• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Thoughts on End Times Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wisdom's Child

Seek Wisdom and Understanding
Dec 30, 2003
1,249
131
64
Trenton, Florida
Visit site
✟17,063.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Since Rome is way too far west to fit the prophesy, there is only one "city" which has all the criteria, including the seven hills.
It is in the right location, being within the boundaries of all the previous empires, and it is clearly an amalgamation of all it's predecessors.
It's people even take pride in their past glories and hope to re-establish the former greatness of Babylon, Persia, and Macedonia.

That City is none other than Mecca...
 
Upvote 0

CrusaderKing

Senior Veteran
Aug 24, 2006
6,861
616
43
United States
✟32,259.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The false doctrine of amillennialism (which catholicism and various other denominations embrace) is the king with respect to taking scripture out of its context..

Really?

Matthew 12:28

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Luke 17:20-21

Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he said in reply, "The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or 'There it is.' For behold, the kingdom of God is among you.
 
Upvote 0

ETide

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2006
2,677
73
✟18,208.00
Faith
Christian
Really?

Matthew 12:28

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Luke 17:20-21

Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he said in reply, "The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or 'There it is.' For behold, the kingdom of God is among you.

These verses have nothing to do with the millennial (thousand year) kingdom when Christ will come again and then sit upon the throne of His glory..

These verses speak of Christ (the King) being in their midst.. and He reigns in the hearts of those who are His as well.. although again, this has nothing to do with the millennial kingdom of Christ..

As I mentioned.. the kings of taking scripture out of context are those who embrace the false doctrine of amillennialism and claim that these present times are the millennial kingdom..

You show all of us why you believe that these present times are the millennial kingdom of Christ.. and what scripture you base this upon.. and we'll see clearly how you're taking the scriptures completely out of their context..

The very thing which you suggested that others do..
 
Upvote 0

CrusaderKing

Senior Veteran
Aug 24, 2006
6,861
616
43
United States
✟32,259.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The problem is, I already have shown that in the OP. I spent the entire second half of the post on Revelation and it ties in with what I had in the first half.

Revelation 19:11
Revelation 20:7-10

I gave a commentary for these verses. Essentially, it need not be a literal thousand year reign. The power of Christ's resurrection won us victory over sin and death. The prophecy was already fulfilled.
 
Upvote 0

BigNorsk

Contributor
Nov 23, 2004
6,736
815
67
✟33,457.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
These verses have nothing to do with the millennial (thousand year) kingdom when Christ will come again and then sit upon the throne of His glory..

These verses speak of Christ (the King) being in their midst.. and He reigns in the hearts of those who are His as well.. although again, this has nothing to do with the millennial kingdom of Christ..

As I mentioned.. the kings of taking scripture out of context are those who embrace the false doctrine of amillennialism and claim that these present times are the millennial kingdom..

You show all of us why you believe that these present times are the millennial kingdom of Christ.. and what scripture you base this upon.. and we'll see clearly how you're taking the scriptures completely out of their context..

The very thing which you suggested that others do..

As you of course know, it is difficult to pluck out a couple of verses to "prove" something that many people write entire books trying to explain, but here's a few things that lay a bit of a foundation.

Well, in Acts Chapter 2 Peter tells us that the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that day and adds that it shows that they were in the last days. So the last days are not some time in the future but had already come with the church. Right there in scripture we are told it was the last days. Does your view include the fact that the very birth of the church occured as a part of the last days?

Then of course there is Rev chapter 20 where it talks about the 1000 year reign, if you read, you will notice that it is not on this earth, but in heaven. No reason not to believe that it is occurring right now.

Satan was bound when Christ died his propitiatory death. See John 12:31, 16:11. So it is not like the binding of Satan is some future event. He has been bound already as the spread of the Gospel frees people from his clutches.

That would be a start.

Marv
 
Upvote 0

ETide

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2006
2,677
73
✟18,208.00
Faith
Christian
The problem is, I already have shown that in the OP. I spent the entire second half of the post on Revelation and it ties in with what I had in the first half.

Revelation 19:11
Revelation 20:7-10

I gave a commentary for these verses. Essentially, it need not be a literal thousand year reign. The power of Christ's resurrection won us victory over sin and death. The prophecy was already fulfilled.

Ok, so here you're telling us that Revelation 19 and 20 pertain to the present time.. although the context of Revelation 19 and 20 is clearly future..

To begin with, John is told to write things pertaining to time in chapter 1:19..

[bible]Revelation 1:19[/bible]

Things he had seen (past), things which are (present time), and things which shall be hereafter (a future time)..

This is vital and it is a key to the book..

We know that we're still within the church age, and that pertains to the things which are.. ie, the present time.. chapters two and three pertain to Christendom and to the church of God.. again.. the present time.. the things which are..

Then, in chapter 4 and beyond.. John is told to write of the things which shall be hereafter.. ie, the future.. which pertains to the things which shall come after the things which are.. ie, the church age..

That's important.. although the real crux of the matter lies in the CONTEXT of Revelation 20.. where amillennialists claim that these things are taking place now.. as if they are the things which are.. but they're not.. Revelation 20 pertains to the things which shall be hereafter..

Notice the CONTEXT of Revelation 20..

[bible]Revelation 20:4-6[/bible]

John saw those who had not worshipped the BEAST or his image.. they were actually beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and for the word of God..

We know that this speaks of literal death because back in Rev 13 we're told that if anyone does not worship the beast or his image.. then they will be killed..

[bible]Revelation 13:15[/bible]

If they would not worship the beast, they would be killed.. and this is exactly what Revelation 20 is speaking about.. being beheaded for not worshipping the beast..

AND, we also know that the BEAST is a future reality because the LORD takes both the beast and the false prophet alive and casts them into the lake of fire.. WHEN..?

When He comes with His saints.. as described in Revelation 19..

[bible]Revelation 19:19-20[/bible]

The latter portion of Revelation 19 is describing the coming of Christ with His saints following Him.. and this is WHEN the beast and the false prophet are taken and then cast alive into the lake of fire..

This clearly makes these things future..

We also have another NT witness to the fact that the LORD will destroy the beast when He comes with His saints.. it is described in 2 Thess 2 and he is there referred to as the man of sin.. who the LORD will destroy with the brightness of His coming.. in that DAY.. the DAY of the LORD..

The DAY of the LORD (which is as a thousand years) is still forthcoming.. as both the OT and the NT speak to..

This is what I mean when I say that amillennialism misses the context of scripture.. the very thing which you suggested that others have done..



 
Upvote 0

ETide

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2006
2,677
73
✟18,208.00
Faith
Christian
Then of course there is Rev chapter 20 where it talks about the 1000 year reign, if you read, you will notice that it is not on this earth, but in heaven. No reason not to believe that it is occurring right now.

The context does show this to be taking place on the EARTH.. not in heaven as you suggest..

[bible]Revelation 20:7-9[/bible]

Notice that the text clearly says that they went up on the breadth of the EARTH and compassed the camp of the saints..

See.. context context context..

I do see the marriage taking place in heaven though, as it is described in Revelation 19 and then we see these following the LORD when He comes.. to destroy the beast and the false prophet.. who have gathered themselves together with the kings of the EARTH to make war with the LAMB and His army that follows Him..

context..
 
Upvote 0

BigNorsk

Contributor
Nov 23, 2004
6,736
815
67
✟33,457.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
At the end of the millenial reign Satan is loosed on the Earth.

Doesn't conflict with Amillenialism at all.

Neither does it conflict that there are future events.

Amillenialism doesn't say everything is happening now.

So how about the direct teaching from Acts 2 that Peter said they were in the last days? Didn't see you handle that one yet.

Marv
 
Upvote 0

+RubiesFire+

Senior Veteran
Nov 1, 2005
2,676
96
✟25,886.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I was about to reply to this, but . . .
Reminds me of this horse that was dead, that everyone kept beating over and over and over again with the same tired old stick.
So that reply that I was going to write . . . nah . . . not today . . .


My thoughts exactly.
 
Upvote 0

ETide

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2006
2,677
73
✟18,208.00
Faith
Christian
At the end of the millenial reign Satan is loosed on the Earth.

Doesn't conflict with Amillenialism at all.

Neither does it conflict that there are future events.

Amillenialism doesn't say everything is happening now.

Well, your original comment was that the millennial kingdom took place in heaven.. although the scriptures do show that it is on earth..

AND.. amillennialism claims that there is no future millennial kingdom of Christ on earth, but rather that it is taking place right now.. this is incorrect.. and it takes Revelation 19 and 20 out of its future context.

So how about the direct teaching from Acts 2 that Peter said they were in the last days? Didn't see you handle that one yet.

Marv

So, what's the correlation to the millennial kingdom which is the last DAY.. ie, the DAY OF THE LORD.. which is as a thousand years..?

In Acts 1, the disciples asked the LORD if the kingdom was then going to be restored to Israel.. the LORD didn't tell them that it would not be, but that it was not for them to know the TIMES..

There is a mystery concerning the nation of ISRAEL.. they are blinded in part until the fulness of the GENTILES be come in..

AND.. Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the GENTILES until the times of the GENTILES be fulfilled..

This is not the millennial kingdom of Christ as catholicism teaches.. because we're still within the times of the GENTILES... while GENTILES have dominion over this earth..

Although that will not be the case for ever.. because that DAY is fast approaching.. the DAY of the LORD.. the DAY of Jesus Christ..

SO..

[bible]2 Peter 3:8[/bible]
 
Upvote 0

theend0218

Everything is everything.
Apr 5, 2005
659
59
72
texas
✟1,118.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
These verses have nothing to do with the millennial (thousand year) kingdom when Christ will come again and then sit upon the throne of His glory..

These verses speak of Christ (the King) being in their midst.. and He reigns in the hearts of those who are His as well.. although again, this has nothing to do with the millennial kingdom of Christ..

As I mentioned.. the kings of taking scripture out of context are those who embrace the false doctrine of amillennialism and claim that these present times are the millennial kingdom..

You show all of us why you believe that these present times are the millennial kingdom of Christ.. and what scripture you base this upon.. and we'll see clearly how you're taking the scriptures completely out of their context..

The very thing which you suggested that others do..
The Pre-M and A-M debate is carried on as though we had the same presuppositions. We do not.

The Pre-M camp cannot demostrate from the NT alone that there will be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ physically upon the earth. This is of no consequence to this camp because it assumes that the OT teaches such a kingdom on earth, and therefore it must happen, and the only place in the NT where one might carry this presupposition into the text is Revelation 20. Obviously, by itself, Revelation 20 does not literally teach such a thing. The first six verses cannot be used to support a literal 1000 year reign on the earth with Christ physically present. It is not there. If you already believe the OT mandates such a kingdom then you can read it into the text.

The A-M camp will not read such a kingdom into the text because it assumes the NT teaches that the promised king and kingdom came in Christ and thus interprets the OT promises in light of this coming. It rejects a literal earthly kingdom for Israel with Christ physically reigning upon the earth with the saints. The kingdom is understood differently - it is not a physical, earthly kingdom centered in the nation of Israel.

These presuppositions keep both camps separate. The Pre-M camp says the A-M camp refuses to take Scripture literally because it rejects a literal earthly kingdom for Israel with its Messiah physically present. This is indeed one way to read the OT. If you do it, then you have to reinterpret certain NT passages, and read such a kingdom into Rev 20. And yes, one can go on into the chapter and find references to the earth. You cannot find them in the first six verses, the only verses that mention 1000 years.

The A-M camp will accuse the Pre-M camp of not taking the NT literally in many places. I Cor 15 certainly, if a complete description of the end, does not allow for a kingdom on earth as the Pre-M understand it. Nor does II Peter 3. Revelation 20 does not by itself teach such a thing. Since the A-M camp choses to reinterpret the OT promises in light of the NT kingdom assertions it feels no need to read Revelation 20 as though it promised a 1000 year reign on earth.

Neither side is guilty of not taking Scripture seriously, but find it hard to communicate with each other because they are not on the same page. I find the A-M position more consistent with my reading of the NT.
 
Upvote 0

ETide

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2006
2,677
73
✟18,208.00
Faith
Christian
The Pre-M and A-M debate is carried on as though we had the same presuppositions. We do not.

The Pre-M camp cannot demostrate from the NT alone that there will be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ physically upon the earth. This is of no consequence to this camp because it assumes that the OT teaches such a kingdom on earth, and therefore it must happen, and the only place in the NT where one might carry this presupposition into the text is Revelation 20. Obviously, by itself, Revelation 20 does not literally teach such a thing. The first six verses cannot be used to support a literal 1000 year reign on the earth with Christ physically present. It is not there. If you already believe the OT mandates such a kingdom then you can read it into the text.

The A-M camp will not read such a kingdom into the text because it assumes the NT teaches that the promised king and kingdom came in Christ and thus interprets the OT promises in light of this coming. It rejects a literal earthly kingdom for Israel with Christ physically reigning upon the earth with the saints. The kingdom is understood differently - it is not a physical, earthly kingdom centered in the nation of Israel.

These presuppositions keep both camps separate. The Pre-M camp says the A-M camp refuses to take Scripture literally because it rejects a literal earthly kingdom for Israel with its Messiah physically present. This is indeed one way to read the OT. If you do it, then you have to reinterpret certain NT passages, and read such a kingdom into Rev 20. And yes, one can go on into the chapter and find references to the earth. You cannot find them in the first six verses, the only verses that mention 1000 years.

The A-M camp will accuse the Pre-M camp of not taking the NT literally in many places. I Cor 15 certainly, if a complete description of the end, does not allow for a kingdom on earth as the Pre-M understand it. Nor does II Peter 3. Revelation 20 does not by itself teach such a thing. Since the A-M camp choses to reinterpret the OT promises in light of the NT kingdom assertions it feels no need to read Revelation 20 as though it promised a 1000 year reign on earth.

Neither side is guilty of not taking Scripture seriously, but find it hard to communicate with each other because they are not on the same page. I find the A-M position more consistent with my reading of the NT.

The primary difference between the two camps is the timing of Revelation 20..

Amillennialists will insist that it is taking place right now.. although this is where the CONTEXT comes into play..

Revelation 20 pertains to the things which shall be hereafter.. NOT to the things which are..

The very context of Revelation 20 is future.. not present..

It speaks of a BEAST, and of those who would not worship the beast or his image, and that they were beheaded (killed) for not worshipping him.. and for their testimony of Jesus..

This same beast is taken alive with the false prophet and is thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation 19.. when the LORD comes with His saints..

So do the math.. if the beast is taken when the LORD comes.. then clearly the beast is a future reality, and therefore the context of Revelation 20 pertains to the future.. not the present..

THIS is the primary difference between the two camps.. and this is what the OP claimed that others do.. that they take the scriptures out of their context.. the exact thing that amillennialists do..

SO.. when the context is seen as a future context.. then the false claims of amillennialism can be seen for what they are..

It is absurd at best to call this present time the millennial kingdom of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ..

These are still the times of the GENTILES.. and Jerusalem will be trodden down of the GENTILES until the times of the GENTILES be fulfilled..

ISRAEL will remain blinded in part until the fulness of the GENTILES be come in..

Israel is the only nation on this planet that is not a GENTILE nation..

Furthermore.. the Revelation itself speaks of those who shall reign on the earth, not of those who are reigning on the earth.. (Paul rebuked the Corinthian church for this).. we shall reign in that DAY.. the DAY of the LORD..
 
Upvote 0

Barraco

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2004
1,707
77
42
Minot, ND
Visit site
✟39,904.00
Faith
Christian
Misrepresented Prophecies of the Book of Daniel


Matthew 24:29-36
Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that the summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But of the day and hour, no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.


I know this isn't the Book of Daniel, but this one is used quite a bit. Going back to Matthew 24:15, Jesus speaks of the abomination mentioned by Daniel the prophet. But what exactly was Daniel referring to? To get a better understanding, we'll have to tackle the wider scriptures.


1 Maccabees 1:54


On the fifteenth day of the month of Chislev, in the year one hundred and forty-five, the king erected the horrible abomination upon the altar of holocausts, and in the surrounding cities of Judah they built pagan altars.


This passage refers to the actions of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who desecrated the temple.


Daniel 12:11


From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the horrible abomination is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days.


Feel free to cite 1 Maccabees the next time someone tries to use this passage with the wrong intention. Daniel's prophecy is referring to King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, not the Antichrist. It stands clear that the Messiah, the Son of Man, would have to come into the world as a response to oppression. By taking a look at the history of Palestine, one finds that many different rulers have taken control of the land. Alexander the Great was responsible for the spread of Hellenism through much of the world. King Antiochus was simply attempting to Hellenize the Jews. That did not work out very well.


Jesus spoke of a time to come, but it was already upon the world. The temple would be destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Apostolic generation would pass away after this with the death of John, the beloved disciple.


Daniel 7:78


After this, in the visions of the night I saw the fourth beast, different from all the others, terrifying, horrible, and of extraordinary strength; it had great iron teeth with which it devoured and crushed, and what was left it trampled with its feet. I was considering the ten horns it had, when suddenly another, a little horn, sprang out of their midst, and three of the previous horns were torn away to make room for it. This horn had eyes like a man, and a mouth that spoke arrogantly.


The fourth beast is a reference to Alexander the Great, who crushed the mighty Persian Empire. The ten horns represent the ten kings of the Seleucid dynasty. And who was the little horn? King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the worst of the Seleucid kings, who usurped the throne.


Read more and you get to Daniel 7:23-25, which describes the scenario.


He answered me thus:


“The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, different from all the others; It shall devour the whole earth, beat it down, and crush it. The ten horns shall be ten kings rising out of that kingdom; another shall rise up after them, different from those before him, who shall lay low three kings. He shall speak against the Most High and oppress the holy ones of the Most High, thinking to change the feast days and the law. They shall be handed over to him for a year, two years, and a half-year.”


The persecutions of Antiochus IV are chronicled in 1 Maccabees, confirming that the prophecy in Daniel about the little horn referred to him, not the Antichrist. I'd go into Daniel 8, but it simply reiterates the vision in Daniel 7.






I would have to disagree with your interpretation of the fourth beast. If the fourth beast was Alexander's kingdom, then who were the other three beasts? This is where people start forcing kingdoms into intepretation instead of letting history do all the interpreting.
Babylon was the lion who, after Nebuchadnezzar died, lost its glory and was never the same. Persia was the bear that conquered the middle east. Greece (Alexander's kingdom) is the leopard with four heads and four wings, representing four kingdoms that came from it that spread to the four corners of the known world of its time. And the fourth beast should easily be connected with the Roman Empire. If my interpretation isn't enough, let the fact that the little horn's kingdom is taken by the Ancient of Days, Jesus Christ.
The mystery of this kingdom is revealed in Revelation.
The first beast of Revelation 13 is all of the four beasts of Daniel 7, namely the fourth beast though; seeing that its description is in reverse order of Daniel 7's beasts. The seven heads are these: Babylon, Persia, the four kingdoms of Greece, and Rome. It said that one of the heads were mortally wounded, yet miraculously healed. This would be the Western Roman Empire, which fell in A.D. 476. After this, nine kingdoms were formed out of the warring tribes before Rome was restored to the Roman Empire by the aid of the Eastern Empire, the tenth horn. Three of these kingdoms ruled in Rome before the city of Rome and the West were restored to the Roman empire. These were: The kingdom of Odaoacer, the Ostrogoths, and the Byzantines. But when the Byzantine Empire changed its official language to Greek; which seperated itself from the West officially, the Latin city of Rome was left in control of its only king, the Bishop of Rome. He held control of it, still being aided by the Byzantine Empire, until the Franks conquered the West and Charlamagne was crowned 'imperator Augustus' by the Bishop of Rome, at that time known as the Pope. I would go into further detail, but I fear offense would be easily taken. Thus I conclude with this thought: Its not so much important as to who the antichrist is as it is to knowing that God has divine providence is bringing His words to pass when He seems wise to do so. This comforts us in light of the resurrection for it is written of by the testimony of men who heard the LORD's word on our resurrection. Thus it will come to pass. So as you said before, lets remain righteous and without blemish until either we are resurrected (which happens first) or we are gathered alive and translated upon us meeting him (for those that remain.) God bless
 
Upvote 0

Brain Damage

Generally Medicated
Nov 14, 2002
3,169
57
105
Visit site
✟26,245.00
Faith
Christian
It said that one of the heads were mortally wounded, yet miraculously healed. This would be the Western Roman Empire, which fell in A.D. 476
How do you know that?, and why couldn't it be the second head that is healed (media persian empire), after all , the beast in revelation is supported or upheld by bears feet, modern day Iraq and Iran.

And above that we have the body of a leopard which as we know is made up of 4 heads , 3 of which today are Islamic.

And of course we have the mouth of a lion which as we know represents Babylon which just happens to be in modern Iraq.

So far , other than one leopard head which is greece ,all I see is an Islamic arabic sons of Ishmael beast.

Geeze I wonder if I can find 10 islamic nations with in the old roman empire?....Um let me see , Lybia , syria , ethiopia , ahh geeze man I think i'm on roll....lol

Could it be possible that ten of these would willingly give their power to a newly formed persian empire (Iraq and Iran) to destroy the harlot woman (Israel) , no of course not , how could I think such things.
 
Upvote 0

Barraco

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2004
1,707
77
42
Minot, ND
Visit site
✟39,904.00
Faith
Christian
How do you know that?, and why couldn't it be the second head that is healed (media persian empire), after all , the beast in revelation is supported or upheld by bears feet, modern day Iraq and Iran.
Why pass the first fulfillent by for another later fulfillment? If you notice the order in which those beasts are described in Revelation 13 (a backwards order from Daniel 7,) then that should tell you which beast was currently ruling at John's time. If all the previous kingdoms had reigned beforehand and were not miraculously healed, then what cause to we have to suspect that Iran, Iraq, or Greece would ever again rule the world?
The feat of the bear represents the military power in which it fights. If you recall Daniel 7, it shows that the fourth beast crushes its enemies under its feet.
And above that we have the body of a leopard which as we know is made up of 4 heads , 3 of which today are Islamic.
The body shows the territory in which the fourth beast occupies. The Roman Empire was spread out to the four corners of the known world, just as the Grecian empire was.
And of course we have the mouth of a lion which as we know represents Babylon which just happens to be in modern Iraq.
Was not Babylon ruler over all nations, and the first of its kind? This one ruler, Caesar, ruled over all the known world. Is this not the man that devoured the nations?
So far , other than one leopard head which is greece ,all I see is an Islamic arabic sons of Ishmael beast.
the 'Ishmael beast' is far closer to God's heart than the Western beast, trust me. Though they kill, though they follow the wrong prophet, they are not blasphemers. They are moreso a curse to the west, than a curse to God.
Geeze I wonder if I can find 10 islamic nations with in the old roman empire?....Um let me see , Lybia , syria , ethiopia , ahh geeze man I think i'm on roll....lol
I'm sure there are alot more than 10 islamic nations now. I don't see any of them ruling the world like the beast did.
Could it be possible that ten of these would willingly give their power to a newly formed persian empire (Iraq and Iran) to destroy the harlot woman (Israel) , no of course not , how could I think such things.
The harlot woman ruled over the kings of the earth. Literally and spiritually. Israel never did. Perhaps Iran fits better in the Gog and Magog picture. Ofcourse, I may have to show you my future time scenario to explain that.
God bless
 
Upvote 0

BrightCandle

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
4,040
134
Washington, USA.
✟4,860.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
We'll all that we have to do is watch the future play out and we will know who is right and who is wrong..shalom..Kim

Your view of prophesy typifies of what we find in general nowadays in Christianity. Here is the profound danger to that position, the Devil and the Antichrist are not going to come as evil persons, but as pseudo holy beings who say that they are representing Jesus or as Jesus, therfore if you profess to follow Jesus, but do not study to know what the Bible says regarding how to tell who is bogus or bonafide then you are in danger of being deceived.
 
Upvote 0

TOsteve

Active Member
Nov 17, 2006
26
1
✟22,651.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Neither side is guilty of not taking Scripture seriously, but find it hard to communicate with each other because they are not on the same page. I find the A-M position more consistent with my reading of the NT.

I know I'm late arriving to this discussion but I really liked theend0218's post, especially the bit I quoted above.

If you take the time to understand the core of amill, premill, postmill, theology you will see that all three camps try very hard to interpret scripture fully within context. To anyone who is attempting to be hermeneutically and intellectually honest there is no other way of approaching an academic study of scripture. And to be frank, hermeneutical and intellectual dishonesty is not generally tolerated among genuine theologians – no matter what their preferred eschatological flavour happens to be. So to make claims that any of the camps are purposely ignoring context shows either a lack of understanding of the other positions or perhaps just a lack of humility – most likely a little of both.

theend0218 hit upon one of the real differences between amill and premill eschatology with the whole “old in light of new” vs “new in light of old”. I would also add to this my impression that the amill folks tend to start by emphasizing the literalism of the more simply worded portions of scripture regarding the end times and interpret the rest in light of this. Where the premill folks (especially the dispensational pre-millenniumists) often start by emphasizing the literalism of the more challenging scriptures and base their subsequent interpretations from that understanding.

But I’m not blind to the fact that my own bias helps give shape to this distinction.
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,865
1,129
50
Visit site
✟44,157.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Crusader King,

Post-tribulation belief is not simply another flavor of dispensationalism. It is not founded upon the tenets of dispensationalism at all.
Dispensationalism attempts to formulate a belief based on a literal reading of scripture.. so does the post-tribulation pre-mil position. thus there are some similarities because both hold literal views.

Dispensationalism has an entire doctrinal structure/framework outside of eschatology which strongly influences their eschatology which is one reason that pre-trib and dispensational are virtually synonymous.

Further, Post-tribulation, pre-millenial view is historically supported by the early church, where as dispensationalism is not.

Going a step further, the catechism of the Catholic Church, in its statements on the end times and the anti-christ are virtually identical to the post-tribulation view, with the one difference that the Catholic Church does not believe in a literal millenial reign and the post-trib/pre-mil view does.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.