Changing your mind about prophecy

[Jamdoc]

I don't fall into any of your stereotypes. I believe a pre-wrath (after the sixth seal) "rapture" but I also believe that that coincides with the return of Christ to earth with power and great glory. I also don't believe x, y or z must happen for the rapture to happen. We're told the beast has 42 months so from the beast climbing out of the sea we have 42 months to endure before Christ returns, anything else that "must happen" will happen anyway during those 42 months.

How is the coming in the clouds after the seal NOT coming in power and great glory?
The cosmological signs of the sun and moon darkening are there, the people on the earth wail and mourn knowing that the wrath of He who sits on the throne is come, they SEE Him in the clouds.
That is just as Revelation 1:7 says.

 

[nolidad]

What concerns me Nolidad is that you're a pastor.. You have a flock, a congregation, who look to you for instruction from the Word and you don't even know or properly understand it yourself, how then can you teach others?

Wow because I dare disagree with your alegorical reinterpretation of Scripture I am a lousy pastor? What school do many of you here go to to learn how to berate and hurl ad-hominems to those who disagree with you ? they should shut it down.

I reject teh allegorical hermeneutic of Scripture. It leaves too much room for peoples private interpretation of SCripture as is amply shown on this and many other threads on the end times.

I have come to learn that the literal/historical/grammatical method of dividing the word is the one that does the leadst harm to all of SCripture!

And I am confident that they have been fed very well from me. For I tell them always to not just take my word for it but study it out for themselves. Few complaints over 30 years. BTW I am a pastor but not the lead pastor. I just teach and teach and teach year round to many in the congregation as well as being invited to many churches as well. Maybe you should send out an alert to the Northeast to warn congregations that there is a man of god who actually takes God at His Word and not at someones interpretation of that Word!

I have asked repeatedly for people to show me wrong from the word without opinion and not even you with your ad-hominems have been able to do so!.

But if you would be charitable, please list for me two or three of the things here you find to be opposed to teh teaching of teh Word. So I can know specifically the charges you are trying to bring against me.

 

[nolidad]

1.

Joh 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.


2.

Act 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
Act 2:40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation."
Act 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.


3.

Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.


.

Once again you have declared that Scripture absolutely says that Jesus fulfilled the terms of the new covenant. So please point out in these verse HOW He fulfilled the covenant He made.

Why do you dance around just answering the question???

So now I have to ask other questions.

1. you rpoint one-- Do you know what a mediator does?

2. Your point 2. Did all the house of Israel and Judah gather that day at Peters preaching? Or was Peter making a proclamation for all Israel to come to know, though all ISrael wasn't gathered! Just like a government can make a proclamation for all its citizens. 1 million may be gathered but the rest will hear it eventually as it travels the land! I know you know which is the right answer.

3. Your point three. Why are you trying to teach me then? Don't you trust the Holy Spirit to do His Job? Or are you secretly the Holy Spirit taken on human form?

But here is the covenant once again:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


It is not murky, muddled or ambiguous. It is quite clear God says He will make a new covenant with the children of the ones who broke th e old covenant (Israelis), that is what it says without interpretation.

God will make a covenant with the house of Israel and Judah "after those days". YOu have yet to identify when "those days" were so that God enacted the covenant "after those days".

GOD WILL ( not to some but to all) write His laws in their inward parts- with no conditions attached.

HE WILL be their God and them HIS people- WILL NOT MIGHT.

EVERY ISRAELI WILL know the Lord from the least to the greatest and no one will need to teach them!

YOuhave loved to accuse me of being a two people ogf God person, but in reality your belief that teh New Covenant that GOD made (not some allegorical man made reinterpretation) requires you to believe in a 2 people of God doctrine because if god fulfilled this covenant already- then ALL ISRAELIS , from the least to the greatest already know the Lord and their sins and iniquity are forgiven and forgotten.

Masyber in pst after post I should say you believe in a 2 people of God doctrine like you falsely accused me of.

But I await the answer you continue to refuse to produce---When did God fulfill this Covenant He declared in Jeremiah 31?

YOu are intelligent and know what I am asking- why do refuse to answer this question and prove me wrong? Given your level of disagreeing with me, I thought you would relish that opportunity.

 

[BABerean2]

Once again you have declared that Scripture absolutely says that Jesus fulfilled the terms of the new covenant. So please point out in these verse HOW He fulfilled the covenant He made.

Why do you dance around just answering the question???

So now I have to ask other questions.

It would not be my declaration.
That would be the author of the Book of Hebrews who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18.

It is an interesting game you are playing here by ignoring what is plainly written in the scripture in an effort to make your doctrine work.
However, it is not an original idea.
Many members of this forum have done the same.
However, you have turned it into an artform.

....................................................................

The New Covenant is found in all of the scripture below.


Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.


.

 

[John Helpher]

You’d be surprised.

How so?

 

[nolidad]

It would not be my declaration.
That would be the author of the Book of Hebrews who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18.

It is an interesting game you are playing here by ignoring what is plainly written in the scripture in an effort to make your doctrine work.
However, it is not an original idea.
Many members of this forum have done the same.
However, you have turned it into an artform.

....................................................................

The New Covenant is found in all of the scripture below.


Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.


.

Just because teh term "new Covenant " appears in a passage, does not equate it to mean it has been fulfilled! That is like second grade grammar for Petes Sake!!

Well Don't go blame the author of Hebrews for something that is not there! show me one verse in Hebrews where the writer says the covenant is fulfilled or any word synonymous with it!

There is not one verse that says the new Covenant was fulfilled by Jesus and you know that.

Jesus did not say this blood is the new covenant.

It is obvious you are a novice SCripture readewr. for you do not know why Jesus had to shed His blood. It was not to establish a New Covenant, but to pay the price for the terms of the Covenant!

Hebrews 9:21-23
King James Version

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.


Jesus blood is not the covenant but paid for the terms of the Covenant to go into effect!

I also noticed that you intentionally when quoting Jeremiah left out what the new covenant terms actually are!

So let me ask you again. SHOW ME any verse in teh new testament that says teh new covenant has been fulfilled!

Mediating is not fulfilling

me·di·ate

verb
gerund or present participle: mediating
/ˈmēdēˌāt/

1. 1.
   intervene between people in a dispute in order to bring about an agreement or reconciliation.

ful·fill
/fo͝olˈfil/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).

I know you can read, so I know you can see the difference between medijating something and fulfilling something.

So once again I post the WHOLE NEW COVENANT (not just the first verse) . YOu still need to show where the terms of God's New Covenant have been fuflilled as He said they shall and will be:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


If you say they were fulfilled in ACts 2 when Peter spoke, then you believe all Israelis are saved according to the terms of the Covenant! You are the 2 people of God person then.

 

[John Helpher]

Why do I have to follow your rules for interpreting verse 27?

It's not a matter of following rules. Interpretation of spiritual truths can be both objective and subjective at the same time. That's why Jesus spoke so often in parables and exclaimed, "He who has ears to hear, let him here".

So often we get into this mind-set that it's one interpretation verses the other. Sometimes there's more grey area than we realize. It's true that the NT is fulfilled in Jesus. All the promises to Abraham (and subsequently God's people) are fulfilled in Jesus. There is no doubting that, for anyone who puts their faith in Jesus.

In my counter arguments, I do not mean to diminish your point at all. In fact, I would like to say that the life, ministry, and testimony of Jesus is THE cornerstone. Prophecy is not the cornerstone. Jesus and his teachings is the cornerstone. There is no point to prophecy at all without reference back to the teachings of Jesus. He is the Messiah. He is the master. He is the boss. He is the ultimate fulfillment of God to his people.

When you say that the 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled 3.5 years after Jesus' death, I do not disparage your point of view that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of God's Kingdom. In fact, I think you are right. That is exactly why Jesus said, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand".

However, I do not think the 70 weeks prophecy is limited to the life, death, resurrection of Jesus and then 3.5 years after this point, as the only interpretation to the fulfillment of prophecy. I hope you get me here. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm only suggesting that your interpretation is incomplete.

Jesus is the Christ, and his birth, life, testimony, death, and resurrection is the fulfillment of all of the promises to Abraham. But, the 70 weeks is not only a prediction of Jesus' death; it is a prediction regarding God's plan for humanity as a whole.

Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is a part of that plan. For example, consider this part: In Matthew 24:15, Jesus says,

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand"

This is a direct reference to Daniel 9:27. The admonishment that "let him understand" means this is an important verse regarding the future of the world, (which is the context of what he's saying here, i.e. prophecy). The abomination of desolation is referenced in the context of a 7 year agreement, the middle of which (i.e. 3.5 years) results in abominations and a ceasing of sacrifices.

Jesus then goes on to explain that, as a result of this abomination, people should flee, because this is the start of great tribulation, such as the world has never seen, nor will ever see again. The Revelation puts this period of time at 3.5 years. It refers to this period of time in days, (i.e. 1,260 days: Revelation 12:14), months, (Revelation 11:2) and years (Daniel 9:27). This period of time is also referenced in Daniel 7:25.

This 3.5 years is extremely important in prophecy and coincides perfectly with the Great Tribulation, which is half of 7 years, exactly the abomination period mentioned in both Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15.

We can't just ignore this connection even if the result sounds strange, that God postponed a final, 7 year period of prophecy.

Jesus is the Christ. That means he is the anointed one. There is no denying that; his birth is indication that he is the anointed one. That is not the only meaning of the 70 weeks prophecy. The fulfillment of this prophecy is not just the death and resurrection of Jesus; it is the complete and total take-over of God upon this world. Satan is cast down; he is locked up; Jesus reigns forever.

Yes, Jesus is the fulfillment of the New Covenant, or New Agreement, or New Testament, whichever you'd like to call it. They all mean the same thing. But, no sincere person could look at the world now and say that everlasting righteousness as been established on the earth. There is still more to the 70 weeks prophecy to be fulfilled. That is not a slight against Jesus and his death/resurrection.

In fact, the Revelation is a revelation of Jesus; he is not done expressing who he is. In fact, it in narrowmindedess not the part of those who view Jesus as simple an "ultimate sacrifice" rather than the ultimate expression of the Kingdom of Heaven.

For example, consider the mark of the Beast. Jesus said that we cannot work for God and money without cheating on one or the other, that we will love one and hate the other, and that our new, full-time job is to work for God's Kingdom of Love by going into all the world to teach others to do the same.

The mark of the Beast is described as a mark without which no one will be able to buy or sell. It is the next generation of money. If you want to pay the bills, take care of your family, or just put bread on the table, you must take the mark.

Here we have an expression of Jesus' teachings via prophecy; God or money.

Recall that Jesus said the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel 9:27 would mark the start of "great tribulation such as the world has never seen nor ever will see", and the mark of the Beast is part of the Great Tribulation. Where, in the 3.5 years after Jesus' death (or any year near his death) do we see a global, economic system where everyone must use a particular mark to buy or sell?

We don't. That technology is only now becoming mainstream.

In summary, I do not dispute your claims that Jesus fulfilled the 70 weeks to some degree. I'm only saying there is evidence that there is more to the interpretation.

 

[GooFYone]

It's not a matter of following rules. Interpretation of spiritual truths can be both objective and subjective at the same time. That's why Jesus spoke so often in parables and exclaimed, "He who has ears to hear, let him here".

So often we get into this mind-set that it's one interpretation verses the other. Sometimes there's more grey area than we realize. It's true that the NT is fulfilled in Jesus. All the promises to Abraham (and subsequently God's people) are fulfilled in Jesus. There is no doubting that, for anyone who puts their faith in Jesus.

In my counter arguments, I do not mean to diminish your point at all. In fact, I would like to say that the life, ministry, and testimony of Jesus is THE cornerstone. Prophecy is not the cornerstone. Jesus and his teachings is the cornerstone. There is no point to prophecy at all without reference back to the teachings of Jesus. He is the Messiah. He is the master. He is the boss. He is the ultimate fulfillment of God to his people.

When you say that the 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled 3.5 years after Jesus' death, I do not disparage your point of view that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of God's Kingdom. In fact, I think you are right. That is exactly why Jesus said, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand".

However, I do not think the 70 weeks prophecy is limited to the life, death, resurrection of Jesus and then 3.5 years after this point, as the only interpretation to the fulfillment of prophecy. I hope you get me here. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm only suggesting that your interpretation is incomplete.

Jesus is the Christ, and his birth, life, testimony, death, and resurrection is the fulfillment of all of the promises to Abraham. But, the 70 weeks is not only a prediction of Jesus' death; it is a prediction regarding God's plan for humanity as a whole.

Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is a part of that plan. For example, consider this part: In Matthew 24:15, Jesus says,

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand"

This is a direct reference to Daniel 9:27. The admonishment that "let him understand" means this is an important verse regarding the future of the world, (which is the context of what he's saying here, i.e. prophecy). The abomination of desolation is referenced in the context of a 7 year agreement, the middle of which (i.e. 3.5 years) results in abominations and a ceasing of sacrifices.

Jesus then goes on to explain that, as a result of this abomination, people should flee, because this is the start of great tribulation, such as the world has never seen, nor will ever see again. The Revelation puts this period of time at 3.5 years. It refers to this period of time in days, (i.e. 1,260 days: Revelation 12:14), months, (Revelation 11:2) and years (Daniel 9:27). This period of time is also referenced in Daniel 7:25.

This 3.5 years is extremely important in prophecy and coincides perfectly with the Great Tribulation, which is half of 7 years, exactly the abomination period mentioned in both Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15.

We can't just ignore this connection even if the result sounds strange, that God postponed a final, 7 year period of prophecy.

Jesus is the Christ. That means he is the anointed one. There is no denying that; his birth is indication that he is the anointed one. That is not the only meaning of the 70 weeks prophecy. The fulfillment of this prophecy is not just the death and resurrection of Jesus; it is the complete and total take-over of God upon this world. Satan is cast down; he is locked up; Jesus reigns forever.

Yes, Jesus is the fulfillment of the New Covenant, or New Agreement, or New Testament, whichever you'd like to call it. They all mean the same thing. But, no sincere person could look at the world now and say that everlasting righteousness as been established on the earth. There is still more to the 70 weeks prophecy to be fulfilled. That is not a slight against Jesus and his death/resurrection.

In fact, the Revelation is a revelation of Jesus; he is not done expressing who he is. In fact, it in narrowmindedess not the part of those who view Jesus as simple an "ultimate sacrifice" rather than the ultimate expression of the Kingdom of Heaven.

For example, consider the mark of the Beast. Jesus said that we cannot work for God and money without cheating on one or the other, that we will love one and hate the other, and that our new, full-time job is to work for God's Kingdom of Love by going into all the world to teach others to do the same.

The mark of the Beast is described as a mark without which no one will be able to buy or sell. It is the next generation of money. If you want to pay the bills, take care of your family, or just put bread on the table, you must take the mark.

Here we have an expression of Jesus' teachings via prophecy; God or money.

Recall that Jesus said the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel 9:27 would mark the start of "great tribulation such as the world has never seen nor ever will see", and the mark of the Beast is part of the Great Tribulation. Where, in the 3.5 years after Jesus' death (or any year near his death) do we see a global, economic system where everyone must use a particular mark to buy or sell?

We don't. That technology is only now becoming mainstream.

In summary, I do not dispute your claims that Jesus fulfilled the 70 weeks to some degree. I'm only saying there is evidence that there is more to the interpretation.

More?

 

[GooFYone]

How so?

For example, wanting more proves that one isn’t in Jesus.

 

[John Helpher]

More?

You're right, my post was rather long winded. Part of that is because there's a lot of information which makes up the bigger picture, but part of it is because I tend to like the sound of my own voice.

The main point is that Jesus referenced the abomination of desolation mentioned in Daniel 9:27, and then described the Great Tribulation, which lasts for 3.5 years. He said the abomination of desolation is what will lead to the Great Tribulation.

If the 70 weeks was fulfilled 3.5 years after Jesus' death, then the Great Tribulation should have happened for that time, as well, and the end of the Great Tribulation is the return of Jesus, and Jesus hasn't returned, so we're still waiting.

That means the 70 weeks isn't finished; there is a gap.

 

[Zao is life]

Hi all. I recently watched a video about a person who had changed his mind regarding his stance on pre-trib rapture. The video made some interesting points about just how difficult it is to change the way we perceive important, spiritual truths, especially when that change requires us to face difficult challenges.

The video is about 12 minutes long and I'd like to hear what others think.

I've always enjoyed your videos because of the presentation in them, but I see you also come to false assumptions and also (like the rest of us) need to change your mind about prophecy when it is shown you that your interpretation is wrong.

This is in answer to what you say from 7:26 in your video:

Take a look at this image, and then afterward let's take a more careful look of what the first part of Revelation 12 says:

Now take a careful look again at Revelation 12. The scripture in Revelation 12 says that Satan was the accuser of the brethren:

Revelation 12:10-11
And I heard a great voice saying in Heaven, Now has come the salvation and power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Christ. For the accuser of our brothers is cast down, who accused them before our God day and night.

And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony. And they did not love their soul to the death.

It was Satan who was overcome (not the beast or antichrist). How? And why?

Satan was the accuser of the brethren. He could legally appear before the throne of God to accuse them. We have a picture of this already in the book of Job, where Satan appears before God to accuse Job.

Why could Satan accuse the brethren? He could accuse them (us) because of their (our) sin.
How? By God's Law, which they had repeatedly broken through their sin, and as Paul stated:

"for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

"Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand." (Romans 5:13;Galatians 3:19).

How was Satan's accusations overcome?​

By the blood of the Lamb:

"And I heard a great voice saying in Heaven, Now has come the salvation and power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Christ. For the accuser of our brothers is cast down, who accused them before our God day and night.
And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony. And they did not love their soul to the death." Revelation 12:10-11.

This is also why Satan was cast out - he had no legal right to appear before the throne of God to accuse anyone anymore, because:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

"He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that dying to sins, we might live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed." (1 Peter 2:24).

Revelation 12 is not talking about how they would overcome the antichrist or the beast. It is talking only about the blood of Christ paying the penalty for our sins and defeating Satan, the accuser.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is talking about what took place when Christ had died for our sins and had been caught up to God and to His throne (Revelation 12:5).

There is only one way we are told in scripture that we will overcome the beast/antichrist:​

"For everything that has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.
Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? " (1 John 5:4-5).

So your video is (as always) very well presented and a pleasure to watch just because of the quality, but IMO your video is putting forth a false interpretation of Revelation 12 - adding something to the passage that is not there.

Part of your OP and your video is correct though, in that it states that we all should change our minds when we are shown that what we believed is incorrect.

I also find no Pre-trib rapture in scripture, and agree that tribulation and wrath are confused by many and the two are fused into the term the great tribulation. The Israelites experienced tribulation at the hand of Pharaoh, but Pharaoh and the Egyptians experienced the plagues/wrath of God, and were finally judged. And the judgment of Pharaoh in the Red Sea = the deliverance of the saints from the tribulation they had experienced at the hand of Pharaoh.

 

[John Helpher]

but I see you also come to false assumptions and also (like the rest of us) need to change your mind about prophecy when it is shown you that your interpretation is wrong.

Hi FotG, sorry but I found your post hard to follow. Would you mind summarizing it? I don't actually know what you're disagreeing with.

 

[Zao is life]

Hi FotG, sorry but I found your post hard to follow. Would you mind summarizing it? I don't actually know what you're disagreeing with.

I'm answering what you say from 7:26 in your video.

If I took 12 minutes of my time to watch your video because you asked and expected anyone who wants to hear what you say to watch it, then you can take three minutes to read my post which replies to what you say in the above part of your video, without me having to summarize anything.

PS: I also find no Pre-trib rapture in scripture, and agree that tribulation and wrath are confused by many and the two are fused into the term the great tribulation. The Israelites experienced tribulation at the hand of Pharaoh, but Pharaoh and the Egyptians experienced the plagues/wrath of God, and were finally judged. And the judgment of Pharaoh in the Red Sea = the deliverance of the saints from the tribulation they had experienced at the hand of Pharaoh.

However, what you say in your video about how to overcome the beast/antichrist needs addressing as matter of urgency.

 

[John Helpher]

However, what you say in your video about how to overcome the beast/antichrist needs addressing as matter of urgency.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. This is what I'm asking about. What is the address that you feel is a matter of urgency?

 

[Zao is life]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. This is what I'm asking about. What is the address that you feel is a matter of urgency?

It's OK the address is in Post #371 for those who choose to take the time to read it.

 

[BABerean2]

There is not one verse that says the new Covenant was fulfilled by Jesus and you know that.

Scripture proves otherwise, and you know that.
However, you also know it kills your man-made Bible doctrine.

When you see Christ, are you going to tell Him He did not fulfill the New Covenant?
Will He show you the scars in His hands, and feet?


Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

.............................................................

Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

.

 

[Zao is life]

This is easily shown if the interpretation that it involves no gaps is supposed to be correct.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Would anyone argue that some of this is meaning outside of the first 69 weeks?

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

If no one would argue that Daniel 9:25 is involving anything outside of the first 69 weeks, why would that same person then argue in a different manner concerning verse 27?

And there is still verse 26 to consider.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--this part fits with the first 69 weeks.

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined---this part fits with the remaining week.

How can we know this about verse 26? Per the first 69 weeks, meaning verse 25, there is not a single mention of desolations, and neither is there in this portion of verse 26---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.

Per the 70th week, meaning verse 27, there is a mention of desolations, and so is there in this portion of verse 26 as well---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Not to mention, the last subject mentioned in verse 26 is not Messiah, but is the prince that shall come. The prince that shall come has to be the one meant in verse 27. Something else I would like to point out, which doesn't necessarily prove anything, yet is very interesting---apparently the translators didn't take the prince to come to be meaning the Messiah either. How can we tell? In verse 25 they bothered to capitalize Prince. In verse 26 they didn't. That seems odd if they took the prince to come to be meaning the same Prince in verse 25, where it's plainly obvious that they took that Prince to be meaning Christ.

I submitted all of this to show that verse 27 only involves the 70th week, though I fully realize you likely won't find any of this convincing. For the sake of argument though, let's assume that you agreed with my analysis above. The fact there is this in verse 27---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---and assuming there are supposed to be no gaps in the 70 weeks, and assuming verse 27 only has the 70th week in view, and the fact it would be silly to apply the latter half of verse 27 to within 3.5 years of Christ's death, thus no one would do that, therefore they would have to apply the latter half of that verse to a later period in time, how would that not equal a gap in the 70 weeks, the fact this would place a gap in the middle of the 70th week?

Believe it or not, agree or not, it is impossible to interpret the 70 weeks correctly without it involving a gap somewhere, the fact verse 27 is only meaning the 70th week, and not anything outside of the 70th week. Even with the gap a position like yours causes, everything recorded in verse 27 would still be taking place in the 70th week, the fact, during any gap it would not be meaning during any of the 70 weeks themselves.

An example. A person goes before a judge and is sentenced to 8 days in jail. Except this person doesn't have to do 8 days in a row, he has to spend 2 days each weekend for a month straight. Obviously, when he is not in jail none of that is being applied to his 8 day sentence. The same would be true if there is a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks.

"After" threescore and two weeks (ie in the 70th week, since it's after the 62 weeks which followed the first 7 weeks).

After December = a new year. After Saturday = Sunday. After 62 weeks = in the 63rd week. 63 + 7 = 70. It does not say during the 69th week. It's says after 62 weeks Messiah will be cut off, and the Hebrew word for after is achad:

"And the days of Adam after (Hebrew: achar) he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4)

"And Seth lived after (Hebrew: achar) he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:7)

Obviously, if the Lord Jesus Christ had told His disciples that He would rise again from the dead after the sabbath day, the disciples would have known that He would rise again from the dead on Sunday.

after 62 weeks means Messiah was cut off in the 70th week, and it was He who caused the sacrifice and offering to cease (the veil in the temple was torn). The rest of Daniel 9:27 talks about what would follow, and as the King James version states, "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate". The AOD could only have been the continuation of animal sacrifices after Christ caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease when He shed His own blood in the midst of the 70th week.

After 62 weeks does not, never has, and never will mean during the 69th week, unless everyone ignores the meaning of the word for the sake of Daniel 9:26.

 

[Douggg]

After December = a new year. After Saturday = Sunday. After 62 weeks = in the 63rd week. 63 + 7 = 70. It does not say during the 69th week. It's says after 62 weeks Messiah will be cut off, and the Hebrew word for after is achad:

It is less than a normal week timespan between arriving in Jerusalem, hailed as the King of Israel/messiah on Psalms Sunday - and cutoff, crucified before the week is up on Good Friday.

Not weeks, months, years in between.

 

[DavidPT]

"After" threescore and two weeks (ie in the 70th week, since it's after the 62 weeks which followed the first 7 weeks).

After December = a new year. After Saturday = Sunday. After 62 weeks = in the 63rd week. 63 + 7 = 70. It does not say during the 69th week. It's says after 62 weeks Messiah will be cut off, and the Hebrew word for after is achad:

"And the days of Adam after (Hebrew: achar) he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4)

"And Seth lived after (Hebrew: achar) he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:7)

Obviously, if the Lord Jesus Christ had told His disciples that He would rise again from the dead after the sabbath day, the disciples would have known that He would rise again from the dead on Sunday.

after 62 weeks means Messiah was cut off in the 70th week, and it was He who caused the sacrifice and offering to cease (the veil in the temple was torn). The rest of Daniel 9:27 talks about what would follow, and as the King James version states, "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate". The AOD could only have been the continuation of animal sacrifices after Christ caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease when He shed His own blood in the midst of the 70th week.

After 62 weeks does not, never has, and never will mean during the 69th week, unless everyone ignores the meaning of the word for the sake of Daniel 9:26.

After this Friday night at 6pm when this show begins at 5pm and ends at 6pm, this show will no longer be airing on this channel.

When is it that this show initially gets cutoff? At the end of it airing on Friday where it airs from 5 to 6pm, or days or weeks later?

After can sometimes mean at the end of something.

Even if after doesn't mean during the 69 weeks, and if there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week, it could simply mean He is cutoff during the gap, which is still after 69 weeks, yet not during the 70th week.

All of that aside. How would you argue for no gaps in the 70 weeks if you at least agreed with me that every single thing mentioned in verse 27 is meaning during the 70th week? How could I possibly be wrong about there being a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks if verse 27 in it's entirety is meaning events during the 70th week? How would you get around that logic if verse 27 in it's entirety is meaning events during the 70th week? Why can't some of you at least entertain the idea in order to prove to me, that even if verse 27 was meaning in it's entirety, events during the 70th week, this still would mean there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks?

You all have to keep in mind that my arguments are based on verse 27 in it's entirety is meaning events during the 70th week. Anyone who at least admitted it is meaning the 70th week, the entire verse, could not then logically argue for no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks. Meaning no reasonable person could.

 

[Zao is life]

Amillennialists interpret Revelation 20 in such a way that doesn't contradict scripture passages which teach that there is one day that all of the dead will be raised and judged (Acts 17:30-31, John 5:28-29, Matthew 12:36/1 John 4:17, Matthew 13:40-43, Matthew 13:47-50, Matthew 25:31-46, Acts 24:15, John 6:44/John 12:48, etc.).

So do Premils, Pretribbers, Post-Tribbers, Mid-Tribbers, Post-Millennialists, Pretersists and Partial Preterists. For example, Revelation 20 speaks of people who had been beheaded and gives the reason why they had been beheaded. Revelation 13 speaks of the culprit responsible for their beheading. If that culprit is still to rise out of the abyss at the close of this Age, then the timing in respect of the thousand years, during which the beheaded are said to live and reign with Christ, is also given in Revelation 20 by virtue of the fact that the reason why they were beheaded is stated in Revelation 20. The statement in Revelation 20 regarding Satan being bound for a thousand years cannot be explained in terms of the many statements and warnings by Christ and His apostles regarding Satan and his current, past and ongoing activities in the world since Calvary till now.

The fact of the matter is there are seeming contradictions in scripture, as can be seen by the verses you quote - but we all know there are no contradictions in scripture and the reason why they appear to be contradictions, is because we don't know enough. None of us knows enough.

All of the people in the above list (and any other camp not listed with them) are intellectually honest in the way they and we see things. All are just as intellectually honest as Amils - and the Amils, as you pointed out, are intellectually honest because that 's the way they see things.

We all tend to forget that we all have a common belief in someone who binds us all together by His Spirit, and we all need to be ashamed of ourselves with the way we speak to one another sometimes when we disagree regarding prophecy. Not saying that you did this in your post (because you did not) but it happens frequently enough in these boards.