End Times Chronology and the Rapture of the Church

[Douggg]

"The Fathers held that the Roman empire was the "let," or hindrance, referred to by Paul in 2 Thessalonians, which kept back the manifestation of the "man of sin." This point is of great importance. Paul distinctly tells us that he knew, and that the Thessalonians knew, what that hindrance was, and that it was then in existence. The early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tells us what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms that this "let," or hindrance, was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars; that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise.

jgr, the revealing of the man of sin, his act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God - as that is what it says in 2thessalonians, leading into the Day of the Lord (Christ)....

1. Chrysostom lived 400 years after the temple was destroyed. So the Roman Empire, in Chrysostom's time, could not be the element preventing the man of sin's action to abominate the temple.... since there was no temple around.

2. The Day of the Lord has not come although the Roman Empire faded from power fifteen hundred years ago, and Nero was the last Caesar (the Julio-Claudian family) in 67 AD, thereabouts. So the Roman Empire gone, no temple has been built so far, negates Chrysostom's opinion on the Roman Empire being what is removed.

The Roman Empire end times version in the form of the EU is the spawning grounds for the person who becomes the Antichrist, then reveals himself as the man of sin, then the beast in Revelation. So it is actually just the opposite of what Chrysostom thought. The fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 has to be in place for the emergence of the little horn.

 

[Douggg]

Nicene Christianity became the state church of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD, when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire's sole authorized religion. This marked the beginning of the apostasis of the papacy, but the process extended over centuries. You will notice that virtually all of my references to the Church fathers are to those from the early post-apostolic period who were born before this date.

oh, you are going into the papacy and pope being the Antichrist ? No, neither is the person who becomes the Antichrist. The pope has not gone into the temple, sat, claiming to be God. There has to be a temple to fulfill the prophecies of the Transgression of Desolation in Daniel 8 and the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 12.

There is not going to be a temple (downsized because of the compressed time element) until the person who the Jews think is their messiah is embraced by them as such. They believe the messiah is going to build the temple at the site on the temple mount in Jerusalem.

That is not to say the papacy and the pope is legitimate. However, the falling away is more than just doctrine, but from the fundamental belief that Jesus is the messiah - to think the coming Anti-messiah is instead. And the RCC has never denied that Jesus is the messiah. So the apostasy of 2thessalonians2:2-4 has not come yet.

 

[jgr]

jgr, the revealing of the man of sin, his act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God - as that is what it says in 2thessalonians, leading into the Day of the Lord (Christ)....

1. Chrysostom lived 400 years after the temple was destroyed. So the Roman Empire, in Chrysostom's time, could not be the element preventing the man of sin's action to abominate the temple.... since there was no temple around.

2. The Day of the Lord has not come although the Roman Empire faded from power fifteen hundred years ago, and Nero was the last Caesar (the Julio-Claudian family) in 67 AD, thereabouts. So the Roman Empire gone, no temple has been built so far, negates Chrysostom's opinion on the Roman Empire being what is removed.

The Roman Empire end times version in the form of the EU is the spawning grounds for the person who becomes the Antichrist, then reveals himself as the man of sin, then the beast in Revelation. So it is actually just the opposite of what Chrysostom thought. The fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 has to be in place for the emergence of the little horn.

Douggg,

1. The early Church understood Paul to be referring to the spiritual temple i.e. the Church, rather than a literal temple. Whenever he uses the Greek word naon or naos or its derivatives in his epistles, he uses it in the spiritual sense.

1 Corinthians 3:16 N-NMS
GRK: οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστὲ
NAS: Do you not know that you are a temple of God
KJV: that ye are the temple of God, and
INT: Know you that temple of God you are

1 Corinthians 3:17 N-AMS
GRK: τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ
NAS: destroys the temple of God,
KJV: defile the temple of God,
INT: anyone the temple of God

1 Corinthians 3:17 N-NMS
GRK: ὁ γὰρ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ
NAS: will destroy him, for the temple of God
KJV: destroy; for the temple of God is
INT: indeed [the] temple of God

1 Corinthians 6:19 N-NMS
GRK: σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν
NAS: that your body is a temple of the Holy
KJV: body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
INT: body of you a temple of the in

2 Corinthians 6:16 N-DMS
GRK: δὲ συνκατάθεσις ναῷ θεοῦ μετὰ
NAS: agreement has the temple of God
KJV: agreement hath the temple of God
INT: moreover agreement a temple of God with

2 Corinthians 6:16 N-NMS
GRK: ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμὲν
NAS: with idols? For we are the temple of the living
KJV: ye are the temple of the living God;
INT: we indeed a temple of God are

Ephesians 2:21 N-AMS
GRK: αὔξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν
NAS: into a holy temple in the Lord,
KJV: unto an holy temple in the Lord:
INT: increases to a temple holy in

2 Thessalonians 2:4 N-AMS
GRK: εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ
NAS: that he takes his seat in the temple of God,
KJV: sitteth in the temple of God, shewing
INT: in the temple of God

Paul is therefore referring to someone or something that is located within the Church, claiming to be God. As Albert Barnes describes:
"...The usage in the New Testament would not lead us to restrict this language to an edifice, or a “church,” as the word is now commonly used, but rather to suppose that it denotes the church as a society, and the idea is, that the Antichrist here referred to would present himself in the midst of that church as claiming the honors due to God alone."

The papacy not only "sat" within the church, but claimed to be the only true church.

The popes also claimed to be God, or Christ, or Their sole representative:
Leo XIII: We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.
Pius X: The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks.
Pius XI: I am God on the earth.
Boniface: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Additional such quotations exist.

The Pope's Latin title is Vicarius Fileii Dei, Vicar of the Son of God.

2. Does the understanding of the temple being spiritual, and the apostasy being the first event, clarify that?

 

[Douggg]

I have had Jewish Christians in my home for Bible study and thousands of modern Jews are now coming to faith in the New Covenant Messiah.

Ffine, but they are not "all" Israel.

 

[Douggg]

1. The early Church understood Paul to be referring to the spiritual temple i.e. the Church, rather than a literal temple. Whenever he uses the Greek word naon or naos or its derivatives in his epistles, he uses it in the spiritual sense.

fine, but the man of sin goes into a literal physical temple, and sits. A physical temple must be built for that to happen. And for the daily sacrifice taken away. In the terms transgression of desolation and abomination of desolation - desolation means that praise and worship of the True God stops.

The popes also claimed to be God, or Christ, or Their sole representative:

The person who becomes the Antichrist give no acknowledgement that Jesus is the rightful Christ - King of Israel. And in Christianity, Christ has the meaning of Savior, as well. Which the RCC does not deny that Jesus is the messiah, and is Savior. They also don't deny Father and Son of the trinity.

The person who becomes the Antichrist by being anointed the King of Israel - can only be done so by his religion being Judaism which rejects Jesus on all levels and also questions that Jesus ever existed.

Anti-means in lieu of and against, not representative of - as the Pope's claim.

 

[BABerean2]

Ffine, but they are not "all" Israel.

Rom 9:6　 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
　


Rev_2:9　 "I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.


Rev_3:9　 Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.


Rom 2:28　 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:　
Rom 2:29　 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.　

.

 

[Douggg]

Rom 9:6　 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:　

.

Speaking of the religious leadership that was actively seeking to silence the spreading of the gospel.

 

[keras]

So, at the present time, the Church and Israel have two different near term futures.

Yes, for ethnic Israel: Isaiah 22:14, Jeremiah 10:18, Hosea 8:14, Amos 2:4-5, Ezekiel 21:1-5 +
But for the Lord's righteous Christian believers, there will be songs of joy as they travel to and live in all of the holy Land, the people at last, that God always wanted there. Isaiah 30:29 +

 

[keras]

Speaking of the religious leadership that was actively seeking to silence the spreading of the gospel.

No Douggg, this wrong interpretation of yours does not fit the context of Romans 9.
Your desperation to maintain a separate Israel and Church, simply piles more lies upon the original Satanic lie of a rapture to heaven. Don't do it!

 

[Douggg]

Yes, for ethnic Israel: Isaiah 22:14, Jeremiah 10:18, Hosea 8:14, Amos 2:4-5, Ezekiel 21:1-5 +
But for the Lord's righteous Christian believers, there will be songs of joy as they travel to and live in all of the holy Land, the people at last, that God always wanted there. Isaiah 30:29 +

who of blood descent of the twelve tribes.

 

[Douggg]

No Douggg, this wrong interpretation of yours does not fit the context of Romans 9.
Your desperation to maintain a separate Israel and Church, simply piles more lies upon the original Satanic lie of a rapture to heaven. Don't do it!

I am not desperate. I am comforted by what is written in the bible. I think Satan's lie, among countless of his lies, is that the rapture to heaven wont' happen.

 

[BABerean2]

Speaking of the religious leadership that was actively seeking to silence the spreading of the gospel.

You seem to be attempting to change the word "so" in Romans 11:26, which is an adverb of manner, into the word "then", which is an adverb of timing. I have heard Pastor John Hagee do this on television. I have heard Dr. David Jeremiah leave out the word "so" in an attempt to do the same thing.

This change is found in the book "Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty" written by the Jesuit Manuel Lacunza. It is the founding document of much of the doctrine promoted on this forum and is found in the link below. The change is found near time 25:40.

In Romans 11 the Olive Tree is a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of Israelites and Gentiles grafted together into one tree. Paul said the branches broken off can be grafted back into the tree through faith in Christ. Paul provided no path of salvation outside of the Olive Tree.

 

[Douggg]

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

BAB2, no I am not saying that there are two ways to salvation. The day will come when all of Israel will embrace Jesus. That will be during the second half of the 70th week.

The times of the gentiles, the gospel sent to them - as Israel was and still is currently enemies to the gospel for the gentiles sake - who Paul was addressing in Romans. That time is fulfilled, completed, when the church is taken out of the world, anytime between now and when the rapture actually takes place.

 

[jgr]

fine, but the man of sin goes into a literal physical temple, and sits. A physical temple must be built for that to happen.

Not the way Paul defined temple in a spiritual context referring to the Church. The quote from Barnes' commentary was representative of the understanding of the early Church fathers and the Reformers.

Which the RCC does not deny that Jesus is the messiah, and is Savior. They also don't deny Father and Son of the trinity.

Deut. 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
Pius XI: I am God on the earth.
Claiming to be God on the earth is denying that God the Father is one God.

Anti-means in lieu of and against, not representative of - as the Pope's claim.

Also means:
acting as a rival.
"antipope" was an actual historical term meaning "a person established as pope in opposition to one held by others to be canonically chosen."
The papacy by virtue of its claims and actions established itself as a rival to Christ, hence antichrist.


Keep in mind that the Reformers observed and experienced, frequently to the death, the pogroms of the papacy. Estimates place the death toll of those who would not submit to Rome at 50 million over the centuries. They were thus able to directly verify and validate what the Scriptures described and predicted.

 

[Douggg]

Not the way Paul defined temple in a spiritual context referring to the Church. The quote from Barnes' commentary was representative of the understanding of the early Church fathers and the Reformers.

Paul was not speaking of the metaphorical application of the temple in 2thessalonians2. The statement of Paul's about going into the temple of God, sitting, showing that he (the person) is God as being a actual temple - there was no mention of the man of sin sitting inside of Christians, which doesn't make sense anyway.

Also means:
acting as a rival.
"antipope" was an actual historical term meaning "a person established as pope in opposition to one held by others to be canonically chosen."
The papacy by virtue of its claims and actions established itself as a rival to Christ, hence antichrist.

acting as a rival and instead of. The pope was the leader of the RCC and he was located in Rome. The anti-Popes were rival and instead of the Roman Pope. A line of anti-Popes were in France. It was a power struggle.


Pope = leader of the RCC
anti-Pope = someone instead of other person, as the leader of the RCC

Christ = King of Israel. Mark 15:32
Anti-Christ will become the King of Israel instead of the rightful King of Israel - Jesus

Keep in mind that the Reformers observed and experienced, frequently to the death, the pogroms of the papacy. Estimates place the death toll of those who would not submit to Rome at 50 million over the centuries. They were thus able to directly verify and validate what the Scriptures described and predicted.

The persecutions at the time certainly impacted their interpretation of the Antichrist. But that does mean they were right, and were not right. We have the advantage of living in the end times, when we can see Israel a nation again, and Jerusalem in the hands of the Jews.

 

[jgr]

Paul was not speaking of the metaphorical application of the temple in 2thessalonians2. The statement of Paul's about going into the temple of God, sitting, showing that he (the person) is God as being a actual temple - there was no mention of the man of sin sitting inside of Christians, which doesn't make sense anyway.



acting as a rival and instead of. The pope was the leader of the RCC and he was located in Rome. The anti-Popes were rival and instead of the Roman Pope. A line of anti-Popes were in France. It was a power struggle.


Pope = leader of the RCC
anti-Pope = someone instead of other person, as the leader of the RCC

Christ = King of Israel. Mark 15:32
Anti-Christ will become the King of Israel instead of the rightful King of Israel - Jesus

The persecutions at the time certainly impacted their interpretation of the Antichrist. But that does mean they were right, and were not right. We have the advantage of living in the end times, when we can see Israel a nation again, and Jerusalem in the hands of the Jews.

Obviously we ultimately must make a choice. Do we choose, based on the evidence of something that has already occurred and the accuracy with which it was predicted; the witness and testimony of those who have observed and experienced it personally, often unto death? Or do we choose, based on no accumulated evidence; the speculations and suppositions of those who have witnessed and experienced nothing, because there is nothing to witness and experience?

Easy choice for the Reformers. Easy choice for those who understand and appreciate the faith and sacrifice of the Reformers. Easy choice for me.

 

[Quasar92]

Replacement Theology has mainly been promoted by those who claim the Gentile Church has replaced Israel.
The problem is that the Church as a whole has never been a Gentile Church.
It began on the Day of Pentecost with about 3,000 Israelites. (Acts 2:36)
Even today the Church continues to be made up of all races of people.

We also find the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, fulfilled in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 12:18-24.

Modern Dispensational Theology has a bad habit of referring to the modern Church as "the Gentile Church", in order to make their Two Peoples of God doctrine work.
It has replaced the One Seed in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds.

As written in my post #45, the RCC were the ones who instigated replacement theology together with Amillennialism, both of which are refuted by the Bible. Your term "Gentile Church,' is a misnomer, as there is no such thing when the use of it refers to the one body of Christ, His Church, as documented in the following:

1 Cor.12:12 "Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many."

The members of the one body of Christ, consisting of everyone who believe/receive Jesus as Lord, IS A SEPARATE GROUP from that of Israel/Jews, non-believers of Jesus as their Messiah. It will continue that way until Jesus second coming, when Israel finally recognizes Jesus as their Messiah, according to Zech.12:10 and Zech.14:4-5


Quasar92.

 

[jgr]

As written in my post #45, the RCC were the ones who instigated replacement theology together with Amillennialism, both of which are refuted by the Bible. Your term "Gentile Church,' is a misnomer, as there is no such thing when the use of it refers to the one body of Christ, His Church, as documented in the following:

1 Cor.12:12 "Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many."

The members of the one body of Christ, consisting of everyone who believe/receive Jesus as Lord, IS A SEPARATE GROUP from that of Israel/Jews, non-believers of Jesus as their Messiah. It will continue that way until Jesus second coming, when Israel finally recognizes Jesus as their Messiah, according to Zech.12:10 and Zech.14:4-5


Quasar92.

Nicene Christianity became the state church of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD, when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire's sole authorized religion. This marked the beginning of the apostasis of the papacy, but the process extended over centuries. You will notice that virtually all of my references to the Church fathers are to those from the early post-apostolic period who were born before this date.

Premil and amil were both present in the early church well before the above date. Here is a balanced description. In particular, Justin Martyr, who was an early premil (100-165 AD, long before 380 AD) wrote:

"I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."

Justin Martyr confirmed the existence of amil at that early date, and did not consider amil to be refuted by the Bible.

 

[Douggg]

Obviously we ultimately must make a choice. Do we choose, based on the evidence of something that has already occurred and the accuracy with which it was predicted; the witness and testimony of those who have observed and experienced it personally, often unto death? Or do we choose, based on no accumulated evidence; the speculations and suppositions of those who have witnessed and experienced nothing, because there is nothing to witness and experience?

Easy choice for the Reformers. Easy choice for those who understand and appreciate the faith and sacrifice of the Reformers. Easy choice for me.

But the reformers did not witness Israel becoming a nation again in 1948 and Jerusalem back in the hands of the Jews in 1967. The events of Daniel 12 have been sealed for the end times when transportation and knowledge have increased - obviously from hindsight we know not to be in the days of the reformers. Also for the abomination of desolation to be placed.

No temple in the days of the Reformers. Nor yet for our time... because of the muslim presence on the temple mount. The temple has to be rebuilt - most likely with a minimum sized core structure to expedite the daily sacrifice and other temple activities.

 

[jgr]

But the reformers did not witness Israel becoming a nation again in 1948 and Jerusalem back in the hands of the Jews in 1967. The events of Daniel 12 have been sealed for the end times when transportation and knowledge have increased - obviously from hindsight we know not to be in the days of the reformers. Also for the abomination of desolation to be placed.

No temple in the days of the Reformers. Nor yet for our time... because of the muslim presence on the temple mount. The temple has to be rebuilt - most likely with a minimum sized core structure to expedite the daily sacrifice and other temple activities.

You're correct, they did not witness those events. But what they did directly and personally witness and experience, including martyrdom, were the emergence, claims, and actions of the papacy. And they compared all of those to the prophecies, particularly in Daniel 7 and 2 Thessalonians, and they concluded with conviction that there was an indisputable match between, and fulfillment of, what they read in Scripture, and what they were personally witnessing and experiencing. And then they themselves began to act on that conviction, declaring from Scripture that the papacy was antichrist and the man of sin. And it was that declaration, in conjunction with that of Martin Luther's epic "The just shall live by faith", that lit the candle of spiritual enlightenment in the prevailing dark ages, and began the reformation and reclamation process within the Church, without which it is highly improbable that you or I would be here to be able to discuss it.

So once again, prophetic history rooted in the undeniable Reformation realities of direct personal observation, experience, conviction, and action. All in the historical record for all to see. And for each one to make their decision as to what they will choose to believe. It's up to you.