|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
The Rapture
« Back to club forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 The RaptureI believe the Rapture is Biblical and will take place before the Tribulation (other views include the Rapture taking place in the middle of the Tribulation and at the end of the Tribulation.) The principal reason I believe the Rapture takes place before the Tribulation is believers are forgiven and accepted in the Beloved (Jesus Christ) and therefore are not subject to God’s wrath. I realize some sources on the Internet claim the Rapture is a doctrine that originated in 1830 with John Nelson Darby, but discussion of the Rapture can be seen in the 1st Century by early church leaders. These are the main passages in the Bible associated with the Rapture… “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18) “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:50-55) “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.” (Matthew 24:37-42) “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:1-3) This imo is a good video from July 2021 in which Heather Rivard discusses “What is the Rapture and what is its purpose?” www.youtube.com Video is 29:48 |
||||||
|
<<This conversation illustrates why we are not appointed to wrath if we are in Christ. Christ already satisfied the wrath of God. Therefore, we are not subject to it. Seeing as how the whole of the 70th Week is classified as "wrath", we are also not subject to any part of the 70th Week. It would be "double jeopardy". Romans 5:1-9 Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.>> This is the full passage from Romans that Heather cites… “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (Romans 5:1-9) I have yet to read this paper, which she provides a link to in the video description, but it appears based on the title to support her central premise regarding double jeopardy… www.repository.law.indiana.edu |
||||||
|
That's NOT to say I don't believe the core teachings of the Return of Christ, the Resurrection of the Dead and those still alive at the time being 'taken up' with Christ. I accept the core teaching, but I see the descriptions as being illustrative rather than literally accurate. For example, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first" Now, I find it difficult to imagine how there can be a literal 'descend from heaven' in the terms described. For a start, where is the 'heaven' that he is descending from? This made sense under the ancient concept of a three-tiered universe, but not today. The writers were using an illustration from their own culture. Perhaps 'appear in the sky as if from nowhere' might be more reasonable today. And where in the sky will he appear? At best, only one hemisphere will be turned towards that part of the sky. Much of this imagery is an illustration of the teaching, not the Biblical teaching itself. These images were the various New Testament writers drawing on the common culture of the time, which was familiar with Jewish apocalypse. They took the memes of their time as easily-understood illustrations, to assure their readers that God will win in the end; that evil will not triumph. "SO STAY THE COURSE, GUYS! PERSEVERE!!" So an exhortation to perseverance is the correct use of these passages. Unfortunately, an incorrect application has sprung up over the last century or so. That is, the supposition that "we Christians" can get a magic pass out of the world. Not so! Even in the Revelation to John, not all believers are marked, but only 144,000. And there is no mention of these marked ones being raptured; they appear on Earth at the start of ch. 7 and are described as being 'before the throne of God' at the end of the chapter, but there is no transition. This doesn't mean they are assumed to be raptured; apocalyptic is full of images that don't mesh together. The writer wants each image to speak for itself. Does he mean that even as these sealed ones are on earth, they are simultaneously under the direct care of God? We might also point out that there is more than one interpretation of the Rapture even within fundamentalist circles. The most common is "Dispensational Premillennialism", which holds that the Rapture will occur before the Tribulation. It's not hard to see the fingerprints of the Prosperity Gospel here; a belief that 'We Christians will escape discomfort'. Even the woman in the video that Vic links to argues that her key consideration is "Which of these understandings will give you Peace?" No hint of the Way of the Cross. Other views cover a wide range of timing, including post-Tribulation Rapture. This would seem to be implied in Revelation, since the letters to the seven churches urge believers to remain loyal and to persevere through the coming trials, as well as the 'narrative' sections implying that there will be believers on Earth throughout the various judgements poured onto the world. In short, the Bible itself provides no consistent outline, and in fact no coherent timeline, for any of these different theories. Most Evangelical scholars (and I use the word 'Evangelical' in the world-wide sense of 'those who study the Bible', not the narrow American sense of 'those who read the Bible literally') see these images as warnings of what will happen from time to time as a fallen world goes through 'business as usual', but that God will intervene whenever HE chooses to do so and will ultimately vindicate His own in one final act. The standard literalist reading of the Bible by people who don't understand the genre of the original texts leads to many such errors. |
||||||
|
Is your interpretation simply “God will win in the end?” And as God is omnipresent, He can surely appear in the sky (i.e. the clouds) to be visible to all at once. If you consider that the Tribulation is God pouring out His wrath on unbelievers, what sense does it make for believers to go through the Tribulation? Why would believers go through God’s wrath when their sins have been forgiven and they are accepted in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:6) and are the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21.) There are numerous verses in the Bible that state believers are no longer under God’s wrath. Not to mention Revelation indicates the church is in Heaven during the Tribulation. The 144,000 are Messianic Jews who will evangelize on earth during the Tribulation. <<These 144,000 Jews are “sealed,” which means they have the special protection of God. They are kept safe from the divine judgments and from the wrath of the Antichrist. They can freely perform their mission during the tribulation. It had been previously prophesied that Israel would repent and turn back to God (Zechariah 12:10; Romans 11:25–27), and the 144,000 Jews seem to be a sort of “first fruits” (Revelation 14:4) of that redeemed Israel. Their mission seems to be to evangelize the post-rapture world and proclaim the gospel during the tribulation period. As a result of their ministry, millions—“a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9)—will come to faith in Christ.>> www.gotquestions.org What you say here is interesting… <<…since the letters to the seven churches urge believers to remain loyal and to persevere through the coming trials, as well as the 'narrative' sections implying that there will be believers on Earth throughout the various judgements poured onto the world.>> Can you provide chapters and verses (citations are fine; no need to copy-and-paste text) in support of this? Apart from the 144,000 Messianic Jews who will evangelize during the Tribulation? And I’m not sure I understand your thoughts here… <<That's NOT to say I don't believe the core teachings of the Return of Christ, the Resurrection of the Dead and those still alive at the time being 'taken up' with Christ. I accept the core teaching, but I see the descriptions as being illustrative rather than literally accurate.>> If it’s correct to say you believe in the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and believers who are alive being taken up with Christ but think those statements are illustrative and not to be taken literally, what are they illustrative of? That seems like a lot of words and flights of fancy to simply say “God will win in the end.” Do you believe the Tribulation will be a literal seven-year period in which God literally pours out His wrath on unbelievers who remain on earth? |
||||||
|
Vic 17:13 <So how do you interpret (for example) 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18?> Good question. How do YOU interpret it? Don't just repeat what it says; tell me step-by-step what it means. <Is your interpretation simply “God will win in the end?”> Is your interpretation that "God WON'T win in the end"? If my statement is wrong, tell me where it is wrong. Don't you believe that God will win in the end? Yes or no! If 'yes', then why are you opposing me? You have this habit of challenging me not for what I say, but for not saying it in your words. <If you consider that the Tribulation is God pouring out His wrath on unbelievers, what sense does it make for believers to go through the Tribulation?> Yep. The fingerprints of the Prosperity Gospel! Are you aware that Christians have suffered throughout history? So what makes your particular generation exempt? <Not to mention Revelation indicates the church is in Heaven during the Tribulation.> Read Rev. ch. 11. Those 'two witnesses' are on the Earth. And the beast makes war against them and overcomes them and kills them. That sounds like 'tribulated with extreme prejudice' to me! Also, God calls 'my people' out of Babylon the great in chapter 18. Babylon the great is NOT a suburb of Heaven. <The 144,000 are Messianic Jews who will evangelize on earth during the Tribulation.> a) So that means the Messianic Jews are NOT part of the Church? Were the twelve disciples (who were themselves Jews who believed in the Messiah) aware of that? b) Read that list of the sealed again. There are none from the tribe of Dan. And the tribe of Joseph is double-counted, because the 'tribe' of Manasseh are also descendants of Joseph. Can't you see that these are symbolic, and not meant to be taken literally? <Can you provide chapters and verses (citations are fine; no need to copy-and-paste text) in support of this? Apart from the 144,000 Messianic Jews who will evangelize during the Tribulation?> First, your question assumes your own definition of 'the Tribulation', which is not correct. So how can anyone comply with a false assumption? Second, why do you exclude the 144,000, apart from the fact that these would disprove your claim immediately. A bit like asking "Except for your evidence, what evidence do you have?" It reminds me of a scene from 'Life of Brian'. Third, there are faithful on Earth (if you take Revelation literally) through to at least chapter 18, because 18:4 has a voice from heaven calling "Come out of her (i.e., out of Babylon the great), my people." Fourth, your own post says there will be believers on Earth during the Tribulation. I quote you... {Their mission seems to be to evangelize the post-rapture world and proclaim the gospel during the tribulation period. As a result of their ministry, millions—“a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9)—will come to faith in Christ.} Why can't you see that you contradict yourself? Whenever your self-contradictions are pointed out, you claim 'misrepresentation'; in fact, it is accurate representation of your own confusion. <If it’s correct to say you believe in the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and believers who are alive being taken up with Christ but think those statements are illustrative and not to be taken literally, what are they illustrative of?> In case it's not obvious to you that the answer is contained in your own question:- those statements are illustrative of the Return of Christ, the Resurrection of the Dead and those still alive being taken up in Christ. <Do you believe the Tribulation will be a literal seven-year period in which God literally pours out His wrath on unbelievers who remain on earth?> I don't believe that the Bible teaches that. It might happen that way, or it might not; just like it might rain tomorrow or it might not. But I don't see it as being taught in the Bible as a literal foretelling of what will happen. It is one thing to believe in what the Bible teaches, and a completely different thing to believe the Bible teaches something that it does not. |
||||||
|
Of course it was addressed to you. You’re the only person other than me who has posted in this thread. You: <<Good question. How do YOU interpret it? Don't just repeat what it says; tell me step-by-step what it means.>> I interpret it literally. It literally means what it says. I don’t see the point in restating what it says in different words. If you believe 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 is illustrative or metaphorical, it’s up to you to state what it’s illustrating or what it’s a metaphor for. Me: <<Is your interpretation simply “God will win in the end?”>> You: <<Is your interpretation that "God WON'T win in the end"?>> Of course not, You: <<If my statement is wrong, tell me where it is wrong.>> I was asking if that was the extent of your interpretation. You: <<Don't you believe that God will win in the end? Yes or no! If 'yes', then why are you opposing me? You have this habit of challenging me not for what I say, but for not saying it in your words.>> Again, I was asking if “God will win in the end” is the extent of your illustrative or metaphorical interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18. Me: <<If you consider that the Tribulation is God pouring out His wrath on unbelievers, what sense does it make for believers to go through the Tribulation?>> You: <<Yep. The fingerprints of the Prosperity Gospel! Are you aware that Christians have suffered throughout history? So what makes your particular generation exempt?>> There’s a difference between Christians suffering at the hands of unbelievers and Satan, and Christians suffering at the hands of God. Me: <<Not to mention Revelation indicates the church is in Heaven during the Tribulation.>> You: <<Read Rev. ch. 11. Those 'two witnesses' are on the Earth. And the beast makes war against them and overcomes them and kills them. That sounds like 'tribulated with extreme prejudice' to me!>> I was talking about the vast majority of believers, not including the two witnesses (believed by many to be Elijah and Enoch, who were taken to Heaven directly) and the 144,000 Messianic Jews who are evangelizing unbelievers on earth during the Tribulation. You: <<Also, God calls 'my people' out of Babylon the great in chapter 18. Babylon the great is NOT a suburb of Heaven.>> Yes, Jews remain God’s people and the specific purpose of the Tribulation is for them to finally recognize Jesus Christ as their Messiah, whom the vast majority of Jews have refused to recognize. Me: <<The 144,000 are Messianic Jews who will evangelize on earth during the Tribulation.>> You: <<a) So that means the Messianic Jews are NOT part of the Church? Were the twelve disciples (who were themselves Jews who believed in the Messiah) aware of that?>> Of course they’re part of the church. But they have a specific mission during the Tribulation (to evangelize unbelievers on earth.) I should have been more precise in noting that all of the believers in Heaven during the Tribulation do not include the two witnesses or 144,000 Messianic Jews. You: <<b) Read that list of the sealed again. There are none from the tribe of Dan. And the tribe of Joseph is double-counted, because the 'tribe' of Manasseh are also descendants of Joseph. Can't you see that these are symbolic, and not meant to be taken literally?>> I think this excerpt from a commentary explains why the tribe of Dan is not included (and it has nothing to do with the omission being symbolic, illustrative or metaphorical…) <<Skipping ahead to Revelation 7, all the tribes of Israel are mentioned in the end-times tribulation except for Dan. Commentators through the centuries have proposed the following reasons for why the tribe of Dan is not included in the list: • Dan’s historical embrace of idolatry and immorality leads to a disqualification for service during the end times. • The Antichrist will come from the tribe of Dan (based on certain readings of Genesis 49:17; Deuteronomy 33:22; and Jeremiah 8:16). • By the time of Solomon, the tribe of Dan had assimilated with the neighboring Phoenicians (as 2 Chronicles 2:14 may hint at) and so lost their national identity. • The tribe of Dan, once the second-most populous tribe, declined in numbers and influence until, by Ezra’s time, it had been totally wiped out. This would explain why Dan is not listed among the tribes in 1 Chronicles 4—7 or in Revelation 7.>> www.gotquestions.org Me: <<Can you provide chapters and verses (citations are fine; no need to copy-and-paste text) in support of this? Apart from the 144,000 Messianic Jews who will evangelize during the Tribulation?>> You: <<First, your question assumes your own definition of 'the Tribulation', which is not correct. So how can anyone comply with a false assumption?>> What is your definition of the Tribulation? If you believe the Tribulation is illustrative, symbolic or metaphorical, what is it illustrative, symbolic or metaphorical of? In other words, please go deeper than simply slapping a label on it. You: <<Second, why do you exclude the 144,000, apart from the fact that these would disprove your claim immediately. A bit like asking "Except for your evidence, what evidence do you have?" It reminds me of a scene from 'Life of Brian'.>> Yes, as I said previously, I should have been more precise in noting that all believers in Heaven during the Tribulation did not include the two witnesses and 144,000 Messianic Jews who are on earth to evangelize unbelievers during the Tribulation. You: <<Third, there are faithful on Earth (if you take Revelation literally) through to at least chapter 18, because 18:4 has a voice from heaven calling "Come out of her (i.e., out of Babylon the great), my people.">> Yes, God is referring to Jews, who remain His people, the “apple of His eye,” as long as they are alive on earth (i.e. before they die in unbelief.) You: <<Fourth, your own post says there will be believers on Earth during the Tribulation. I quote you... {Their mission seems to be to evangelize the post-rapture world and proclaim the gospel during the tribulation period. As a result of their ministry, millions—“a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9)—will come to faith in Christ.} Why can't you see that you contradict yourself?>> As I’ve said (now for the third time) I should have been more precise in saying all believers in Heaven during the Tribulation does not include the two witnesses or the 144,000 Messianic Jews who are on earth to evangelize unbelievers during the Tribulation. You: <<Whenever your self-contradictions are pointed out, you claim 'misrepresentation'; in fact, it is accurate representation of your own confusion.>> No, when I’m misrepresented, I say I’m being misrepresented. When I should have been more precise, I say that. When I’m wrong about something, I say that. Me: <<If it’s correct to say you believe in the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and believers who are alive being taken up with Christ but think those statements are illustrative and not to be taken literally, what are they illustrative of?>> You: <<In case it's not obvious to you that the answer is contained in your own question:- those statements are illustrative of the Return of Christ, the Resurrection of the Dead and those still alive being taken up in Christ.>> So they’re illustrative of a literal meaning? I’m not quite sure I understand your position. If a man falls down and sprains his ankle, I say he fell down and sprained his ankle. How is you saying him falling down and spraining his ankle is an illustrative statement of him falling down and spraining his ankle any different from what I said? Me: <<Do you believe the Tribulation will be a literal seven-year period in which God literally pours out His wrath on unbelievers who remain on earth?>> You: <<I don't believe that the Bible teaches that. It might happen that way, or it might not; just like it might rain tomorrow or it might not. But I don't see it as being taught in the Bible as a literal foretelling of what will happen.>> Then how do you interpret the Tribulation? What is it symbolic of, a metaphor of or an illustration of? You: <<It is one thing to believe in what the Bible teaches, and a completely different thing to believe the Bible teaches something that it does not.>> Well then tell me what the Bible teaches about the Tribulation. And please give me your interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 if it goes beyond “God will win in the end.” |
||||||
|
“The Rapture REVEALED in Genesis!” youtu.be Video is 7:35 From the video description… “This video explores how the story of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 22 and 24 contains a surprising foreshadowing of the rapture. As we follow the servant’s journey, Rebekah’s response, and Isaac’s sudden reappearance, patterns begin to emerge that point beyond the surface narrative. Through biblical typology, rich Hebrew imagery, and prophetic themes, this passage reveals more than a marriage—it unveils a glimpse of God’s redemptive plan and the future gathering of the Bride. If you’re curious about how the Old Testament speaks to the return of Christ and the hope of the Church, this quiet love story holds more than meets the eye.” |
||||||
|
Vic 20:33 That's not an answer, it's a redundancy. But let me take it as being as close to an interpretation (rather than a repetition) as possible, by examining in detail just a part of one verse... v. 16 = "The Lord himself will descend from heaven" a) So how far above Earth is Heaven? You said you take it literally! But any astronomer would marvel at this being literal'. Do you still take it 'literally'? b) Most people read 'the Lord' in this verse to mean Jesus. But your earlier post (17:13) said "And as God is omnipresent, He can surely appear in the sky (i.e. the clouds) to be visible to all at once." So do think this verse refers to the Father or the Spirit, not the Son? Think what this interpretation will do to a natural (I mean 'literal') reading of the rest of the passage, and other places where New Testament writers mention the Return. What a quagmire! Your insistence that it be taken literally has backed you into a contradiction. {You: <<If my statement is wrong, tell me where it is wrong.>> I was asking if that was the extent of your interpretation.} I said what I said. Do you agree with what I said, or not? <I was talking about the vast majority of believers, not including the two witnesses (believed by many to be Elijah and Enoch, who were taken to Heaven directly) and the 144,000 Messianic Jews who are evangelizing unbelievers on earth during the Tribulation.> I've seen this trick too often. Sweeping statements are made, and when a counter example is produced it is called 'an exception', but not admitted to be a disproof. Like 'Life of Brian'; "What have the Romans ever done for us?" "The aqueduct." "Yeah, but apart from the aqueduct." "Got the highwaymen off the roads." "Yeah, except for the aqueduct and the highwaymen," "Regular garbage collections." And except for the garbage collections..." 'And the sewers." "But except for all these things you've mentioned, what have the Romans ever done for us?" The only reason these witnesses and Jews are called 'exceptions' is because there is no room for them in your basic interpretation. If you adopt a more nuanced interpretation, these are not exceptions. I could explain that more nuanced reading of Revelation to you, but whenever I said something that doesn't fit your current interpretation you would challenge me because it doesn't fit what you already accept. <God is referring to Jews, who remain His people, the “apple of His eye,” as long as they are alive on earth (i.e. before they die in unbelief.)> Says who? Paul says 'all those with the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham', and 'he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and his circumcision is of the heart and in the Spirit'. You have let the Zionists pull you down their rabbit hole. <So they’re illustrative of a literal meaning? I’m not quite sure I understand your position.> a) What do you mean when you say a 'literal meaning? EVERYTHING has a 'literal meaning' in one sense; it's the meaning if you take it literally! But is the 'literal meaning' what the writer intended? That is the whole point of an illustration; the 'literal' meaning points towards a deeper meaning. When an artist produces a painting and colours the sun yellow, YES, the sun IS yellow! But that does not mean the artist thinks it's flat and covered in yellow paint. b) so yes, the ILLUSTRATION has a 'literal meaning', but the meaning intended by that illustration lies behind it, not on its surface. Have you never read a parable? <Then how do you interpret the Tribulation? What is it symbolic of, a metaphor of or an illustration of?> You want that explained in a paragraph or two? Golly! But here is a summary:- the 'Tribulation' is not any one period of time in particular, and specially not something still in our future. If it were, then how would the original readers have gained any value from it? How would they have recognised the value of the book and spent the time, money, effort and care to copy it by hand, rather than producing copies of other books? The answer is because they recognised that talk of the Tribulation spoke to them in their time and place. The Tribulation is this world, today! Read Revelation again, and you will note that there is not just one series of catastrophes and judgements, but one series after another after another. Bad things keep on happening! The book as a whole reassures them that God is ultimately in control, and strengthens them to witness through it. For example, the 'two witnesses' are not just two individuals, but the church being faithful. The 144,000 from every tribe are not messianic Jews; they are the fullness of the church, the entirety of the True Israel, as they witness through the disasters that happen on Earth. The Seven Letters in the opening chapters set up the rest of the Book for this. Read those letters in order, and you will see God's priorities. First, love. Second, perseverance. Third is adherence to the Truth. Fourth, live up to those standards! Fifth, when you fail, REPENT. Sixth, those who repent will be restored. Seventh, a challenge to respond to those first six letters. The rest of the Book is to be read with those foundational thoughts in mind. One thing that is essential in understanding the Scriptures is what theologians call 'Sitz im Leben', the 'place in the life of the worshipping community.' It is part of understanding 'context'. But that is almost totally lacking in Fundamentalism, which concerns itself with being 'correct', a cross between legalism and pseudo-science. <Well then tell me what the Bible teaches about the Tribulation.> See above. Better still, enroll in a course at a respectable multi-denominational college. Just one subject per term in correspondence mode would be good for you. <And please give me your interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 if it goes beyond “God will win in the end.”> I start with 'Sitz im Leben'. Paul didn't say these things because he knew that we would read his words two thousand years later. He wrote them to the Thessalonians in the middle of the First Century. Why? Because they were troubled by specific questions. Central to these concerns appears to be that some of their number had died, and Jesus hasn't returned yet. Have their loved ones missed out? Paul answers by reminding them that God raised Jesus from the dead, so God will also raise all those who are 'in Jesus' in like manner. Those who have died will miss out on nothing! Their resurrection will be the first thing that happens when Jesus returns, not some afterthought or second-best. When those loved ones are raised, both the living and the dead together will meet Jesus 'in the clouds' (Clouds were a symbol of power in ancient thought; Look up 'cloud' in a concordance and you will be surprised by often 'cloud' is used to emphasise power or glory). v. 18 "Therefore comfort one another with these words." Now do you understand the difference between "It literally means what it says." as you said, and an explanation of what it meant to those first readers when explained? That's the biggest problem with literalism; it reduces Scripture to 'magic words' that just have to be repeated, instead of Godly wisdom that is meant to be explored and understood. |
||||||
|
I won’t respond to everything you said because much of it already has been responded to, is not relevant or is your saying what something is not instead of what something is. But here are a few answers… <<a) So how far above Earth is Heaven? You said you take it literally! But any astronomer would marvel at this being literal'. Do you still take it 'literally'?>> Yes, Heaven is a literal place above the earth. How far above the earth I couldn’t say, but I highly doubt it exists in the four dimensions (three spatial dimensions plus time) we know on earth. <<b) Most people read 'the Lord' in this verse to mean Jesus. But your earlier post (17:13) said "And as God is omnipresent, He can surely appear in the sky (i.e. the clouds) to be visible to all at once." So do think this verse refers to the Father or the Spirit, not the Son? Think what this interpretation will do to a natural (I mean 'literal') reading of the rest of the passage, and other places where New Testament writers mention the Return. What a quagmire! Your insistence that it be taken literally has backed you into a contradiction.>> As I said before, I believe Jesus is God and use those terms interchangeably unless I’m referring to Jesus during His earthly ministry when He had been made “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2.) The Trinity is a well-established doctrine in Christianity and the Trinity is evident in both the Old Testament and New Testament. Do you not subscribe to the Trinity? Perhaps we can make that the next subject we discuss. Me: <<I was asking if that was the extent of your interpretation.>> You: <<I said what I said. Do you agree with what I said, or not?>> This is unfortunately what you tend to do when presented with questions you can’t answer. You’ve done it numerous times in the past and it hardly encourages a productive discussion. <<Says who? Paul says 'all those with the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham', and 'he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and his circumcision is of the heart and in the Spirit'. You have let the Zionists pull you down their rabbit hole.>> The Apostle Paul also said, “To the Jew first and also to the Greek.” And he also referred to the Jews as natural branches and to the Gentiles as branches that had been grafted in. I don’t disagree with what you wrote (except for the Zionist part) but you have to take a broader perspective. The Tribulation is principally the result of the Jews’ unbelief. To think Jews do not hold a special place in God’s heart is to ignore the entire Old Testament and much of the New Testament also. In fact, Jesus said He came for the lost sheep of Israel and only later expanded His ministry (mostly via His disciples) to the Gentiles. • You think the Tribulation is occurring today? I don’t think you have any idea how bad the Tribulation is as recorded in the Bible. If it rained all day one day on earth, would you say the Flood in Genesis was going on today? That’s imo a comparison that’s not far off the comparison of the earth today vs. the earth in the Tribulation. <<See above. Better still, enroll in a course at a respectable multi-denominational college. Just one subject per term in correspondence mode would be good for you.>> This is where I think your main error is and why you don’t (according to your own words) know what you believe. You’re trying to understand a spiritual entity and spiritual book (collection of books) through carnal means. It would be good for you to humbly and sincerely ask God to reveal the truth to you and to do so as often as necessary. I think the veil would then be lifted from your eyes (perhaps gradually, perhaps suddenly.) The problem is, because you have no foundation for what you believe, you often argue against what something is (as long as you view it as fundamentalism) instead of saying what something is. You can’t distinguish the truth between competing theologians and/or academics because you lack that basic foundation, and that foundation does not come by carnal means. <<Paul answers by reminding them that God raised Jesus from the dead, so God will also raise all those who are 'in Jesus' in like manner. Those who have died will miss out on nothing! Their resurrection will be the first thing that happens when Jesus returns, not some afterthought or second-best. When those loved ones are raised, both the living and the dead together will meet Jesus 'in the clouds' (Clouds were a symbol of power in ancient thought; Look up 'cloud' in a concordance and you will be surprised by often 'cloud' is used to emphasise power or glory).>> It seems as though you’re interpreting this passage from 1 Thessalonians 4 literally, though your reference to the symbolism of clouds may indicate otherwise. But the main problem with taking an illustrative, metaphorical and symbolic approach to the Scriptures is you’re assuming largely uneducated Jews who received Paul’s letters understood the alleged illustrative, metaphorical and symbolic interpretations Paul was allegedly using. It’s not like Paul was there to say, “No, no guys. Not literal clouds. Clouds are a symbol of power and glory. Don’t you get it? The clouds are a metaphor!” <<That's the biggest problem with literalism; it reduces Scripture to 'magic words' that just have to be repeated,>> I understand the Bible quite well on a largely literal basis except when it’s obvious verses and passages are not meant to be taken literally (such as cutting off hands and plucking out eyes; eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood; rivers of living water flowing from someone’s stomach, etc.) <<instead of Godly wisdom that is meant to be explored and understood.>> Godly wisdom comes from God’s Holy Spirit and not from a carnal reading of the Scriptures and the human mind. God’s Holy Spirit indwells believers and the best way imo believers today can receive Godly wisdom is by asking God for it and asking God to help them understand the truths in His Word. |
||||||
|
Vic 6:31 <As I said before, I believe Jesus is God and use those terms interchangeably..... The Trinity is a well-established doctrine in Christianity and the Trinity is evident in both the Old Testament and New Testament. Do you not subscribe to the Trinity?> Yes, I subscribe to the Trinity. I also UNDERSTAND what that doctrine means, as a point of Systematic Theology. Perhaps you don't, so you might like to read through the Athanasian Creed, which says (in part)... "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost." Your first sentence pasted above 'confounds the Persons'. Technically, that's heresy. <The Apostle Paul also said, “To the Jew first and also to the Greek.”> This introduces a chaos of assertions that are taken out of context, if not downright false interpretations. Don't ask me to trim back your overgrown jungle. <You think the Tribulation is occurring today? I don’t think you have any idea how bad the Tribulation is as recorded in the Bible. If it rained all day one day on earth, would you say the Flood in Genesis was going on today? That’s imo a comparison that’s not far off the comparison of the earth today vs. the earth in the Tribulation.> You are showing that you have no grasp of apocalyptic literature. You are reading it literally, not as apocalypse. <This is where I think your main error is> Thank you for identifying my main error. <But the main problem with taking an illustrative, metaphorical and symbolic approach to the Scriptures is you’re assuming largely uneducated Jews who received Paul’s letters understood the alleged illustrative, metaphorical and symbolic interpretations Paul was allegedly using.> The educated among them certainly did, and probably even the illiterate when they heard the letters read. Because they lived in a time when these figures of speech were commonplace. They certainly understood the First Century popular culture they lived in much better than 21st century Americans who refuse to study reference books because the think that is 'carnal'. <I understand the Bible quite well on a largely literal basis except when it’s obvious verses and passages are not meant to be taken literally> 'when it's obvious'! Obvious to whom? Your instinct? We've been here before, Vic. The one thing that you are ABSOLUTELY convinced is infallible is NOT the Bible, but your interpretation of the Bible. You don't see the difference, because you are convinced that your interpretation IS the Bible. So you don't need to provide verse references any more; just say "This is the Truth..." and then add whatever you think. |
||||||
|
<<Yes, I subscribe to the Trinity. I also UNDERSTAND what that doctrine means, as a point of Systematic Theology. Perhaps you don't, so you might like to read through the Athanasian Creed, which says (in part)... "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost." Your first sentence pasted above 'confounds the Persons'. Technically, that's heresy.>> You were the one who claimed Jesus was not omnipresent (one of the attributes of God) and therefore could only appear in the sky to a limited population of people. Seems like you’re attempting to disguise your error by muddying the waters. You’re not interested in an honest discussion. You’re interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, scoring points and presenting yourself as theologically enlightened while also claiming you don’t know what you believe. <<This introduces a chaos of assertions that are taken out of context, if not downright false interpretations. Don't ask me to trim back your overgrown jungle.>> Yep, rather than offer a substantive reply, you fall back on insults and claims of theological enlightenment. Your arrogance and obsession with yourself are what’s preventing you from understanding the Bible. God rewards humility, not arrogance, and He rewards humility with understanding. <<You are showing that you have no grasp of apocalyptic literature. You are reading it literally, not as apocalypse.>> Jesus compared the Tribulation to the Great Flood that destroyed nearly everything on earth. Or was the Great Flood in your view a metaphor too? What was going on before the Great Flood is going on today… “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matthew 24:37-39) <<The educated among them certainly did, and probably even the illiterate when they heard the letters read. Because they lived in a time when these figures of speech were commonplace. They certainly understood the First Century popular culture they lived in much better than 21st century Americans who refuse to study reference books because the think that is 'carnal'.>> The educated among them were Christ-denying Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes. It was mostly the uneducated (fishermen, tax collectors, prostitutes and laborers) who were early Christians. You have no basis for your belief that the Apostle Paul was writing in metaphors and symbolism except your insatiable desire to present yourself as smarter than others. You can’t even explain the illustrations and metaphors. You just slap a label on whatever passage is being discussed and think that suffices. It doesn’t. <<when it's obvious'! Obvious to whom? Your instinct? We've been here before, Vic. The one thing that you are ABSOLUTELY convinced is infallible is NOT the Bible, but your interpretation of the Bible. You don't see the difference, because you are convinced that your interpretation IS the Bible.>> We have been over this before. Common sense, discernment and God’s Holy Spirit are what leads me in understanding the Bible. You’re so eager, so compelled, to argue that you’re questioning whether Jesus wanted His disciples to gnaw on His flesh and stab Him so they could suck on His blood; pluck out their eyes and cut off their hands; and whether they were walking around with rivers of water flowing out of their stomachs. Stop being so ridiculous, Bob. And instead of immediately acting on your impulse to argue, stop and consider what the other person is saying. <<So you don't need to provide verse references any more; just say "This is the Truth..." and then add whatever you think.>> I take the Bible literally unless it’s obvious through common sense, discernment and the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit that verses and/or passages shouldn’t be taken literally. And unless you believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah (not metaphorically) and have accepted Him as your Saviour (not metaphorically) you don’t have God’s Holy Spirit indwelling you. And a prerequisite to believing in Jesus Christ and recognizing your need for a Saviour is humility. Humility. Humbleness. Humility. “Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.” (Psalm 138:6) |
||||||
|
Me: <<As I said before, I believe Jesus is God and use those terms interchangeably unless I’m referring to Jesus during His earthly ministry when He had been made “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2.)>> You: <<Your first sentence pasted above 'confounds the Persons'. Technically, that's heresy.>> It doesn’t “confound the Persons” at all because I was equating Jesus with God, not God the Father. The “Persons” in the Trinity are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Using Jesus and God interchangeably is not the same as using Jesus and the Father interchangeably. But like I said, I really think I’m done “discussing” the Bible with you. It’s clear to me you’re not interested in an honest discussion. |
||||||
|
Vic Yep. It's clear you have no idea. The rest is just a re-hash of earlier errors. Why should I reply, when you counter by simply repeating earlier confusion? |
||||||
|
Yep, we’re done. Find someone else to argue with, Bob. |
||||||
|
In terms of the Rapture, I know we’re close. I can feel it. But I’m giving it ‘til May 10 and then putting it out of my mind. I believe the pre-Tribulation Rapture is Biblical and therefore true and that we are living in unprecedented times that align with Biblical prophecies. But I don’t have the personality for street evangelism (I can’t even evangelize my siblings) and so I pray for people I know (and don’t personally know) to be saved. I figure God can put someone in their path who will be far better at opening their heart and mind to the Gospel than I could… <<My advice to everyone is simple -- if there are people you need to talk to about Jesus, do it now. Yesterday, I had a conversation with my mom about my stepdad. Tomorrow is never guaranteed, so whether the rapture is today, tomorrow, or 90 years from now doesn't actually matter. People get pulled really far into the weeds and become hyper focused on that when your next two breaths are not even promised. Make the most of every day you are given, and never put off until tomorrow what should be done today in case tomorrow never comes. She knows what's going on in the world. Anyone with any bit of sense can understand we are living in unprecedented times that are setting the stage for major things to come. I told her to talk to my stepdad, that it was time for her to not put it off any longer. Whether people are receptive or not is not up to us. But we can do our part to put the thoughts in their head. Respective to my research, it is continuing on different topics that I have not taught on and will not teach on here. This research is for my own understanding and will not be of benefit to the larger group. For you all, I have said and presented everything that needs to be said or presented, and all the material is available. I had always intended to end my content naturally around this time, and those plans have not changed. People asked me to keep posting updates, and I may. We will see how things go and what news there is to even post. It's quite draining to be on social media constantly, and I find this is not particularly appealing to me. Again, we'll see. Stay the course. Keep studying your Bible. Keep getting to know Jesus. His timing will be perfect. I appreciate you all, and I'll be seeing you soon.>> BTW and IMO you can’t look at all the accurate prophecies in the Bible (and my main interest has always been on prophecies of Jesus Christ’s first coming) and think prophecies related to the Rapture are somehow wrong. Not to mention the illogic of God punishing believers for unbelief; that is the illogic of God punishing believers in the Tribulation for rejecting Jesus Christ (when they haven’t) and when they are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. We’ll see what the next few weeks bring. May 10 (or more accurately the end of May 10) is when I put the Rapture out of my mind, though I will always believe it’s true because it’s Biblical. |
||||||
|
Vic Therre ARE no 'prophecies related to the Rapture'! So how can they be 'wrong'? But there are plenty of people who THINK there are such prophecies. How can they be wrong? Just ask William Miller. (en.wikipedia.org ) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<SalvationIsEasy 4 hours ago "Aliens" are demons. Nothing more, nothing less. And when the Body of Christ is raptured before the Tribulation, the story will be that "aliens" abducted the "backwards" "antiquated" "primitive thinking" Christians in the spirit of "human evolution" in the "New Global Golden Age.">> |
||||||
|
Vic 00:38 In a post a few days ago I exegeted this passage to show how Paul was speaking specifically to the concerns of that church in his own times. You still haven't explained why Paul would be talking about events thousands of years into his future when the evidence suggests that he expected the Second Coming within the lifetime of some of the people he was writing to. To Paul, such a distant future was simply not expected. So how could he be writing about it? <The world is only just now advanced enough technologically for events in the Tribulation to happen,> a) Is God dependent upon human technology? b) EVERY generation that has expected the End in their own lifetimes thought that 'technology' wasn't a problem. They imagined it happening with whatever 'technology' was there. c) You are assuming the Tribulation, not demonstrating that it is actually taught. <I believe the Rapture immediately precedes it.> Yes, you do. That does not mean it's true. <I believe prophecies related to the End Times> You have missed one critical 'prophecy' of the End Times. Hebrews 1:1,2 = "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in THESE LAST DAYS he has spoken to us by his Son," That's right! The 'Last Days' started with Jesus! So if "the Rapture immediately precedes" those last days, then why hasn't it happened? The answer is obvious; it's because the 'Rapture' (as Fundamentalists preach it) is an invention. <prophecies related to the End Times, particularly related to Israel, make clear we’re in the season for the Rapture and Tribulation.> The New Testament writers knew nothing about the State of Israel. Not even in their own times, because Israel ceased to exist in 720 B.C. And the references to the twelve Tribes in Revelation can't apply to the Jews because Judah was just one tribe (with scraps of Benjamin thrown in). The original tribes no longer existed as 'tribes'. The New Testament writers, including both Paul and John, considered the Church of Jesus Christ the Tue Israel. <Regarding William Miller, Israel wasn’t even a nation in the 1800s.> Exactly right! He knew that an independent sovereign nation of 'Israel' as the world considers nations is irrelevant. Nobody at the time refuted him by saying "There is no such nation of Israel!". That was because the only 'Israel' that mattered to him and everyone else was the Israel of God, the church. And yet he and thousands of others were convinced the End was coming. These episodes of "The End is Nigh!" happen frequently through history, and specially in times of turmoil. That's what Revelation is all about; times of turmoil will just keep on coming, one after another! People just want it to stop! Vic, you've been dragged down the Zionist rabbit hole of thinking the name "Israel" is magic! You have been influenced by 'carnal' considerations! Shock, horror! The way you (or your sources) pick the bits you like, twist them to fit and then sticky-tape them together is ludicrous. I know you do this because you WANT TO KNOW, and that's commendable; but please, get yourself some understanding first. Stop swallowing such rubbish. A good place to start would be "Doomsday Delusions" (ISBN 0-8308-1621-6) by two American professors at Moody Bible Institute. Very easy-to read, very clear and simple in its theology, and VERY evangelical-orthodox. |
||||||
|
<<In a post a few days ago I exegeted this passage to show how Paul was speaking specifically to the concerns of that church in his own times. You still haven't explained why Paul would be talking about events thousands of years into his future when the evidence suggests that he expected the Second Coming within the lifetime of some of the people he was writing to. To Paul, such a distant future was simply not expected. So how could he be writing about it?>> The Apostle Paul was specifically referring to a concern of believers in the church at Thessalonica that they had missed the Rapture and were in the Tribulation (which they believed due to extreme hardships and persecutions they were enduring.) He was telling them why they couldn’t be in the Tribulation. And Paul had no way of knowing when the Rapture would occur. <<a) Is God dependent upon human technology? b) EVERY generation that has expected the End in their own lifetimes thought that 'technology' wasn't a problem. They imagined it happening with whatever 'technology' was there.>> I can’t speak to what other people thought and believed (nor can you) but it’s obvious that the ability for the entire world to see the two witnesses and for the mark of the beast, without which no one can buy or sell, to be implemented were not possible until fairly recently. <<c) You are assuming the Tribulation, not demonstrating that it is actually taught.>> The Tribulation is indeed taught. Check the Internet. And read Revelation. Me: <<I believe the Rapture immediately precedes it.>> You: <<Yes, you do. That does not mean it's true.>> What I believe is based on the Bible. And the Bible is indeed true. <<You have missed one critical 'prophecy' of the End Times. Hebrews 1:1,2 = "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in THESE LAST DAYS he has spoken to us by his Son," That's right! The 'Last Days' started with Jesus! So if "the Rapture immediately precedes" those last days, then why hasn't it happened? The answer is obvious; it's because the 'Rapture' (as Fundamentalists preach it) is an invention.>> “Last days” refers to the status of the Jewish state as God’s chosen people under the Old Covenant. Jesus Christ, through His death, entombment and Resurrection, implemented a New Covenant in which Jews and Gentiles could become sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. The book of Hebrews was addressed to Hebrews and spoke to the transition from the Old Covenant (attempted righteousness by law keeping, the sacrificial system and 600+ laws in the Torah) to the New Covenant (righteousness by believing in Jesus Christ, the Messiah prophesied about in the Old Testament.) <<The New Testament writers knew nothing about the State of Israel. Not even in their own times, because Israel ceased to exist in 720 B.C.>> You’re suggesting the New Testament writers didn’t have the Hebrew Bible and knew nothing of their people’s history? <<And the references to the twelve Tribes in Revelation can't apply to the Jews because Judah was just one tribe (with scraps of Benjamin thrown in). The original tribes no longer existed as 'tribes'. The New Testament writers, including both Paul and John, considered the Church of Jesus Christ the Tue Israel.>> You’re relying on semantics and word games. The Apostle Paul referred to himself as being from the tribe of Benjamin (see Philippians 3) and most Jews back then (and today as well) reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah. But do tell who the twelve tribes refer to if not the Jews and explain the inevitable symbolism, metaphors and illustrations you have to support your view. <<Exactly right! He knew that an independent sovereign nation of 'Israel' as the world considers nations is irrelevant. Nobody at the time refuted him by saying "There is no such nation of Israel!". That was because the only 'Israel' that mattered to him and everyone else was the Israel of God, the church. And yet he and thousands of others were convinced the End was coming.>> I’m not interested in defending views of people I disagree with. Here’s some AI for you to ponder… <<In end-times prophecies, Israel, as a nation, is a central figure, often depicted as a focal point of both conflict and divine restoration. Prophecies predict a mass return of Jews to the land of Israel, the establishment of a covenant with the Antichrist, and ultimately, Jesus' reign from Jerusalem. Key Themes and Prophecies: Return and Gathering: Prophecies like those in Ezekiel 37 speak of God gathering the scattered Israelites and bringing them back to their land. One for Israel Ministry notes that this return is seen as a significant event in the end times. Hostility and Conflict: Many prophecies predict a time of intense hostility towards Israel, with nations rallying against Jerusalem. All Israel News cites Ezekiel 38-39 as an example of this, suggesting a large-scale war against Israel. Jerusalem as a Centerpiece: Jerusalem is repeatedly mentioned as a central location in the end times, both as a target of conflict and the future capital of Jesus' reign. One for Israel Ministry notes that Jesus will rule from Mount Zion in Jerusalem, establishing a kingdom of peace. Covenant with the Antichrist: Daniel 9:27 speaks of the Antichrist making a covenant with many, which is often interpreted as a covenant with Israel, leading to a period of peace before the final conflict. Fellowship of Israel Related Ministries notes that this covenant is seen as a deceitful act that sets the stage for the Antichrist's reign of terror. Divine Intervention and Restoration: Despite the predicted trials, prophecies also emphasize God's ultimate intervention and restoration of Israel. One for Israel Ministry highlights the belief that God will deliver Israel from her enemies and establish his kingdom through Jesus.>> <<These episodes of "The End is Nigh!" happen frequently through history, and specially in times of turmoil. That's what Revelation is all about; times of turmoil will just keep on coming, one after another!>> You clearly haven’t read Revelation or don’t understand the scope and severity of the divine judgments contained in Revelation. <<People just want it to stop! Vic, you've been dragged down the Zionist rabbit hole of thinking the name "Israel" is magic! You have been influenced by 'carnal' considerations! Shock, horror!>> I’ve been dragged nowhere and think no such thing. Just more of your obnoxious misrepresentations. <<The way you (or your sources) pick the bits you like, twist them to fit and then sticky-tape them together is ludicrous. I know you do this because you WANT TO KNOW, and that's commendable; but please, get yourself some understanding first. Stop swallowing such rubbish.>> I know rubbish when I see it, Bob, and I know a guy who refuses to answer these four questions (that’d be you) is peddling it… • Are you saying the crucifixion of Jesus Christ happened but it was simply and only the execution of an innocent man, that it had nothing to do with paying the penalty of humanity’s sins? • When you say God meted out the punishment, are you denying that Jesus went through the crucifixion willingly and could have stopped it from happening? And are you denying that Jesus Himself was God incarnate? Did the Jewish religious authorities bear no responsibility for the crucifixion? • Do you think the crucifixion of Jesus was part of God’s plan to reconcile man and God from the fall of man (if not beforehand) and that prophets centuries earlier foretold the crucifixion (and its purpose) would take place? • Do you think the crucifixion is best described as God took the punishment for humanity’s sins or God made Jesus take the punishment for humanity’s sins? That you can’t answer those questions (among many others) should tell you that you don’t understand Christianity and the Bible. <<A good place to start would be "Doomsday Delusions" (ISBN 0-8308-1621-6) by two American professors at Moody Bible Institute. Very easy-to read, very clear and simple in its theology, and VERY evangelical-orthodox.>> The Rapture and Tribulation are Biblical. Instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think, why don’t you rely on God and the Bible? |
||||||
|
<<John Brown, in his commentary on Hebrews, says this of "these last days" (chapter 1, verse 2) ...the meaning is, towards the conclusion of the Jewish dispensation. It seems equivalent to the expressions used by the Apostle, 1 Cor, 10:11, 'the ends of the world (age) are come'-the conclusion of the Mosaic economy; Gal. 4:4, 'the fullness, or the fulfillment of time'-the accomplishment or termination of the period assigned for the duration of the Mosaic economy; Eph. 1:10, 'the dispensation of the fullness of times'-the economy which was to be introduced when the times of the Mosaic economy were fulfilled; Heb. 9:26, 'the end of the world,' literally 'of the ages'-the period of the termination of the Mosaic economy-the time when the present age, or world, was about to be changed into the coming age-the world to come. The Christian revelation was begun to be made in the conclusion of the Jewish age. It was before the conclusion of that age that God spake to the Jews by His Son, who, according to our Lord's parabolical representation, was sent last of all to the husband men: 'He sent forth His Son made under the law.' His personal ministry, and for some time that of His Apostles, was confined to them; and though by His death the Mosaic economy was virtually abrogated, yet it was not in fact dissolved till forty years afterwards, in the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, and the consequent final cessation of its services. What "last days" is the writer of Hebrews referring to? He is talking about the "last days" of the Old Covenant age. Jerusalem, the temple, and the nation would be destroyed during that first generation of Christianity (Mt. 10:23; 24:34; Luke 21:20, 22, 32).>> <<The "last days" spoken of by the Hebrew writer were the "last days" of the Jewish old covenant age which became obsolete and passed away in the A.D. 70 judgment and destruction of Jerusalem.>> www.bereanbiblechurch.org. |
||||||
|
Vic 11:28 Second, let me point out that all of these interpretations you quote are forced. You of all people should be among the first to assert that the Bible means what it says. When Hebrews says 'These last days', it means 'these last days'. Not 'these last days of the Jewish Dispensation', not 'these last days of summer' or 'these last days the Walmart sale'. Similarly with the other quotes from Paul. The Hebrews 9 quote should be specially clear, since it is a contrast of 'the end of the world' and 'the foundation of the world' (not the end of the Law and foundation of the Law). When you have to add words to Scripture that change the meaning from the 'literal' meaning, then how can you support a literalist approach? Another self-contradiction. This whole approach of various 'dispensations' is a modern innovation, put together by Darby in the mid-19th century and the Plymouth Brethren. It caught on in the U.S. but not many other places. It was unknown until then. It was one aspect of the push by literalists to make the Bible appear to match 'Science' in its predictive ability. It's so precise that some Dispensationalists hold to three 'dispensations (Law, Grace and Kingdom) while others assert four, seven or even eight Dispensations:- Genesis 1–3 Innocence Genesis 3–8 Conscience or Antediluvian Genesis 9–11 Civil Government Genesis 12 –Exodus 19 Patriarchal Exodus 20 – Mosaic or Law Church Age Grace or Church Revelation 20:4–6 Millennial Kingdom Revelation 20–22 Eternal State What is of interest to me is that all of them place Abraham in 'Patriarchal' or 'Law', now long discarded; but Paul tells the Romans that Abraham is the model for all who have faith today. And if "The Christian revelation was begun to be made in the conclusion of the Jewish age", then why do we still regard the Old Testament as part of the Christian Bible? Yet more examples of how literalists tie themselves up in knots. In fact, there has only ever been ONE 'dispensation'; that of Grace. That started with "In the beginning, God created". Creation itself is an act of unimaginably huge Grace. Giving Adam and Eve the Garden was Grace. Giving them dominion was Grace. It's all Grace! So where did this 'Dispensationalism' come from? You'll have to ask Darby to be sure, and I expect not even he could tell you. But I see in it a few strands. One is the desperation to 'match Science'. But the materials for the scheme might come from Islam. Islam also proposes various different 'ages'; they correspond to the series of prophets, from Adam to Moses to David to Jesus and finally to Mohammad. Each 'superseded' the previous, just as Dispensationalists say each 'dispensation' superseded the one before. Yep; perhaps Dispensationalism is a bit of Islam smuggled into Christian thought, perhaps not. But it has to be read INTO the Bible by inserting unwarranted assumptions. Without those assumptions, it just ain't there. |
||||||
|
Vic 07:09 Where do you get this idea? There is no mention of any 'Rapture', only of Jesus' Return; and their concern was for their loved ones who had died, not for themselves. Read it without your assumptions. <The Tribulation is indeed taught. Check the Internet. And read Revelation.> My apologies! Yes, you're right; the Tribulation is indeed taught! On the Internet, so that's conclusive! And if I needed more convincing, it is taught by lots of Americans who misinterpret Scripture and even a few others. My point was that it's not taught by the Bible. {You: <<Yes, you do. That does not mean it's true.>> What I believe is based on the Bible. And the Bible is indeed true.} We've been here countless times before. Your personal opinions do NOT define what the Bible teaches. I can't believe thew arrogance you show by insisting on that identity! You even accuse me of 'not being a Christian' because I concede my knowledge is incomplete. <You’re suggesting the New Testament writers didn’t have the Hebrew Bible and knew nothing of their people’s history?> No, I'm suggesting that you read my sentence again..."The New Testament writers knew nothing about the State of Israel. Not even in their own times, because Israel ceased to exist in 720 B.C." <You’re relying on semantics and word games.> No, I'm using terms with precise meanings, and respecting those meanings. Revelation refers to the specific tribes by name, therefore I do too. Why do you blur them into some symbolic value, when you claim to be the literalist? <The Apostle Paul referred to himself as being from the tribe of Benjamin (see Philippians 3)> Yes, I said that... "the references to the twelve Tribes in Revelation can't apply to the Jews because Judah was just one tribe (with scraps of Benjamin thrown in)". You completely ignored the fact that the other tribes no longer existed as tribes'. A distraction, not an answer! <I’ve been dragged nowhere and think no such thing. Just more of your obnoxious misrepresentations.> You weren't dragged there? Did you crawl down it under your own power? But what I said was not a misrepresentation, but an accurate observation. You have swallowed the Zionist assumption. Not even Darby at his finest thought the re-establishment of the State of Israel was necessary for the Rapture. The principle is that events which can be woven into the scheme will be regarded as 'proof', events that can't will be ignored. <Here’s some AI for you to ponder…> So I'm 'carnal' when I read St. Augustine or any other great mind from the history of the church, but you are commending to me the product of AI? Another self-contradiction! <I know rubbish when I see it, Bob, and I know a guy who refuses to answer these four questions (that’d be you) is peddling it…> So let me answer your questions YET AGAIN. (You really should print them out and stick them on your wall, rather than comng back to them all the time. Or if you don't understand, ask for the tricky bits to be explained rather than just asing again) • Are you saying the crucifixion of Jesus Christ happened but it was simply and only the execution of an innocent man, that it had nothing to do with paying the penalty of humanity’s sins? 'simply and only'? No. • When you say God meted out the punishment, are you denying that Jesus went through the crucifixion willingly and could have stopped it from happening? And are you denying that Jesus Himself was God incarnate? Did the Jewish religious authorities bear no responsibility for the crucifixion? That's more than one question. But I'm a nice guy, so I'll answer each in its own standing... a) are you denying that Jesus went through the crucifixion willingly and could have stopped it from happening? No. b) And are you denying that Jesus Himself was God incarnate? No. c) Did the Jewish religious authorities bear no responsibility for the crucifixion? No. OVERALL, I don't deny mainstream orthodoxy at all! If anything, you are the unorthodox here, with your weak ideas about 'confounding the persons' and your Dispensationalism that denies that Grace has always been the core of God's dealing with humans. Where we differ is that I suggest that other ways of explaining things is sometimes more appropriate because the audience understands other concepts better. • Do you think the crucifixion of Jesus was part of God’s plan to reconcile man and God from the fall of man (if not beforehand) and that prophets centuries earlier foretold the crucifixion (and its purpose) would take place? Again, more than one question... a) Do you think the crucifixion of Jesus was part of God’s plan to reconcile man and God from the fall of man (if not beforehand) Yes. b) that prophets centuries earlier foretold the crucifixion (and its purpose) would take place? Prophets beforehand foretold that any person totally dedicated to God will suffer for it. As a man dedicated more than any other, it was inevitable that Jesus would suffer. But I don't recall any passage from the Old Testament saying clearly that "Jesus of Nazareth will be crucified". This is where we differ; you read some O.T. passages with hindsight, and see how they can be construed to say what actually happened. I read those passages in 'Sitz im Leben" mode, to understand what the prophet himself actually intended to say and how his first hearers would have understood him. • Do you think the crucifixion is best described as God took the punishment for humanity’s sins "Best" in what regard? For a listener from First Century Judaism, yes, it would be a very powerful explanation. To other listeners, other metaphors might be better. <or God made Jesus take the punishment for humanity’s sins?> No. A sacrifice needs to be voluntary, or it is invalid. So now you have your answers! Such a pity that you will misunderstand them, because you bring to them your own assumptions, not mine. Now, when will you answer all my questions to you? Not just the ones you want to answer, but the ones that show you in self-contradiction. <Instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think, why don’t you rely on God and the Bible?> Do you realise how thoroughly you contradict yourself in that one sentence? You're telling me to not rely on other people; so why should I rely on your advice? In your 07:09 post you even tell me to consider an AI-generated answer. And in many posts you quote 'other people' yourself! I assure you, I don't 'rely on other people' rather than the Bible. I assess VERY CRITICALLY what 'other people' say, more critically than you assess the sources that you quote. And when they shed some new light, I see how that new light fits in with the insights of a wide range of 'other people'. But it always comes back to the Bible, read with humility as it has been contemplated by the best minds of Christendom, rather than my 'gut feeling' or the opinions of fringe preachers spouting teachings unknown before the last few centuries. |
||||||
|
I’ve always recognized that, Bob. What I’ve objected to is attempting to gain wisdom and understanding through carnal means. I have a foundation for what I believe that was obtained from the Bible and the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit. Without that foundation, no one could know which theologian or Biblical doctrine or commentary was correct. They’d be tossed to and fro, without an anchor by which to evaluate and judge competing doctrines or interpretations. <<Second, let me point out that all of these interpretations you quote are forced. You of all people should be among the first to assert that the Bible means what it says. When Hebrews says 'These last days', it means 'these last days'.>> Really? You’re now a literalist? You think “days” in Hebrews 1:2 refers to 24-hour periods? And I’ve never said I take everything in the Bible literally. That is not and never has been my position. I take most of the Bible literally unless there’s good reason not to and this is such a reason. Taking your interpretation of Hebrews 9:26 invalidates other Scriptures. The Bible is consistent and because the Bible consists of 66 books written by 40 men over 1,500 years, the reader ought to let the Bible interpret the Bible. If you’ve got competing interpretations and one interpretation is consistent with the rest of Scripture and one interpretation isn’t, I’m going with the former and not the latter. It’s like the salvation-by-works types who always justify their position by one or two verses in James while ignoring 200+ other verses in the Bible that refute their interpretation of the one or two verses in James. <<Not 'these last days of the Jewish Dispensation',>> He was writing to Jews. There was no need to add what you said as the entire Jewish way of life centered on the Mosaic law. <<not 'these last days of summer' or 'these last days the Walmart sale'. Similarly with the other quotes from Paul.>> If you read the commentary from which I provided excerpts you would see how it references other New Testament writings, including from Hebrews, for support. <<The Hebrews 9 quote should be specially clear, since it is a contrast of 'the end of the world' and 'the foundation of the world' (not the end of the Law and foundation of the Law).>> I think you should read the Hebrews 9 verse again and find the Greek meaning. It again refers to the end of the Old Covenant. <<The reference to the "end of the ages" here can be confusing. In the next few words, the writer of Hebrews will make a reference to the Second Coming of Christ, which is often seen as part of the future "end of the age." In this context, however, the "end of the age" seems to be a mention of how Jesus arrived for the purposes of His sacrifice, heralding the end of the age of the old covenant.>> www.bibleref.com. <<in the end of the world—Greek, "at the consummation of the ages"; the winding up of all the previous ages from the foundation of the world; to be followed by a new age (Heb 1:1, 2). The last age, beyond which no further age is to be expected before Christ's speedy second coming, which is the complement of the first coming; literally, "the ends of the ages"; Mt 28:20 is literally, "the consummation of the age," or world (singular; not as here, plural, ages). Compare "the fulness of times," Eph 1:10.>> biblehub.com <<"At the consummation of the ages": refers to the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new covenant, which is marked by the coming of Christ.>> www.google.com <<What is of interest to me is that all of them place Abraham in 'Patriarchal' or 'Law', now long discarded; but Paul tells the Romans that Abraham is the model for all who have faith today.>> Yes, Abraham lived long before God gave the law to the children of Israel at Mount Sinai. And Abraham’s faith was accounted to him as righteousness. And yes, righteousness never came by the law (I certainly never said it did) because if it did, Jews would not have had to sacrifice animals for sins. The law was designed to show man his inability to keep it and his need for a Saviour. The sacrificial system practiced by Jews in the Old Testament to atone for sins was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. <<And if "The Christian revelation was begun to be made in the conclusion of the Jewish age", then why do we still regard the Old Testament as part of the Christian Bible?>> Because the entire Bible is about Jesus Christ; the Old Testament includes numerous Messianic prophecies, evidence of the Trinity and (as previously mentioned) lays the foundation for the consequences of sins (death) and how sins are atoned for (a substitutionary blood sacrifice.) As Jesus Christ, after His Resurrection, said to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus… “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27) <<When you have to add words to Scripture that change the meaning from the 'literal' meaning, then how can you support a literalist approach? Another self-contradiction.>> A literalist approach does not mean taking everything in the Bible literally. Why can you not understand that? I previously cited three examples from the New Testament that should not be taken literally. <<In fact, there has only ever been ONE 'dispensation'; that of Grace. That started with "In the beginning, God created". Creation itself is an act of unimaginably huge Grace. Giving Adam and Eve the Garden was Grace. Giving them dominion was Grace. It's all Grace!>> You believe the creation account in Genesis and Adam and Eve? I thought you were an evolutionist. But regardless, I myself am not talking about how man justified himself before God. I’m talking about the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant that was established by Jesus Christ. Here’s some AI on what the Old Covenant was… <<The Old Covenant, also known as the Mosaic Covenant, was a conditional agreement between God and the Israelites, established through Moses at Mount Sinai. It's a "contract" or "treaty" where God, as the suzerain (King), made promises to Israel, a "vassal nation," if they obeyed his law and fulfilled their obligations, as explained by Biola University. Key aspects of the Old Covenant: God's Promises: God promised to make the Israelites a "holy nation," give them the Promised Land, and protect them if they obeyed his laws, according to Life, Hope & Truth. Israel's Obligations: The Israelites were required to obey the Ten Commandments and other laws given by God. Sacrificial System: A system of animal sacrifices was established to address sin and maintain a relationship with God, as detailed by Learn Religions. Priesthood: Levitical descendants of Aaron were appointed as priests to oversee the sacrifices and maintain the presence of God in the community, says Biola University. Conditional Agreement: The Old Covenant was based on the assumption that Israel would obey God's laws. If they failed, they would face curses and consequences,. The New Covenant: The Old Covenant is considered to be a "shadow" or "type" of the New Covenant, which is considered superior and unconditional, according to GotQuestions.org.>> www.google.com <<But it has to be read INTO the Bible by inserting unwarranted assumptions. Without those assumptions, it just ain't there.>> Are you the same guy who’s always talking about metaphors, symbolism and illustrations? What did you do with Bob? Who are you? |
||||||
|
Just my testimony I'm just saying for whatever it's worth. |
||||||
|
Me: <<The Apostle Paul was specifically referring to a concern of believers in the church at Thessalonica that they had missed the Rapture>> You: <<Where do you get this idea? There is no mention of any 'Rapture', only of Jesus' Return; and their concern was for their loved ones who had died, not for themselves. Read it without your assumptions.>> “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-5) The first verse is talking about the Rapture. Verses 2 through 4 are talking about the Tribulation. “The day of Christ,” which is rendered as “The day of the Lord” in other translations, refers to the Tribulation. Me: <<The Tribulation is indeed taught. Check the Internet. And read Revelation.>> You: <<My apologies! Yes, you're right; the Tribulation is indeed taught! On the Internet, so that's conclusive!>> It’s taught in books and commentaries as well, Bob. And by Christians who have studied the End Times a lot longer than you or I. <<And if I needed more convincing, it is taught by lots of Americans who misinterpret Scripture and even a few others. My point was that it's not taught by the Bible.>> It’s in the Bible. You reject the vast majority of Revelation and all of the judgments mentioned therein? You reject Jesus comparing the Tribulation to the Great Flood that destroyed nearly every living thing on earth? <<We've been here countless times before. Your personal opinions do NOT define what the Bible teaches. I can't believe thew arrogance you show by insisting on that identity!>> I believe what I believe about the Bible based on discernment and guidance from God’s Holy Spirit. I couldn’t care less if you believe what I believe. In fact you said several years ago you don’t know what you believe beyond God is sovereign, omnipresent, incomprehensible and love. Is that why you rarely (if ever) say what you believe? And why you only say that what I believe is wrong? If you don’t know what you believe beyond God is sovereign, omnipresent, incomprehensible and love (which I agree with) why are you telling me what I believe is wrong? Is it because of your insatiable need to argue and present yourself as superior to others? Sure seems that way. <<You even accuse me of 'not being a Christian' because I concede my knowledge is incomplete.>> Wrong. I’ve said you’re not a Christian *by the Biblical definition* because you’ve rejected Jesus Christ as your Saviour. Me: <<You’re suggesting the New Testament writers didn’t have the Hebrew Bible and knew nothing of their people’s history?>> You: <<No, I'm suggesting that you read my sentence again..."The New Testament writers knew nothing about the State of Israel. Not even in their own times, because Israel ceased to exist in 720 B.C.">> I don’t see how that invalidates my inferences. <<No, I'm using terms with precise meanings, and respecting those meanings. Revelation refers to the specific tribes by name, therefore I do too. Why do you blur them into some symbolic value, when you claim to be the literalist?>> I’m a literalist on the 12 tribes of Israel (actually 11) in Revelation. It was you who claimed they represented something else. <<Yes, I said that... "the references to the twelve Tribes in Revelation can't apply to the Jews because Judah was just one tribe (with scraps of Benjamin thrown in)". You completely ignored the fact that the other tribes no longer existed as tribes'. A distraction, not an answer!>> You’re now arguing with yourself. Perhaps that was inevitable… <<You weren't dragged there? Did you crawl down it under your own power? But what I said was not a misrepresentation, but an accurate observation. You have swallowed the Zionist assumption. Not even Darby at his finest thought the re-establishment of the State of Israel was necessary for the Rapture. The principle is that events which can be woven into the scheme will be regarded as 'proof', events that can't will be ignored.>> I disagree that the state of Israel is not necessary in the End Times. <<So I'm 'carnal' when I read St. Augustine or any other great mind from the history of the church, but you are commending to me the product of AI? Another self-contradiction!>> I notice you didn’t respond to the content in that excerpt from AI. Is that because it completely invalidated your position? <<So let me answer your questions YET AGAIN. (You really should print them out and stick them on your wall, rather than comng back to them all the time. Or if you don't understand, ask for the tricky bits to be explained rather than just asing again)>> Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is a “tricky bit?” Good grief. Me: <<• Are you saying the crucifixion of Jesus Christ happened but it was simply and only the execution of an innocent man, that it had nothing to do with paying the penalty of humanity’s sins?>> You: <<'simply and only'? No.>> Did the crucifixion of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with paying the penalty of humanity’s sins? Why did you ignore that and give a one-word answer to the first question? Why so secretive and evasive? Why not say what you believe? And if you don’t know what you believe (as you said previously) how do you know what I believe is wrong? <<Me: • When you say God meted out the punishment, are you denying that Jesus went through the crucifixion willingly and could have stopped it from happening? And are you denying that Jesus Himself was God incarnate? Did the Jewish religious authorities bear no responsibility for the crucifixion?>> <<You: That's more than one question. But I'm a nice guy, so I'll answer each in its own standing... a) are you denying that Jesus went through the crucifixion willingly and could have stopped it from happening? No.>> Good. We agree. Me: <<b) And are you denying that Jesus Himself was God incarnate?>> You: <<No.>> Good. We agree again. Me: <<c) Did the Jewish religious authorities bear no responsibility for the crucifixion?>> You: <<No.>> We agree again. But your one-word answers do not exactly illuminate your position. <<OVERALL, I don't deny mainstream orthodoxy at all! If anything, you are the unorthodox here, with your weak ideas about 'confounding the persons' and your Dispensationalism that denies that Grace has always been the core of God's dealing with humans.>> You’re lying, Bob. Again. I already explained how I was not “confounding the Persons” and never said Grace was not present in God’s dealing with humanity from the beginning. What I was talking about is the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. <<Where we differ is that I suggest that other ways of explaining things is sometimes more appropriate because the audience understands other concepts better.>> You lose the truth when you explain things in other ways. You once said the cross of Jesus Christ is no longer relevant when the entire faith of Christianity is based upon Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection. Some truths are eternal and do not become obsolete because “modern man” finds them offensive. Me: <<• Do you think the crucifixion of Jesus was part of God’s plan to reconcile man and God from the fall of man (if not beforehand) and that prophets centuries earlier foretold the crucifixion (and its purpose) would take place?>> You: <<Again, more than one question...>> Me: <<a) Do you think the crucifixion of Jesus was part of God’s plan to reconcile man and God from the fall of man (if not beforehand)>> You: <<Yes.>> Again, a one-word answer. Funny how you can write such long posts criticizing what other people believe, but when you’re asked what you believe, you give literally one-word answers. Is that because you don’t know what you believe or because you have no confidence in what you believe? Me: <<b) that prophets centuries earlier foretold the crucifixion (and its purpose) would take place?>> You: <<Prophets beforehand foretold that any person totally dedicated to God will suffer for it. As a man dedicated more than any other, it was inevitable that Jesus would suffer. But I don't recall any passage from the Old Testament saying clearly that "Jesus of Nazareth will be crucified".>> The “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 is Jesus. Psalm 22 is all about the crucifixion and Jesus quoted its first verse from the cross. Daniel 9:24-27 is a prophecy about when the Messiah would appear and that He would be killed on behalf of others. So you’re hanging your hat on Old Testament prophets not identifying the Messiah by name? That’s weak, Bob. <<This is where we differ; you read some O.T. passages with hindsight, and see how they can be construed to say what actually happened. I read those passages in 'Sitz im Leben" mode, to understand what the prophet himself actually intended to say and how his first hearers would have understood him.>> So who is Isaiah 53 referring to? Who is Psalm 22 referring to and why did Jesus Christ quote the opening verse from the cross? Who besides Jesus fulfilled Daniel 9:24-27? Me: <<• Do you think the crucifixion is best described as God took the punishment for humanity’s sins>> You: <<"Best" in what regard? For a listener from First Century Judaism, yes, it would be a very powerful explanation. To other listeners, other metaphors might be better.>> Other metaphors? What’s the answer to the question? What do YOU believe is the answer to the question? What do YOU believe is the right answer or metaphor? Say what YOU believe. Me: <<or God made Jesus take the punishment for humanity’s sins?> You: <<No. A sacrifice needs to be voluntary, or it is invalid.>> We agree. <<So now you have your answers! Such a pity that you will misunderstand them, because you bring to them your own assumptions, not mine.>> You think I can misunderstand one-word answers and unidentified metaphors? <<Now, when will you answer all my questions to you? Not just the ones you want to answer, but the ones that show you in self-contradiction.>> Sure. Repeat them in here. If I didn’t answer some questions of yours previously, it’s because your posts are way too long and I didn’t deem it worth my time. Me: <<Instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think, why don’t you rely on God and the Bible?>> You: <<Do you realise how thoroughly you contradict yourself in that one sentence? You're telling me to not rely on other people; so why should I rely on your advice?>> My advice is for you to accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour, receive the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit and read the Bible with His guidance – not the guidance of men. Get the foundation for what you believe from God and the Bible, not from me or anyone else. <<In your 07:09 post you even tell me to consider an AI-generated answer.>> Sure, because I was too lazy to answer one of your questions in my own words. But I posted the AI answer because *it aligned with what I already believe* not because I didn’t know what I believe and adopted AI’s answer as the basis of what I believe. There’s a difference between the two. You don’t know what you believe because you lack the foundation for what you believe and can’t distinguish the truth among competing theologians and/or commentaries. <<And in many posts you quote 'other people' yourself!>> Sure, see above. <<I assure you, I don't 'rely on other people' rather than the Bible. I assess VERY CRITICALLY what 'other people' say, more critically than you assess the sources that you quote. And when they shed some new light, I see how that new light fits in with the insights of a wide range of 'other people'. But it always comes back to the Bible, read with humility as it has been contemplated by the best minds of Christendom, rather than my 'gut feeling' or the opinions of fringe preachers spouting teachings unknown before the last few centuries.>> You once again reject the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit in individual Christians and instead ascribe what I believe as a “gut feeling.” You’ve done that several times to troll me, and it’s clear your reason for posting in here is to insult, bear false witness, argue and pretend you’re superior to others. |
||||||
|
@apatzer I can see no other way of interpreting 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55, Matthew 24:37-42 and other passages. And the idea of the Rapture is in the Old Testament, as Elijah and Enoch were taken to Heaven without dying. If the Tribulation is Biblical (and I think it is based on Revelation and parts of what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse,) obviously some Christians will be alive on earth in the hours/days before the Tribulation starts. And God would not punish believers for unbelief and would not punish a believer for his or her sins when Jesus already bore that punishment on the cross. For God to do that would not only be illogical but also unBiblical. |
||||||
|
Vic It goes to show that I had leaned on my own understanding and was wrong. |
||||||
|
Vic 17:41 Yes. 2. I said "Where do you get this idea? There is no mention of any 'Rapture', only of Jesus' Return" You respond to a passage in 1 Thess. by quoting a passage from a completely different letter. Haven't you heard of 'context'? As I have said before, you pick out 'proof texts' that can be twisted to fit and then sticky-tape them together. But let's look a bit more closely at your 'proof text', anyway... “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him," Your comment = "The first verse is talking about the Rapture." No, read it again. It's talking about "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him." Your own posts and links say that the Rapture and the Coming occur years apart. Another self-contradiction. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." This is talking about apostasy, not Rapture. I don't see any hint that anyone is elevated to the clouds here; not even as much as an inch. So even your proof-text says nothing to support your case. <It’s taught in books and commentaries as well, Bob.> Do you study in such a 'carnal' way? Another self-contradiction. Lots of things are taught in books and commentaries. Do you agree with all of them? Or do you just sort them into 'yes' and 'no' categories purely on the basis of whether or not they agree with your current views? <And why you only say that what I believe is wrong?> you MISREPRESENT me! I don't think I have said any of your core ideas are WRONG. What I have said is that you are wrong to insist that they taught in the Bible as essential, and wrong to say that your metaphors are the only valid ones. But I've given up on that now. Here, have some dust! <I’ve said you’re not a Christian *by the Biblical definition* because you’ve rejected Jesus Christ as your Saviour.> This is quite offensive, Vic, and repeated too often. When have I 'rejected Jesus as my saviour'? I have suggested other metaphors to explain this salvation, but that is not rejection. I could just as easily accuse you of the same rejection because you disagree with my particular interpretation of some passages, but I won't. I don't have the arrogance to say that my way is the only way. <I don’t see how that invalidates my inferences.> No, you don't. That's a large part of the problem. <I’m a literalist on the 12 tribes of Israel (actually 11) in Revelation. It was you who claimed they represented something else.> <You’re now arguing with yourself. Perhaps that was inevitable…> No, I'm showing why YOUR position is untenable. You really can't grasp any ideas except your own, eh? <Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is a “tricky bit?” Good grief.> The 'tricky bit' meant the bits of my explanation you can't understand. But you have applied that to a totally diferent question. That is a very dishonest thing to do. So is it 12 tribes or 11? Give me an answer why Revelation says 12 but you say 'actually 11'. And yes, I did say they represented something else and explained why. You have ignored my explanation and contradicted your own. <I notice you didn’t respond to the content in that excerpt from AI. Is that because it completely invalidated your position?> For those who have lost track of the context, you quoted an AI answer that said... <<In end-times prophecies, Israel, as a nation, is a central figure, often depicted as a focal point of both conflict and divine restoration. Prophecies predict a mass return of Jews to the land of Israel, the establishment of a covenant with the Antichrist, and ultimately, Jesus' reign from Jerusalem.>> I didn't realise you wanted a response. You didn't ask for one. But now that you ask... 1. The answer means nothing except in the context of the question. As you have often shown by placing my answers to one question as if answers to another. 2. The AI was presumably (I stand to be corrected here) answering a question along the lines of "What is Israel's role in end-times prophecy?" That question specifically sets the answer's context to be a summary of end-times prophecy as commonly held BY THOSED WHO BELEIVE IN END-TIMES PROPHECY. So the question itself precludes any other answer. Like asking 'What is the smallest recognised dog breed?' getting the answer 'The chihuahua is the smallest recognised breed.' and then using this to 'prove' that a chihuahua is smaller than a pygmy possum. 3. I don't accept AI as the ultimate authority on interpreting the Bible. <Did the crucifixion of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with paying the penalty of humanity’s sins? Why did you ignore that and give a one-word answer to the first question?> Why didn't you ask that question in the first place? I answered the question you asked. But now to answer your revised question:- That is how it is explained in many New Testament writings, because that explanation was effective in communicating to their audience. (We are talking 'Sitz im Leben' here) However, even the New Testament writers themselves also offer other explanations. Both Paul and John the Evangelist use the metaphor of 'Union with Christ'. So it is not accurate to say that there is only ONE Biblical way of explaining the Crucifixion. Note here that I am NOT denying your metaphor, just pointing out that there are other metaphors that are just as Biblical. <You’re lying, Bob. Again.> That is not only offensive, but incorrect. If you are to accuse anyone of lying, then you need to specify what the 'lie' is, and then show it to be a deliberate falsehood. THIS IS SOMETHING I DEMAND from you under club rules. I expect your response promptly. End of discussion until you put up or apologise and retract. |
||||||
|
Me: <<You’re lying, Bob. Again.>> You: <<That is not only offensive, but incorrect. If you are to accuse anyone of lying, then you need to specify what the 'lie' is, and then show it to be a deliberate falsehood. THIS IS SOMETHING I DEMAND from you under club rules. I expect your response promptly. End of discussion until you put up or apologise and retract.>> No retractions or apologies will be forthcoming. Here are your lies… <<…with your weak ideas about 'confounding the persons' and your Dispensationalism that denies that Grace has always been the core of God's dealing with humans>> Here’s the above post in this thread at 09-APR 01:40 in which I addressed your false accusation that I “confounded the Persons.” Me: <<As I said before, I believe Jesus is God and use those terms interchangeably unless I’m referring to Jesus during His earthly ministry when He had been made “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2.)>> You: <<Your first sentence pasted above 'confounds the Persons'. Technically, that's heresy.>> Me: <<It doesn’t “confound the Persons” at all because I was equating Jesus with God, not God the Father. The “Persons” in the Trinity are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Using Jesus and God interchangeably is not the same as using Jesus and the Father interchangeably.>> You were likewise lying when you claimed I denied Grace had always been at the core of God’s dealing with humans… From 11-APR 16:26 <<But regardless, I myself am not talking about how man justified himself before God. I’m talking about the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant that was established by Jesus Christ.>> <<Yes, Abraham lived long before God gave the law to the children of Israel at Mount Sinai. And Abraham’s faith was accounted to him as righteousness. And yes, righteousness never came by the law (I certainly never said it did) because if it did, Jews would not have had to sacrifice animals for sins. The law was designed to show man his inability to keep it and his need for a Saviour. The sacrificial system practiced by Jews in the Old Testament to atone for sins was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.>> From 11-APR 07:09 <<The book of Hebrews was addressed to Hebrews and spoke to the transition from the Old Covenant (attempted righteousness by law keeping, the sacrificial system and 600+ laws in the Torah) to the New Covenant (righteousness by believing in Jesus Christ, the Messiah prophesied about in the Old Testament.)>> The word “attempted” is key there. Did you miss it in your rush to disagree with me? I assumed you were lying in both instances because you so often say you use precise words. I didn’t “confound the Persons” and didn’t claim Grace had not always been at the core of God’s dealing with humans. If you weren’t lying, why don’t you pay better attention to what people say? Another of your lies is that I base my interpretation of the Bible on my “gut instinct” when I’ve repeatedly said I rely on guidance from God’s Holy Spirit, discernment and common sense. Do you really want me to go through your posts and identify more of your lies? Are you happy you got me to waste more time responding to your imbecility? |
||||||
| |||||||
