil person was the leader of the 'rebellion that desolates.' of Dan 8:13. It was an abomination, too. No hope was held out for Israel as Daniel knew it, except through unity with Messiah and what he would accomplish. this was the answer to how Israel would make things right, which was his prayer. They would not. Messiah would. Many in Israel would actually go the way of the rebellion.
He is right - but the problem is that he is right only from within his indoctrinated frame of reference - four decades - in books supposedly about these issues.
Not to mention that this notion of theirs that Scripture is understood through looking out one's window at history - in his case, through other's windows, through all those books he so relies on - is the way to sort these things out.
Its funny how they rely on histories written by lost people at the same time that they knock [Acts 2] Dispensationalists when D's point to 1948 [although, that 1948 basis is also off base].
Notice how he continues to confuse Christ in His role as Israel's Messiah, with Him in His role as Head of the Body - by the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, Christ had long since informed Paul that He was temporarily moving away from His dealings with that nation, as a nation. Now, all that remained was the salvation of individual Jews.
These Things That Differ greatly impact what is actually being described in 2 Thessalonians as to [the] falling away, and all the rest...
The Thess passage is about the historic events of the 60s in 1st century Judea. The evil person was the leader of the 'rebellion that desolates.' of Dan 8:13. It was an abomination, too. No hope was held out for Israel as Daniel knew it, except through unity with Messiah and what he would accomplish. this was the answer to how Israel would make things right, which was his prayer. They would not. Messiah would. Many in Israel would actually go the way of the rebellion.
He is right - but the problem is that he is right only from within his indoctrinated frame of reference - four decades - in books supposedly about these issues.
Not to mention that this notion of theirs that Scripture is understood through looking out one's window at history - in his case, through other's windows, through all those books he so relies on - is the way to sort these things out.
Its funny how they rely on histories written by lost people at the same time that they knock [Acts 2] Dispensationalists when D's point to 1948 [although, that 1948 basis is also off base].
Notice how he continues to confuse Christ in His role as Israel's Messiah, with Him in His role as Head of the Body - by the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, Christ had long since informed Paul that He was temporarily moving away from His dealings with that nation, as a nation. Now, all that remained was the salvation of individual Jews.
These Things That Differ greatly impact what is actually being described in 2 Thessalonians as to [the] falling away, and all the rest...
Upvote
0
Manasseh_
not the evil king Manasseh
your premise goes against scripture for a number of reasons........
scripture teaches only God is immortal
man was created a living breathing being (soul),not immortal, subject to death
that immortality has to be put on, given as a gift, also called (eternal life)
that gift is reserved only for the righteous
it's given only by God through Christ who got the victory over death
given by resurrection and change through Christ
your premise is in direct contradiction to scripture,it teaches that the wicked also receive immortality (eternal life), and it agrees with a number of buhhist and hindu beliefs called transmigration of the soul , something also not taught as truth in scripture
in short your premise is false , it's not the truth by any test of God's holy written word
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by iamlamad
Why would anyone ask such a question? The moment of conception, a spirit is created who has eternal life. Every human spirit who has ever come is still in existence, either on earth, under the earth or in heaven. God has not lost one. We are created in HIS image and after HIS likeness. God is eternal and so is man. The only part of man that ceases to live is our body that turns back to dust. However, the spirit and soul continue on forever. So this rich man was eternal or immortal at the moment of conception. Our body gains immortality at the resurrection when the spirit and soul are joined once again with a body (for those who have died).
Nope, you're off, Manasseh - the issue is where that eternal life will be lived out - Isaiah 66:
23. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Mark 9:
43. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
Revelation 14:
9. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10. The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Why would anyone ask such a question? The moment of conception, a spirit is created who has eternal life. Every human spirit who has ever come is still in existence, either on earth, under the earth or in heaven. God has not lost one. We are created in HIS image and after HIS likeness. God is eternal and so is man. The only part of man that ceases to live is our body that turns back to dust. However, the spirit and soul continue on forever. So this rich man was eternal or immortal at the moment of conception. Our body gains immortality at the resurrection when the spirit and soul are joined once again with a body (for those who have died).
Nope, you're off, Manasseh - the issue is where that eternal life will be lived out - Isaiah 66:
23. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Mark 9:
43. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
Revelation 14:
9. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10. The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
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
Interplanner
Newbie
Danoh wrote:
[although, that 1948 basis is also off base].
Thanks for the comic relief!
That God has concluded separate dealings with ethnic Israel is found in the concluding arguments of Rom 11, the 3 nows. No, it does not have a "literal" line that says 'God is done with ethnic Israel.' It says it more intelligently than that through the 3 nows. There is nothing to be done in or for Israel.
In Christ, God fulfilled all things promised to Israel. Also, in Christ, Israel fulfilled all its obligations to God--if it would believe that. --R. Brinsmead, the Australian Forum, and ed. VERDICT
It is better to study those who are closing in on what historically happened then than to study modern "experts" in prophecy who are trying to close in on what they think should happen now.
[although, that 1948 basis is also off base].
Thanks for the comic relief!
That God has concluded separate dealings with ethnic Israel is found in the concluding arguments of Rom 11, the 3 nows. No, it does not have a "literal" line that says 'God is done with ethnic Israel.' It says it more intelligently than that through the 3 nows. There is nothing to be done in or for Israel.
In Christ, God fulfilled all things promised to Israel. Also, in Christ, Israel fulfilled all its obligations to God--if it would believe that. --R. Brinsmead, the Australian Forum, and ed. VERDICT
It is better to study those who are closing in on what historically happened then than to study modern "experts" in prophecy who are trying to close in on what they think should happen now.
Upvote
0
J
Jerico Miles
Guest
Well I learn something new on Christian Forum everyday. This time, I've learned Lamad think Jesus was married to Judah.
Didn't anyone ever told you Christ never married? Not physically nor spiritually. You need to get your story straight. Do you know who Judah was? He was one of Jacob's twelve sons. He lived almost a thousand years prior to the birth of Christ. Jesus was a descendant from the tribe of Judah that also produced other great biblical characters: David and King Solomon. Go study the original 12 tribes. You'll need to know the difference between the House of Judah and the House of Israel.
Jeremiah 3 is not about a real marriage. God was using a figure of speech describing the conflict between the House of Israel with the House of Judah around 900 BC. God will one day unite the two kingdoms as one during the tribulation.
Jeremiah 3:17-18
17 “At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts.
18 “In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers.
Roman 7 is about departing from the law, not Christ being married or a marriage at all. Your attempt at twisting three difference scriptures trying to paint a picture of Christ being married only shows ignorance and lack of knowledge of the bible.
And 1 Corinthian 7 is about the conducts of marriage between a husband and wife. How husbands should treat his wife and how wife treats a husband. Again it's not about Jesus being married.
Lamad, for someone that's constantly lecturing others about what the bible means, you certainly lack a huge understanding of the bible yourself. Don't assume because you know the timing of the rapture, you know everything else. You're not the only pre-tribber in town, many others also study directly from the bible and see the errors you make.
Back to the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. You need to understand this story is another parable Christ used to teach others as He did using many other parables. The story does not mean people immediately go straight to hell upon death as you think the rich man did. You took that story literally. The story also told of the rich man talking to Abraham. Is Abraham also in hell or is heaven and hell so close that people in hell can talk to people in heaven? You need to know when Christ is using a metaphor to describe what will happen to the wicked someday when Christ returns to judge everyone.
John 5:28-29
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
You just don't get it. They've been justified and made righteous by their faith with God. That was the requirement for fulfillment under the law. Under the new covenant, anyone born after pentecost have to accept Christ.
It's simple. We are justified by our faith in Grace. They were justified by their faith in God. God and Christ are one in the same. We are all part of God as we are in Christ.
Do you honestly think everyone that ever lived before Christ will never be allowed to participated in the marriage ceremony as the Bride of Christ no matter how righteous and faithful they've been with God? What makes you more righteous and worthy to be to be crowned a Bride of Christ over Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, Moses and King Solomon? God only gave one person ever in the history of man a free wish. He told Solomon he can have anything he wanted. That's the ultimate compliment anyone can receive from God. What makes you think you're more deserving then Solomon?
Again, these people will not be quest at the wedding. They will all take part as the Bride of Christ. One group of people that will surely be guest at the wedding will be babies and children that will be rapture. They haven't been tested nor earned their rewards as overcomers. Read the bible. Stop throwing nonsense around.
Romans 4
4 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”
Abraham Justified Before Circumcision
9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”
in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
J
Jerico Miles
Guest
I agree you're changing the subject. One that's in your favor and will pin me to a corner.
What's that gonna prove? You sound desperate.
Upvote
0
J
Jerico Miles
Guest
Again, you're just not getting it. If Jesus leaves heaven after the 70th week, when will the battle of Armageddon be fought, after the tribulation?
He leaves heaven before the end of the tribulation, exactly as the bible said in Rev 16:15 right before battle of Armageddon. Revelation 19 is an elaborate description of Luke 21:27-28, Rev 16:15, Matthew 25:31-46, Matthew 13:24-30, 35-43 where He comes as King to judge and destroy all the unrighteous during the time of Armageddon before the end of the tribulation.
After the tribulation ended is Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27, Zechariah 14:4 where He finally comes to earth at the mount of Olives. Study this the way I tell you. It's in perfect synchronization as the bible described. You need to know the difference when Christ leaves heaven verses when he comes to earth, otherwise you won't understand the rapture. You should know better because just as the rapture, He leaves heaven but does not come to earth.
Get your story straight. Armageddon and the 7th vial does not happen after the tribulation.
Last edited:
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
J
Jerico Miles
Guest
I think you do otherwise you wouldn't need to keep bringing the story back up. The parable is not hard to understand if you keep an open mind and not take everything being said in the bible literally.
Upvote
0
iamlamad
Lamad
- Jun 8, 2013
- 9,620
- 744
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
Sorry, the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable, it is a true story of two men.
Do you not keep up on current events in the church world? Have you not taken notice that God has recently taken many different people of different ages to see hell and bring them back to tell others what they saw? There must be 20 different stories now. They all agree. And they all agree with what the bible teaches. Sinners go to hell when they die. They are tortured in fire and heat. They know it is forever, and there will never be a way out.
God has also taken many people to see heaven: some of these same people. Again what they tell us of heaven agrees with what the bible teaches. God has done this to show nonbelievers that heaven and hell are very real places. Should believers just put their head in the sand and ignore all this revelation knowledge God has brought to light? No! It is quite like prophecy: we are to listen and to judge by the written word.
Upvote
0
iamlamad
Lamad
- Jun 8, 2013
- 9,620
- 744
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
Sorry my friend, but it is not me that is "not getting it."
First, what do you mean by "the tribulation?" These two words together can only be found in one verse in Matthew 24, in the KJV. In previous verses Jesus makes it clear that this is NOT A TITLE of any period of time. It is a description of the pressure put on people to take the mark of the Beast and to worship an idol. It is not a title of a certain period of time. Jesus said "those days." There will be DAYS of great tribulation. They will take place during the last half of the 70th week. If you wish for a title, use the 70th week of Daniel. That is a title that fits a period of time.
Jesus said AFTER "the tribulation" He would light up the sky like lightning. Why are you ignoring what Jesus said? After means LATER. This is exactly what Revelation shows us. The 70th week of Daniel ends with the 7th vial. ("It is done.") Then events happen as seen in chapters 17 & 18; the destruction of "Babylon." Then the marriage and supper will take place in heaven, and finally AFTER those events, Jesus comes. NO ONE will know when.
OF COURSE the battle of Armageddon will be fought exactly where John shows it: WHEN Jesus returns on the white horse, AFTER the 70th week has finished. Revelation 16:15 goes with 15:14: the spirits sent out to gather. This is only the PREPARATION for the battle. There can be no battle until the winning side shows up: JESUS. And He does not show up until AFTER the 70th week has finished. If Jesus showed up at the end, at the 7th vial and great earthquake, then many would know when by counting 1260 days from the abomination. Jesus said no one will know. He is not going to make it so easy as counting 1260 days.
You are mistaken: Rev 19 is when He comes, NOT BEFORE. Why do you rearrange Revelation to fit your theory? Why not form your theory from Revelation as written? Just admit you are mistaken and go on. Your theory does not fit the scriptures. You only THINK it does. Did you miss the fact that the Beast and False Prophet are taken in chapter 19, not 16? You are rearranging John's book. That is not a wise thing to do.
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
iamlamad
Lamad
- Jun 8, 2013
- 9,620
- 744
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
Mat. 11:11
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
John the baptist was the greatest of the Old Testament prophets. Yet, the very least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Why is this? NO ONE in the Old covenant could be "born again." This experience was not possible until Jesus conquered death and rose from the dead.
Adam Clark Commentary:
By the kingdom of heaven in this verse is meant, the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel of peace; which fulness was not known till after Christ had been crucified, and had risen from the dead. Now the least in this kingdom, the meanest preacher of a crucified, risen, and glorified Saviour, was greater than John, who was not permitted to live to see the plenitude of Gospel grace, in the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Let the reader observe, 1st. That the kingdom of heaven here does not mean the state of future glory. See Matthew 3:2. 2dly. That it is not in holiness or devotedness to God that the least in this kingdom is greater than John; but 3dly. That it is merely in the difference of the ministry. The prophets pointed out a Christ that was coming; John showed that that Christ was then among them; and the preachers of the Gospel prove that this Christ has suffered, and entered into his glory, and that repentance and remission of sins are proclaimed through his blood. There is a saying similar to this among the Jews: "Even the servant maid that passed through the Red Sea, saw what neither Ezekiel, nor any other of the prophets had seen."
Coffman Commentary
This is but a continuation of the Saviour's logic in the preceding verse. Just as John was the greatest of the prophets because of his proximity to Christ, the apostles, and indeed all Christians, are greater than John because they are even closer, being "in him" as a result of the new birth. Since Christ is Lord, this statement concerning John became the fulfillment of the prophecy that John would "be great in the sight of the Lord" (Luke 1:15). The statement proves that: (1) John was not in the kingdom of Christ, and (2) the kingdom had not then been set up, else John would have been in it. The least in God's kingdom are greater than John because (1) their sins are forgiven, whereas those of John were merely rolled forward to the cross, and (2) they enjoy full fellowship with Christ in his kingdom.
David Guzzik Commentary
b. He who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he: Though John was great, he was not born again under the New Covenant. This is because he lived and died before the completion of Jesus' work at the cross and empty tomb. Therefore, he did not enjoy the benefits of the New Covenant
People's NT Commentary
He that is least in the kingdom of heaven. This shows, (1) That John was not in the kingdom of God. (2) That, as none greater than John has been born of women, no one had yet entered the kingdom. (3) That, therefore, it had not yet been set up, but as John himself, Jesus, and the Twelve under the first commission, preached, was "at hand." (4) All in the kingdom, even the humblest, have a superior station to John, because they have superior privileges.
John Wesley notes:
"He was blameless as to that righteousness which is by the law; but he fell short of those who are perfected by the spirit of life which is in Christ. Whosoever, therefore, is least in the kingdom of heaven, by Christian regeneration, is greater than any who has attained only the righteousness of the law, because the law maketh nothing perfect."
The commentaries are in agreement: the New Covenant believer is not the same as an Old Testament believer. When Paul said, "In Christ," for those who would be raptured, He knew exactly what he was writing.
John the Baptist declared that he would be the friend of the bridegroom, and not a part of the bride.
John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of Messiah, 598 wrote:
"If one makes the Wife of Jehovah and the Bride of Messiah one and the same, he is faced with numerous contradictions because of the different descriptions given. Only when one sees two separate entities, Israel as the Wife of Jehovah and the Church as the Bride of the Messiah, do all such contradictions vanish."
The bride of Christ is to be presented as a pure virgin. How could Israel of old, or Judah of old be considered a virgin? Impossible! There are Old Testament verses that show that even though God divorced (showing they were married to Him) Israel, yet He would remain faithful to them, just as if He had not divorced them. I can easily see why Fruchtenbaum wrote this.
2 Cor. 11:2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
Sorry, but the "nonsense" here is on your side of this discussion.
Upvote
0
- Status
