When is the Tribulation period?

[3 Resurrections]

He said to me, I'll not be moved without overwhelming biblical evidence, while he himself used extra biblical information to support his 70 A.D. theory~and theory it is, for it is impossible for any godly student, or, godly seeker of the truth, to even come up with 70 A. D. as being important in bible prophecy, impossible....without hearing this from outside sources, or from men who did not see the truth, but sought ways of understanding such scriptures as Matthew 24, etc. from books like Josephus' Wars of the Jews ~ and from there, piece together a system that sound reasonable to them, and went with it.

This man is a subject that inwardly makes me cringe from evil memories that I would just as soon not have occupying my brain space. But Red, you cannot honestly decry his use of extra-biblical sources that support what the scripture says, when you yourself just gave quite an exhibition of the same thing with duplicating the Tony Warren material. You are using Tony Warren for extra-biblical support, just the same as Josephus, the son of the high priest Matthias is considered an extra-biblical resource.

My current views on eschatology come from the time-relevant language of Scripture itself which predicted a first-century fulfillment, even for this "Great Tribulation" period. If what Josephus wrote agreed with that time-relevant language predicting first-century events, I can utilize this. Wherever Josephus's written work does not support scripture content, I discard it as being in error. Josephus is not my yardstick; the scripture is.

 

[Josheb]

......there are only two generations of people living in this world, a generation of serpents and a chosen generation, children of the Living God.

So much for reading scripture as written.

More later on this.

Save yourself the time and effort unless you think others may be interested. Based on what I have read so far, I am not. Appreciate the time you did spend, though.

 

[TMSO]

Or-----Satan is the antiChrist and the antichrists are those who follow him. As far as I am concerned we see this clearly in Revelation when we bring John's reference to antichrists in other scriptures to bear on it. The whole Bible in fact, as well as empirical evidence. There is no superior antiChrist than that serpent of old, the devil. In Revelation we see him mimicking God as a false holy trinity---and as such he works his deeds through men to gather to himself worshipers and followers. Mimicking the work of Christ ( by a death and apparent resurrection) and spreading his deceits and wickedness and abominations through the mouths and deeds of fallen man, mimicking God spreading the gospel of truth gathering His sheep, through the mouths and deeds of His own via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them.

My belief is that Satan will be in the antichrist, in a mock resurrection to mock what Christ had done. Satan doesn't have the power of resurrection, but actual possession to the appearance of a resurrection would not be outside of his ability. He just needs the world to believe it, and he will deceive many into following him to their death at Jerusalem.

 

[TMSO]

Scripture proves otherwise.

Ironic.

The qualifier "for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short," is NOT the cause of survival. It is the cause of the tribulation's cessation. So I find you contradict yourself because with one sentence there is the claim to read the text literally when the account of the flood clearly indicates a more severe tribulation in which only eight literally survived and in another sentence the qualifier limiting the duration of the tribulation is not read literally but twisted to say it is causal to the survival of the tribulation and it is terminated so that more than eight will survive.

Cut short so that only eight survive.
Cut short so that more than eight survive.

Not only is the latter objectively a less severe tribulation but you are not practicing your own standards of interpretation.

This is false equivalence, and to borrow your terminology, it is not only getting long in the tooth, it is also a really lame attempt, considering the Bible NEVER says the flood was a tribulation, but destruction... death... judgement... If the flood was tribulation, then so was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, since Peter linked them together. NO ONE survived the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, except Lot and family. I believe that was FOUR people. Him, his wife, and his daughters. Were they saved to make this a tribulation? No, they were saved because of who they were. Not a part of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham's relatives. There were NONE righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah, who were of Sodom and Gomorrah, so God was justified in destroying them, given Abraham's questions of God. This is how I see the Bible connected. If God had not saved Noah and His family, then what of the prophecy God gave to Eve? One of her seed would save the world. If all humanity died in the flood, there would be no one left to fulfill that prophecy.

False equivalence. Really lame attempt.

It is not. The trinity is a belief that is part of theology. The great tribulation is a belief that is part of eschatology. They are on the same level, therefore they can be compared. The trinity is not mentioned once in all of scripture. Not once. The great tribulation is mentioned at least once, and a great tribulation is also mentioned in scripture. The burden of proof is on you to explain why we should accept the trinity, which has no explicit mention in scripture, but not accept the great tribulation, which is mentioned in scripture. My belief is that by the time Paul and the apostles were writing, the concept of the trinity had already been accepted by the church, so there was no need to teach it in the epistles. It is mentioned implicitly throughout scripture, without any expounding on what it means. (That is what I use to support my belief/opinion.) The religious leaders also reacted vehemently when Jesus made Himself one with the Father, which further pushes that even Jesus was pointing towards a Godhead, and not simply a 1 person being named God. One being made up of three coexisting/coeternal persons. The great tribulation is not simply mentioned explicitly in scripture, but is detailed in Revelation, and is implicitly mentioned in other places. How did God cut the great tribulation short? The destruction of the beast and his image, and ALL who follow him at Jerusalem, at the return of Christ. It is the return of Christ that cuts the great tribulation short. Once all His enemies are destroyed (very quickly), there is no one left to cause death to befall the elect.

No, it is not, and that plies directly into conflict with your claim of literal reading.

Wow, cherry pick to make false accusations? When it comes to the trinity (which is where I said the line "everything is an interpretation"), everything is interpretation. There is no explicit mention of the trinity in the Bible, and there are those who say the Bible implicitly speaks of it, and those who put their fingers in their ear and say "No it doesn't". Since it isn't explicitly mentioned, it has to be interpretation. The Great Tribulation is actually mentioned, so you interpret it away. It isn't important because it is only mentioned once. It is a theme in the Old Testament of SEVERAL prophetic books. The eschatology I follows links the Old and New Testaments together, and everything else. It is not isolated. It concerns Old Testament prophecy, what Jesus said, what Paul said, what Peter said (as he was summarizing what Paul taught, as he says in his epistles), and it considers the vision John had at the end of Domitian's reign around 96 AD. (According to Irenaeus and Eusebius (who is better at translating then any of us.))

I believe it and I believe it exactly as written in light of whole scripture. You are the one failing to consider the context of whole scripture. The flood killed all flesh on the earth except for eight humans!!!!! At the end of the tribulation there is a multitude of believers on earth and the wolf, lamb, calf, leopard, and lion all live together in peace. There is plenty of flesh on the earth.

I will add a comment of references for the flood (so I don't overload this comment), and add how I consider the whole context of scripture.

ROTFLMBO!!!

That is exactly what it means. God shortening the tribulation IS the change in its greatness.

It doesn't. Jesus never said there would be a simple tribulation, but a tribulation that is so great that if God didn't shorten it, there would be no one saved.

Yep. And unless your eschatology claims there will be less than seven people and no other flesh on the earth then it is not a tribulation worse than Noah's flood. God, in His mercy, shortened the tribulation so that it would less severe than the flood, and He did so for the sake of the elect (of which there will be more than eight ).

Debunked earlier in comment.

False analogy.

If there are three fires in the same building...

It has already been determined that the Flood was NOT tribulation, but judgement. Try and tell God that what He did was a slap on the hand, and not a death sentence. That people just happened to die, and Noah was put in the ark "just in case".

The word "tribulation" means "a time or state of trouble or suffering."

Yes. Not a time or state of dying. Not a death sentence. (Again, in another comment I will bring up references.)

Thank you for your time. That statement is utter nonsense, and it is impossible to discuss anything with those who imagine that statement is rational.

You're welcome. I mean, after all you accused John MacArthur of being a false teacher, and misleading everyone, without providing any form of evidence. Why? The only thing I could think of is you may be afraid that someone disproves your argument against. Or you don't have an argument against, so you just dismiss it.

That's novel. I am usually accused of being so assured of my position I am arrogant and condescending. Ad hominem and appeal to incredulity noted. Thank you for your time.

Ad hominem? Really? You laughed at what I said, cried false equivalence when it wasn't, ignored other points, craftily edited my quotes to make it seem I meant something that I did not so you could attack me for it. (Very underhanded, and I'm sure you will deny it.) I didn't really care until I read this.

The facts of scripture are...

• God was Israel's King and He remains so.
• God never wanted Israel to have an earthly king.
• God never wanted Solomon to build Him a temple of stone built by human hands in which God does not dwell.
• God did build His own temple.
• God used the disobedience of Israel for His purposes, including the monarchy and the temple of stone and His doing so did not change the fact He expressly stated He never wanted the either.
• There is not a single verse in the entire Bible explicitly stating another temple of stone will be built.
• There are verses explicitly stating Jesus and his body of believers are the temple of God in which God does dwell.
• Jewish theology was often wrong.
• The errors in Jewish theology often caused error in their practice.
• Asserting the good parts of Jewish theology into Christianity is a good thing, asserting the errors in Jewish theology into Christianity is a bad thing.
• The flood was a state of trouble and suffering, and it was a state of trouble and suffering so severe that the entire world's population, animal and human, died a slow torturous death of fear, impotence, hypothermia and asphyxiation.
• The tribulation is said to occur in "this generation," not "that generation," and the near demonstrative conjugation prohibits a futurist reading of the phrase, and none of the fourteen uses of the phrase in the gospels is about some population 2000+ years later.

Those are the facts of scripture and not a single one of them has been proven incorrect. I can and have provided scripture explicitly stating these things (and I do so with confidence and certainty ). I do not need to "interpret" any of them. They can be read, accepted, and believed exactly as written and I encourage everyone to do exactly that.

You provided scripture, however it doesn't line up with the context of scripture.

 

[TMSO]

The preachers I have heard on this are specifically speaking of Heb 9 and saying that there has to be a 2nd 'crucifixion' of Christ for Dan 9 to be true, to be an actual atonement (they can't atone for themselves; there is no two programs in the Bible).

There is one program with many parts. (Why would you say two programs or more? There has always been only one program.) You have Adam and Eve in the garden receiving God's promise of a savior of Eve's seed. You have life before the flood, which is completely different than life after the flood. The flood changes everything. Then Abraham and God's promises to Abraham. Then you have Moses at Sinai where God's promises to Abraham come into focus with the giving of the law, and God officially making Israel His people. Then Israel is a Theocracy until Israel rejects God's rule and demands a king like all the other nations. Prior to this and after, Israel faces God's chastisement in the form of tribulation. At the beginning, when Israel cried out to God for reprieve and salvation, God sent judges. After, God worked through the kings, prophets, and other people God chose to use. (Jehu for instance). At the end of the time of the kings, God put Judah into exile (as Israel had already been destroyed.) Various things happened after, both good and bad. (More tribulation, more support from God). Then came the Messiah, of Eve's seed as promised by God. He was not of Adam's seed, for He had no earthly father. He would be the New Adam, the second Adam.

By Adam we were born into sin and death, as scripture says that by one man sin entered the world, and with sin, death. We are bound to that sin as Adam's progeny. This new Adam, Jesus, came to save His people Israel, as He said to the Cushite woman. He said that He came for the lost of the house of Israel. He was to be the savior of His people. He didn't come for the Gentiles (at this time. Remember, scripture is not a bunch of isolated books and ideas, but a running context.) As Paul says in Romans, salvation came to the Gentiles by the rejection of the Jews. The Jews were God's chosen people, who were "obedient" in that they carried the oracles of God, they had the truth. (Whether they lived it or not is not what is important to what Paul was saying.) Jesus came, who was the ultimate fulfillment of all the Law. He was the next step from Judaism and being bound to the Law, to reconciliation with God, and being freed from the fetters of the Law.

The Israelites became disobedient (in Paul's narrative) and rejected their Messiah. However, by their disobedient rejection of Christ, the gospel of Christ came to the disobedient Gentiles. These Gentiles (spoken in general terms, obviously) were obedient and accepted the gospel of Christ where the Jews (again, generally) had rejected in disobedience. However, the Jews never (according to the Old Testament, and the New Testament) ceased to be the chosen people of God. Paul's point in Romans is to say that by the disobedience of the Jews, the Gentiles were saved, and by the obedience of the Gentiles, so all Israel will be saved. God has bound up all in disobedience, so that He may show mercy to all. Paul says that he teaches in such a way, in his hope, as to stir up jealousy in the Jewish people, that God accepted the Gentiles after they had rejected. After all, it is the Jews who were/are the chosen people of God.

Right now is the time of the Gentiles, which is not a separate program, it is another part. At the end, everything will come full circle, and God will deal with the Nation of Israel. The remnant that remains, His elect within the Nation of Israel, will be those who see the return of their Messiah. Their salvation is not any different from Paul's. They will be saved at His return:

Zechariah 12:
"10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of [c]Megiddo. 12 And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves."

Zechariah: 13:
“In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.

2 “It shall be in that day,” says the Lord of hosts, “that I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, and they shall no longer be remembered. I will also cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to depart from the land."

There is no early church (NT documents) that connect a "break" to the times of the Gentiles. This is why we read twice from Paul that the whole world has heard the Gospel in his generation, a challenge for relative hermeneutics.

So who preached to those in North and South America?

The ultimatums in Luke-Acts about Israel are sufficient to make me think there is nothing else to do with the nation-race. And then there is Paul citing the final wrath of God on Israel (the race-nation) already in a Thess text.

Don't ignore Old Testament prophecy that declares the ultimate salvation of Jerusalem and Israel. (Obviously it will be the remnant, God's elect.)

 

[TMSO]

Sir, what in the world are you speaking about?

Jesus was clear in His statement, and you claim that He is not. You speak in His place to tell us what Jesus meant to say. I keep going over what He said, and you say that isn't what He meant. Since Jesus is God, and you are not, a man explaining what God actually meant would be mansplaining.

I'm not going to waste very much time with a person like you, who makes very little scriptural sense.

? No, John was not literally Elijah, he was John the Baptist, yet as the scriptures said, and I quoted, John came in the power and spirit of Elijah!

John literally fulfilled the role of Elijah, correct? So a figurative understand of the task that John fulfilled literally. (He actually did "make straight the paths of the Lord", and straightened the crooked paths. He pointed directly to Christ.) His message was no weaker than that of Elijah. He faced opposition just like Elijah. Again, you said it above "spirit of Elijah". That is, he fulfilled the same role.

Again, you do not make very much sense~John coming in the power and spirit of Elijah, has not one thing to do with Jesus fulfilling scriptures.

It has much to do with that. If John had not come in the power and spirit of Elijah (figuratively speaking of fulfilling the role of Elijah), then Jesus is not the Messiah, so fulfilling the scriptures means nothing. Gods word is perfect. If it fails at any point, it isn't God's word. If John did not fulfill the scriptures of being the one who prepared the way for Jesus, then Jesus isn't Jesus. We are still waiting for the John and Jesus prophesied in scripture. (Context means everything. Jesus did not exist in a vacuum completely segregated from the rest of scripture. I mean, even his disciples were prophesied of. (Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter, fulfilled when the disciples ran at the arrest of Christ.) Even Judas was prophesied in the Old Testament, and rather literally, right down to 30 pieces of silver, and the Potter's field. Scripture is not to be taken in isolation.

The way you and some I have seen approach God's word leaves very few with the ability to rightly divide the word of God.

Really? We have an example from Jesus Himself how to understand spiritual truth, because that was what parables were. He explained some of the parables to the disciples in depth. When you look at his explanation next to the actual story, they run parallel. There is no difference between the flow and understanding of the story, next to the flow and understand of the spiritual truth hidden within the story. There is nothing hidden that differs from the story. For instance, the story of the soils. There is a sower, there are some birds, there are some thorn bushes, there are rocks, there is the son, there is a dirt road that runs through, and then there is perfect sublime soil, perfect for growing crops. Jesus then explains how the sower throws the seed out and it lands on these four different locations: the dirt road, rocky soil, soil amidst thorn bushes, and on the good soil. He then explains what happens with those seeds. Was Jesus teaching farming? No.

Jesus then explained the meaning of the parable, and the flow never changes. All He does is explain all the symbology. The sower could be understood as the one preaching the word of God. The dirt path are those whose hearts are so hard that the word of God never penetrates their heart, never reaches their understanding. The birds are the devil who snatches away this word before it can ever penetrate. (Hmmm... exactly what happens with farming, if we go back to it being actual seed, actual dirt road, and actual birds. Jesus did not add anything.) The rocky soil are those who hear the words and receive it with joy, however it never takes root in the heart, and withers away under tribulation, hard times, etc. Just like the actual story where the seed grows up quickly, but since it has no root the sun causes it to wither away. The thorny soil, the plants grow but the worries of the world choke out the word so it is unfruitful. Just like in actual farming where the plants are choked off and die by the thorny vines. Finally, the good soil. The believer who takes in God's word, and spreads God word become fruitful in small, medium and large ways. ten fold, hundred fold, a thousand fold. The same of plants in good soil that produce seed in varying number. The original version and Jesus explanation run parallel.

The interpretation of scripture should not vary that much from what scripture says. However, your handling changes the meaning of what Jesus said, in ways that do not support the context. Note how (if you read it yourself) Jesus explanation of the parable of the sower gives the meaning of the story, but does no damage to the story itself. He doesn't have to stretch the narrative of the sower and soils to fit the spiritual truth he was conveying. Hence, any person listening would completely miss the spiritual meaning, because it is perfectly intertwined with the actual story.

 

[Red Baker]

So much for reading scripture as written.

Save yourself the time and effort unless you think others may be interested. Based on what I have read so far, I am not. Appreciate the time you did spend, though.

No attempt to at least prove to me, as to why you came back with~"So much for reading scripture as written."?
We do read scriptures as they are written, and then we give them their proper God given sense, or else, we, nor those to whom we are teachings can understand what they are reading, or hearing.

If folks only read scriptures as they are written, then the professors at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, can understand them better than any ordinary Christian, who are for the most part common, uneducated folks, fishermen, carpenters if you will, things that are nought of this world.

Josheb, we follow men of God of old, and you would be wise to do the same, regardless, even if other believers think you are wrong in your understanding/application.

Nehemiah 8:8~"So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."

When teaching on John 3:16 and telling folks how the word world means all without distinction, not all without exception providing them with scriptural proof with several scriptures, many just ignore what we say and come back with~"So much for reading scripture as written."

Brother, you got to do better than that. Show yourself to be wise by being a noble Christian and search the scriptures and test all spirits and then earnestly contend for the faith~I have no problem folk searching the scriptures to see if what I say is true or not, but I do have a problem with believers, who will not prove me wrong and still condemn me, that's unchristian.

Acts 17:11,12~"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."

The Lord bless you in your search for truth, what truth you do have use you to spread it to others.

 

[Red Baker]

Jesus was clear in His statement, and you claim that He is not. You speak in His place to tell us what Jesus meant to say. I keep going over what He said, and you say that isn't what He meant. Since Jesus is God, and you are not, a man explaining what God actually meant would be mansplaining.

John literally fulfilled the role of Elijah, correct? So a figurative understand of the task that John fulfilled literally. (He actually did "make straight the paths of the Lord", and straightened the crooked paths. He pointed directly to Christ.) His message was no weaker than that of Elijah. He faced opposition just like Elijah. Again, you said it above "spirit of Elijah". That is, he fulfilled the same role.

It has much to do with that. If John had not come in the power and spirit of Elijah (figuratively speaking of fulfilling the role of Elijah), then Jesus is not the Messiah, so fulfilling the scriptures means nothing. Gods word is perfect. If it fails at any point, it isn't God's word. If John did not fulfill the scriptures of being the one who prepared the way for Jesus, then Jesus isn't Jesus. We are still waiting for the John and Jesus prophesied in scripture. (Context means everything. Jesus did not exist in a vacuum completely segregated from the rest of scripture. I mean, even his disciples were prophesied of. (Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter, fulfilled when the disciples ran at the arrest of Christ.) Even Judas was prophesied in the Old Testament, and rather literally, right down to 30 pieces of silver, and the Potter's field. Scripture is not to be taken in isolation.

Really? We have an example from Jesus Himself how to understand spiritual truth, because that was what parables were. He explained some of the parables to the disciples in depth. When you look at his explanation next to the actual story, they run parallel. There is no difference between the flow and understanding of the story, next to the flow and understand of the spiritual truth hidden within the story. There is nothing hidden that differs from the story. For instance, the story of the soils. There is a sower, there are some birds, there are some thorn bushes, there are rocks, there is the son, there is a dirt road that runs through, and then there is perfect sublime soil, perfect for growing crops. Jesus then explains how the sower throws the seed out and it lands on these four different locations: the dirt road, rocky soil, soil amidst thorn bushes, and on the good soil. He then explains what happens with those seeds. Was Jesus teaching farming? No.

Jesus then explained the meaning of the parable, and the flow never changes. All He does is explain all the symbology. The sower could be understood as the one preaching the word of God. The dirt path are those whose hearts are so hard that the word of God never penetrates their heart, never reaches their understanding. The birds are the devil who snatches away this word before it can ever penetrate. (Hmmm... exactly what happens with farming, if we go back to it being actual seed, actual dirt road, and actual birds. Jesus did not add anything.) The rocky soil are those who hear the words and receive it with joy, however it never takes root in the heart, and withers away under tribulation, hard times, etc. Just like the actual story where the seed grows up quickly, but since it has no root the sun causes it to wither away. The thorny soil, the plants grow but the worries of the world choke out the word so it is unfruitful. Just like in actual farming where the plants are choked off and die by the thorny vines. Finally, the good soil. The believer who takes in God's word, and spreads God word become fruitful in small, medium and large ways. ten fold, hundred fold, a thousand fold. The same of plants in good soil that produce seed in varying number. The original version and Jesus explanation run parallel.

The interpretation of scripture should not vary that much from what scripture says. However, your handling changes the meaning of what Jesus said, in ways that do not support the context. Note how (if you read it yourself) Jesus explanation of the parable of the sower gives the meaning of the story, but does no damage to the story itself. He doesn't have to stretch the narrative of the sower and soils to fit the spiritual truth he was conveying. Hence, any person listening would completely miss the spiritual meaning, because it is perfectly intertwined with the actual story.

TMSO~I will admit you did much better this time around explaining yourself than the first time.

 

[Red Baker]

Don't ignore Old Testament prophecy that declares the ultimate salvation of Jerusalem and Israel. (Obviously it will be the remnant, God's elect.)

Start another thread on this subject, I will come and discuss this with you, There are no promises to the fleshly seed of Abraham left yet to be fulfilled. Salvation does not run through the bloodline, but salvation from sin and condemnation is by grace alone, based upon God's oath and promises to the seed of Jesus Christ, not to the seed of Abraham.

 

[TMSO]

TMSO~I will admit you did much better this time around explaining yourself than the first time.

So hopefully you understand the issue I have with spiritualizing scripture to the point that it doesn't fit in the context anymore. Either its own context, or the context of all of scripture. Some things said here ignore the prophecies in the Old Testament, so actually ignore the whole context of scripture.
Consider eschatology:
Premillennialism (of which chilianism was a form) is the first eschatological belief that came out of the early church, along with an anti-millennial belief (as differs from amillennialism.) They believed Jesus would not physically return to earth, so no physical kingdom. No millennium. Jesus will not physically return to Earth because Jesus never physically came to Earth in the first place. It was spiritual, since flesh is evil. So Jesus did not physically die on the cross. (You may recognize this heresy.) So the logical conclusion is an anti-millennial eschatology, with no physical return of Christ to Earth. That was rather quickly put down as heresy. Amillennialism came from St Augustine, and preterism came from the Jesuits during the counter-reformation. Preterism didn't enter the protestant realm for some time. The author of one of the first protestant books on preterism recanted. In the US, preterism did not gain acceptance and become mainstream until around the 1970s. Dispensational Premillennialism is NOT an original premillennial view. It is also not the first to talk about a rapture, as that was around the 6th century (ball park), I believe. However, at that time it was a rapture 3 1/2 years before the end, so mid-trib. Another mention of the rapture was around the 14th century with Brother Dolcimo, who taught that his followers would be raptured before the tribulation. (I would venture to guess that he led a cult. The point being, the rapture is not some recent incarnation, but has been around for over a millennia in the church as at least an idea, or something that had been discussed in some way.)

So, consider that in your arguments. It was centuries before anyone ever considered that Revelation wasn't written in 90 AD.

 

[TMSO]

Start another thread on this subject, I will come and discuss this with you, There are no promises to the fleshly seed of Abraham left yet to be fulfilled. Salvation does not run through the bloodline, but salvation from sin and condemnation is by grace alone, based upon God's oath and promises to the seed of Jesus Christ, not to the seed of Abraham.

The thing you don't understand is this. There is one program of redemption, but it has many parts. Hence the "war" between dispensational and covenant theologies which both divide time into seven different parts. Salvation came to the world through the Jews. If Israel is destroyed, than Satan wins. That would mean God lied when He said that salvation would come from the Jews. Hence why Revelation, Zechariah, and other prophecies talk about attacks on Jerusalem, and final victory of Israel over the world through the Messiah, who is Israel's chosen one. However, as Paul said, through the ultimate rejection by Israel of Jesus, so the gospel and salvation came to the Gentiles. And Paul says that by the obedience of the gentiles, so Israel will find salvation from their "disobedience". For God has locked up all in disobedience, so He might show mercy to all. In Paul's telling, Israel did not start in disobedience as the chosen people of God, who "had God". The Gentiles, however, were in disobedience. Israel became disobedient in Romans when they rejected their Messiah. So the gospel came to the Gentiles, who became obedient through the acceptance of Christ as Savior/Messiah. In Paul's writings, everything will go first circle, and through the obedience of the Gentiles, Israel will come to obedience and salvation through the mercy of God.

I write this (and I consider it kind of short), because I don't have the time or energy to handle a whole specific thread. The promises found in Zechariah have not yet been fulfilled. When Jesus comes down, and they look upon Him and recognize Him whom they have pierced, and God open up streams of repentance in Israel, and they all mourn for Him. It is almost like how God saved Paul. In person.

 

[Red Baker]

So hopefully you understand the issue I have with spiritualizing scripture to the point that it doesn't fit in the context anymore.

TMCO,

I didn't say I agree with your understanding, only you did a much better job of presenting what you believe is truth on subject which was under consideration.

I'll leave it there for now.

 

[Josheb]

This is false equivalence, and to borrow your terminology, it is not only getting long in the tooth, it is also a really lame attempt....

Thank you for your time.

Having addressed every single word of protest in Post 244 and seeing no reason to repost already posted content I'll move on.

 

[Josheb]

No attempt to at least prove to me, as to why you came back with~"So much for reading scripture as written."?

There is no need. Anyone and everyone with a Bible can read the scripture and compare it to what you posted and see the two do not state the same thing.

We do read scriptures as they are written, and then we give them their proper God given sense, or else, we, nor those to whom we are teachings can understand what they are reading, or hearing.

I appreciate you posting that because it proves the scriptures are not read as written and not read that way intentionally. No, "we" do not give the scripture anything. No, "we" do not hide behind "proper God given sense" as if God did not state what He stated but intended something else. You might do that but reading scripture as written with the normal meaning of the words in everyday usage (unless there is some reason stated in the text not to do so) is the exact opposite of what you just described.

This has always been the problem within modern futurism. The claim to read scripture is asserted and then immediately contradicted with the additional giving sense to the words.

....or else, we, nor those to whom we are teachings can understand what they are reading, or hearing.

The Bible was written to illiterate people, none of whom had Bibles or copies of the scriptures. Jesus was speaking to disciples who did not have their own personal copies of the Tanakh. Those disciples wrote their gospels to people who did not have their own Tanakhs, and most of whom could not read. The same is true of the epistles and the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation is a revealing! It reveals to its original readers things they were to know and understand using language, figures of speech, and symbolic imagery with which they were familiar so they would understand what they were hearing when the book was read - and most of the book had already happened because what John wrote down was things he'd already seen, and things that existed at the time he wrote the book.

Revelation 1:19
Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

Most of the book is not about the future.

We do read scriptures as they are written...

No, you do not because if you did read scripture as written then the next sentence would never occur...

...and then we give them their proper God given sense,

Revelation 22:10-11
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."


Stop hanging out with the "we" who thinks adding to Revelation is good and teachable practice.

 

[Musician]

There is no need. Anyone and everyone with a Bible can read the scripture and compare it to what you posted and see the two do not state the same thing.

I appreciate you posting that because it proves the scriptures are not read as written and not read that way intentionally. No, "we" do not give the scripture anything. No, "we" do not hide behind "proper God given sense" as if God did not state what He stated but intended something else. You might do that but reading scripture as written with the normal meaning of the words in everyday usage (unless there is some reason stated in the text not to do so) is the exact opposite of what you just described.

This has always been the problem within modern futurism. The claim to read scripture is asserted and then immediately contradicted with the additional giving sense to the words.

Scriptures that are thousands of years old were not only transcribed by men, but also done from a long obsolete language, then interpreted by English speaking Biblical Scholars. Not every secret of mankind, and every answer will be found in the Bible. It's going to be a wait and see ordeal and I think it's very fair to draw your own conclusions as to how you think things will play out. As long as your heart is right with God, it doesn't really matter how one interprets anything.

One only needs to live by the basics, a fundamentalist belief isn't required to be saved.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is one program with many parts. (Why would you say two programs or more? There has always been only one program.) You have Adam and Eve in the garden receiving God's promise of a savior of Eve's seed. You have life before the flood, which is completely different than life after the flood. The flood changes everything. Then Abraham and God's promises to Abraham. Then you have Moses at Sinai where God's promises to Abraham come into focus with the giving of the law, and God officially making Israel His people. Then Israel is a Theocracy until Israel rejects God's rule and demands a king like all the other nations. Prior to this and after, Israel faces God's chastisement in the form of tribulation. At the beginning, when Israel cried out to God for reprieve and salvation, God sent judges. After, God worked through the kings, prophets, and other people God chose to use. (Jehu for instance). At the end of the time of the kings, God put Judah into exile (as Israel had already been destroyed.) Various things happened after, both good and bad. (More tribulation, more support from God). Then came the Messiah, of Eve's seed as promised by God. He was not of Adam's seed, for He had no earthly father. He would be the New Adam, the second Adam.

By Adam we were born into sin and death, as scripture says that by one man sin entered the world, and with sin, death. We are bound to that sin as Adam's progeny. This new Adam, Jesus, came to save His people Israel, as He said to the Cushite woman. He said that He came for the lost of the house of Israel. He was to be the savior of His people. He didn't come for the Gentiles (at this time. Remember, scripture is not a bunch of isolated books and ideas, but a running context.) As Paul says in Romans, salvation came to the Gentiles by the rejection of the Jews. The Jews were God's chosen people, who were "obedient" in that they carried the oracles of God, they had the truth. (Whether they lived it or not is not what is important to what Paul was saying.) Jesus came, who was the ultimate fulfillment of all the Law. He was the next step from Judaism and being bound to the Law, to reconciliation with God, and being freed from the fetters of the Law.

The Israelites became disobedient (in Paul's narrative) and rejected their Messiah. However, by their disobedient rejection of Christ, the gospel of Christ came to the disobedient Gentiles. These Gentiles (spoken in general terms, obviously) were obedient and accepted the gospel of Christ where the Jews (again, generally) had rejected in disobedience. However, the Jews never (according to the Old Testament, and the New Testament) ceased to be the chosen people of God. Paul's point in Romans is to say that by the disobedience of the Jews, the Gentiles were saved, and by the obedience of the Gentiles, so all Israel will be saved. God has bound up all in disobedience, so that He may show mercy to all. Paul says that he teaches in such a way, in his hope, as to stir up jealousy in the Jewish people, that God accepted the Gentiles after they had rejected. After all, it is the Jews who were/are the chosen people of God.

Right now is the time of the Gentiles, which is not a separate program, it is another part. At the end, everything will come full circle, and God will deal with the Nation of Israel. The remnant that remains, His elect within the Nation of Israel, will be those who see the return of their Messiah. Their salvation is not any different from Paul's. They will be saved at His return:

Zechariah 12:
"10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of [c]Megiddo. 12 And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves."

Zechariah: 13:
“In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.

2 “It shall be in that day,” says the Lord of hosts, “that I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, and they shall no longer be remembered. I will also cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to depart from the land."


So who preached to those in North and South America?

Don't ignore Old Testament prophecy that declares the ultimate salvation of Jerusalem and Israel. (Obviously it will be the remnant, God's elect.)

The foundational concept of D'ism is that there is Israel distinct from the church. You have to have their master-teachers explain to you how to bounce back and forth.

re Americas: that's why I said the lines Paul gave were a challenge about relative meaning. He obviously meant the world that he knew, essentially Roman.

You can't read OT prophecy as though the official interp of the NT did not exist. It does not provide a future for Jerusalem and Israel; it refers to the one above. It does not have 2 inconsistent programs; even very good Bible teachers have been forced to say there will be another atonement of Christ in order to save the 2 programs, Israel and Christians! How ridiculous can you get? Some even say Christ gets pierced all over again, crucified all over again.

The day of the fountain that cleanses is the Gospel.

 

[TMSO]

TMCO,

I didn't say I agree with your understanding, only you did a much better job of presenting what you believe is truth on subject which was under consideration.

I'll leave it there for now.

Just remember, the atrocities done to the Jews came from the spiritualization of scripture. The torture of the Jews throughout history was justified using scripture. Consider that when considering your traditions. (Traditions as in how scripture is interpreted and understood.) If you understand the history of the early church and the relationship with the Jews, you may understand why some were questioning eschatology that suggested a special place for the Jews.

 

[TMSO]

Thank you for your time.

Having addressed every single word of protest in Post 244 and seeing no reason to repost already posted content I'll move on.

I forgot something first. Bible references. (Finding time to remember is difficult.)

Genesis 6: "13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of [j]humanity has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of [k]people; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth." (Whenever God sent tribulation upon Israel, He always said tribulation was coming. When He planned to destroy Israel, He was clear that it was not tribulation but destruction. He spoke of tribulation as chastisement. He told Israel that he chastised them over and over, and they did not change, so now, destruction comes upon them.

" 17 Now behold, I Myself am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which there is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you."
This is never how God spoke of tribulation. Here God clearly speaks of the intention of the flood. The death of all things. And it was not slow. It was fast. It was not asphyxiation, it was drowning, it was being crushed. Ever wonder why they find fossils with creatures in the middle of lunch? It was fast. It was a cataclysm. God had no intention to allow any human to turn their eyes to Him for salvation. This was not tribulation. This was not chastisement. This was death. This was carrying out the sentence of God's judgement. There were no innocents. There were no elect. There were those to die in the flood, and there was Noah on a cruise, with a new covenant from God. No one else. Just Noah and his family.

Genesis 9 "8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 “Now behold, I Myself am establishing My covenant with you, and with your [f]descendants after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the livestock, and every animal of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, every animal of the earth. 11 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be eliminated by the waters of a flood, nor shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.”" Since the tribulation Jesus spoke of is said to destroy the earth, then it is false equivalence and Bible breaking to say what you have said. And God didn't say "I will never send such tribulation again", and in fact, never said "tribulation". Nor did any future writer.

I Peter 3 "9 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, [g]when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

So are we baptized because we are in tribulation? Is that why we come to Christ? Are we escaping tribulation, or are we escaping death? They aren't the same thing. You see, tribulation can cause death, however tribulation is not a cause of death, but what happens in tribulation. The flood was the cause of death. No time of troubling or suffering, just drowning, or being crushed under the weight of the water. (And that isn't even talking about all the volcanic activity from the fountains of the deep being torn open.) It was a cataclysm.

II Peter 2 "4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to [b]hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment"

So, was Sodom and Gomorrah a tribulation, or God's reserved judgement upon them? It clearly states that they were condemned to destruction. And this is compared to the flood as being the same. Also notice that even with all those verses, not once is it called a tribulation. Not even in Matthew 24.

"38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what [g]hour your Lord is coming."

What are these people Jesus mentions? The ones taken away are going to judgement. And this is what Jesus chooses to compare the flood to, which is in perfect alignment with II Peter 2. He does not compare it to tribulation, even though He had just talked about tribulation. Why not? Why didn't He say that there was never a tribulation like this one, oh, I forgot about that flood thing, but I think you get it. I mean, He mentions the flood a little later. But again, He still does not refer it to tribulation, but a flood for judgement. (As Peter does in II Peter 2.

The purpose of the Great Tribulation is not the death of all life on Earth. That is the result of its length. The purpose of the tribulation is to turn the eyes of His people to God, for them to come to Him. It is for salvation. It is chastisement. Those of the devil will refuse to repent, while God's elect will come to Him. Those of the devil will seek and destroy God's elect. Since God ultimately destroys those who refuse to repent, that is a lot of death. Since they are hunting down the elect to kill them, if God holds off from stopping them, then all the elect would also die. Hence, no flesh left. However, God shortened the days for the sake of His elect. If you have an issue understanding what tribulation is in the Bible, I highly recommend you read the Old Testament, as that word is actually used, and God explains exactly what it is.

 

[TMSO]

The foundational concept of D'ism is that there is Israel distinct from the church. You have to have their master-teachers explain to you how to bounce back and forth.

Israel IS distinct from the church. However, Israel does not directly equate to individual Jews. It is the collective. To understand what Paul was saying is that Israel was obedient (it is for his comparison, since they were God's people, and had God's law), but when the fulfillment of the Law had come, their Messiah, they became disobedient and rejected Him and the gospel. Due to their disobedience, the gospel went out to the disobedient Gentiles (who did not know/have God). (again, this use of Gentiles does not equate to individuals) They accepted the message and thus became obedient (again in general, not in whole). Paul is saying that everything will come full circle and through the obedience of the Gentiles, Israel will be saved. This is why Paul ends with saying that God has locked up all in disobedience, that God may have mercy on all. It is one program, but it has more than one part. (Covenant theology has seven, and dispensationalism also has seven. They are defined differently in each.) Zechariah tells us that Israel will not simply be saved by the snap of a finger, but that Jesus will come down, they will see Him (like Paul), and they will recognize Him and mourn. And God will open up rivers of repentance. The image being, all these who survived the tribulation, who survived all the death and destruction, will be saved personally by Jesus Himself, their Messiah.

re Americas: that's why I said the lines Paul gave were a challenge about relative meaning. He obviously meant the world that he knew, essentially Roman.

That is why we have what Jesus said: "9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will [f]fall away, and they will [g]betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will rise up and [h]mislead many people. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, [i]most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [j]world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." Seeing everything written in Daniel, other prophecies, and Revelation, Jesus knew there was more to the world. (I mean, besides Him being God.)

You can't read OT prophecy as though the official interp of the NT did not exist. It does not provide a future for Jerusalem and Israel; it refers to the one above. It does not have 2 inconsistent programs; even very good Bible teachers have been forced to say there will be another atonement of Christ in order to save the 2 programs, Israel and Christians! How ridiculous can you get? Some even say Christ gets pierced all over again, crucified all over again.

The day of the fountain that cleanses is the Gospel.

Official interpretation. Oh, you mean dispensational premillennialism. I already know that stuff. You deny the Old Testament with your understanding of the New Testament. God has a bone to pick with those who would touch "the apple of His eye". Again, there is only one program. It has the same end. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ. Zechariah shows the remnant of Israel repenting and believing in Jesus Christ. In fact, he mentions the crucifixion before it happens. How did Zechariah know the Messiah would be pierced? And that by the Jews themselves? Is that predictive enough for you? The very last verse says "the families that are left..." So, the remnant.

Zechariah 12 :
"The [a]burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: 2 “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of [b]drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. 3 And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it."

Does this speak of destruction? No:
"7 “The Lord will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall not become greater than that of Judah. 8 In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the Lord before them. 9 It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."
"10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn."
"14 all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves."

So is the reason that Jerusalem/Israel has no future in the Old Testament because Jesus saves them? Look at some key words: Me whom they have pierced, as one mourns for a son, as one grieves for a firstborn. Words used in scripture to describe Christ. Pierced, a Son, firstborn of all creation, first fruits of resurrection, etc.

 

[turbomaniac]

And what we can see here is how the Devil makes unclear the mind of human because human has the same pride that casted out Devil from heavens. Ah I see 5/10 people claiming they are good Christians having this kind of false dogma. Me I am not a good christian, I am lazy....