When is the Tribulation period?

[Red Baker]

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.

Josheb~that's a cop out. You are commanded by God to prove men are not following the scriptures, if you truly believe you have truth and God will support what you are teaching. You obviously do not, or, you feel your lack of ability to do so ~ natural ability is not lacking, I can testify to that by reading your posts, it has to be spiritual understanding, that you fear you may not have.

Revelation 2:2,3~"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

Josheb, it is our duty as profess children of God to tried men who say this, that, or the other, that is against the scriptures ~ so, your statement above is without scriptural merits. I'm not saying this to be your enemy, but as your brother in Christ, it is our duty to test/try, the spirits with the word of God, if what we believe and teach we truly believe God will be our helper in defending His word/testimony. I believe he will for me, do you? I surely do not trust in my natural ability, for I have very little of that, most men are much more qualified than I would consider myself to be.

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.

HIde behind proper sense given by God? That statement flies in the very face of God, since he did write scriptures, and Jesus did preach using many parables, highly symbolic words to hide truth, and even used plain everyday words known to all to mean one things, yet God had his truth hidden behind those very words that he chose to use. I could give many examples if you care to read them, which I seriously doubt you do, or would do so with an open mind searching for the truth as it is in Jesus Christ. Do you think Judah and Israel means only two separate tribes of the nation of Israel, northern and southern ? Or, can we prove that they are uses to describe Jews and Gentiles coming together as one holy nations, one spiritual body of believers? The two witnesses of Revelation eleven are not two individuals, but clearly they are Jews and Gentiles which makes up the elect body of Christ, his two witnesses in this earth~the two Olive branches, of Romans 11 and Zechariah 4, the two anointed ones. There are so many more that time would fail us to mention them. We do not hide behind anything, but as followers of men of God of old, preaching, teaching and rightly dividing the scriptures~which alone causes men to understand the truth, or, else it will be ever hidden from them.

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.

If you mean premillenism, then they for the most part only read scriptures in their literal sense in which they were given, and they seek no they sense.

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 -

I seriously doubt that they knew all of Revelations teachings~some among them may have had a overall understanding of some of its teachings since John and Paul did ~ God is more than capable of giving scriptures and making them overall to have hidden meaning to some other date in history, just as most all of the OT does that very thing.

1st Peter 1:10-12~"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

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.

So wrong, and it can be proven that you are wrong. Since you made this statement, then I ask you to prove what you are saying with scriptures. Revelation eleven of thirteen would be a great place to start~or even Revelation nine.

I'm waiting.....RB

 

[Mr GLee]

Red, that is a river of commentary, and it unfortunately ignores the one place where the angel defines for you what Mystery Babylon actually was in Revelation 17:18.

"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (which "kings of the earth" were the high priests of the land of Israel). This is not the world at large in this context. Only a single city. To go beyond this definition by the angel is to add to God's words and to change the meaning.

Revelation 18:24 also pins down the identity of "that great city". "And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." The apostles and prophets in heaven were going to rejoice over the death of this "great city" because God had then avenged their martyrdom at her hands by His destruction of that great city. This same charge of the blood guilt of the saints of God and the prophets was made by Christ against the city of Old Jerusalem in Matthew 23:34-37. That "great city" was where our Savior was crucified (Revelation 11:8), at Jerusalem.

You are complicating the simple.

The great city is the city of Christ named after its founder as husband Christ. Its residents called by the Father In the book of Acts . Christian. a word that literally means "residence of the city prepared for His bride" . The same bride In Isaiah 62 he promised a new name in in respect to all the nations of the world . Formally call her Israel until the renting of the veil .Christian a more befitting name to name the bride of all the nations of the world

Christian a word the father of lies hates He would have mankind make it into a derogatory word . Like mindless or bible thumpers. We must maintain the integrity of the word.

Isaiah 62King James Version For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

He obviously meant the world that he knew, essentially Roman
btw, this matches the belief all through the NT, that the end of the world was at hand.

 

[Josheb]

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.

That was an overwrought, excessively wordy way of explaining how the flood was in fact the worse thing that has ever happened in human history and qualifies as a tribulation - a state of great trouble and suffering - without the use of that label.

One more thing. The purpose of the flood was not the death of all life on earth. Its purpose was deliverance, sanctification and redemption.

1 Peter 3:18-22
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience —through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

The historical flood was a foreshadowing of the resurrection.


You use scripture selectively. Scripture is used selectively to justify an end times doctrine rather than basing doctrine on the whole of scripture. It is right here in your own posts for you to see. In the days of Noah those taken away by the flood were destroyed and it was the ones who remained that continued to live in a covenant relationship with God on a plane that had been washed clean of its sinners and consequently holding the prospect of renewal. The ones taken from the roofs and the fields are not being raptured. They are being taken away by the pending destruction and it is those who remain that will live in a covenant relationship with God..... exactly as it was in the days of Noah. The flood was a horrendous event where millions of people died a torturous death of hypothermia and asphyxiation (two of the most painful forms of death) and only eight people survived. In order for "the great tribulation" to literally be worse than the flood the tribulation will have to exceed those measures.

There is no reason to think only eight people will survive the great tribulation because seven churches are expected to survive.

Jesus was using the very common device of hyperbole.

Your efforts to disprove what I have posted have only resulted in you making the case for my position!

 

[Josheb]

Josheb~that's a cop out. You are commanded by God to prove men are not following the scriptures, if you truly believe you have truth and God will support what you are teaching.

Show me that command.

I have, in fact, done that but it was disputed or ignored. I'm not coping out; I am moving on from a fruitless conversation because of the refusal to read scripture as written. Big difference.

....it has to be spiritual understanding, that you fear you may not have.

Nice ad hominem.

Logical fallacies are not something the Holy Spirit inspires. They are always works of flesh. Therefore, when a person claims, or implies, they have spiritual understanding and evidence it with fallacy they contradict themselves.

 

[Red Baker]

Show me that command.

It is commandment by examples we see in the scriptures~I gave one from Revelation 2:2,3.

Titus 1:10,11~"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."

But the same apostle also said said to Titus:

Titus 3:9-11~"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

I have, in fact, done that but it was disputed or ignored

Really? You made no attempt, sir. But, I'm almost at the point of dropping this with you, since it is about to reach a place of being nothing more than dealing with a contentious spirit.

You use scripture selectively. Scripture is used selectively to justify an end times doctrine rather than basing doctrine on the whole of scripture.

You said this to TMSO~you need to practice what you teach to others. My teaching on this generation, is using all scriptures from both testaments.

There is no reason to think only eight people will survive the great tribulation because seven churches are expected to survive.

While I believe much more than eight people will survive the great tribulation period since that period is strictly dealing with the spiritual aspect of a tribulation, not destroying folks literally as in the days of Noah ~ yet, you using the seven churches in Asia as though that period of time was the predicted time of the great tribulation, only shows me you are yet far from the truth concerning Jesus' teachings of Matthew 24 and the related other scriptures from Daniel 7-12; Mark 13; and Luke 21, along with 2nd Thess. 2 and much of Revelation.

I ask you to give me your understanding of a few chapters in Revelations, ( pick one of the three I mentioned to you ) yet, you just conveniently overlooked what I asked you.

Still waiting.

 

[Josheb]

It is commandment by examples we see in the scriptures~I gave one from Revelation 2:2,3.

Well, let's take a look at Revelation 2:2-3 and see if it does in fact command me to prove men are not following the scriptures.

Revelation 2:2-3
I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake and have not grown weary.

Not a single word there about proving they are not following the scriptures. The word "scriptures" is nowhere to be found.

Strike one.

But the same apostle also said said to Titus:


Titus 1:10-11
For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.

Once again, no mention of "scriptures" and nothing commanding me to prove men are not following the scriptures.

Strike two.

Really? You made no attempt, sir. But, I'm almost at the point of dropping this with you, since it is about to reach a place of being nothing more than dealing with a contentious spirit.

Avoidant non sequitur, fallacious shifting onus and ad hominem, and hypocritical false accusation.

Still waiting.

Then you will wait for a long time because you have not proven your own claim and are now attempting to shift the burden onto another.

One more time: Can you provide me with the command stating I have to prove men are not following scripture? I ask because I can provide you with scripture instructing you to not be divisive and commanding me to have nothing to do with those who are divisive and won't heed requests not to do so.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.


You put that dross in the thread and now refuse to either prove it or self-correct it. You should have never posted that nonsense and now that you've been asked to account for it have made things worse, not better. LOOK at Post 266. One single, solitary, simple, direct request was made, and that entire post was a waste of everyone time. One single verse would have decided the matter and you freely, willfully picked two that did not state what you claimed.

....the great tribulation period since that period is strictly dealing with the spiritual aspect of a tribulation....

Got scripture for that?

Oh, wait. I'm still waiting on the command commanding me to prove men are not following the scriptures. Go back and re-read your own posts. Try to understand them the way the readers do because it looks like you make things up as you go and no scripture ever actually states what you claim they say (assuming you've used scripture).


Show me the command.

 

[TMSO]

That was an overwrought, excessively wordy way of explaining how the flood was in fact the worse thing that has ever happened in human history and qualifies as a tribulation - a state of great trouble and suffering - without the use of that label.

One more thing. The purpose of the flood was not the death of all life on earth. Its purpose was deliverance, sanctification and redemption.

1 Peter 3:18-22
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience —through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

The historical flood was a foreshadowing of the resurrection.


You use scripture selectively. Scripture is used selectively to justify an end times doctrine rather than basing doctrine on the whole of scripture. It is right here in your own posts for you to see. In the days of Noah those taken away by the flood were destroyed and it was the ones who remained that continued to live in a covenant relationship with God on a plane that had been washed clean of its sinners and consequently holding the prospect of renewal. The ones taken from the roofs and the fields are not being raptured. They are being taken away by the pending destruction and it is those who remain that will live in a covenant relationship with God..... exactly as it was in the days of Noah. The flood was a horrendous event where millions of people died a torturous death of hypothermia and asphyxiation (two of the most painful forms of death) and only eight people survived. In order for "the great tribulation" to literally be worse than the flood the tribulation will have to exceed those measures.

There is no reason to think only eight people will survive the great tribulation because seven churches are expected to survive.

Jesus was using the very common device of hyperbole.

Your efforts to disprove what I have posted have only resulted in you making the case for my position!

I found out what your problem is, which is common among the preterists. You don't understand the parable of the fig tree. You don't understand what "this generation" refers to in the parable. Here is the passage:

"32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near.
33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that [e]it is near—at the doors!
34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away."

So, as discussed about some other parables, this parable is perfectly intertwined with its understanding.

There is a fig tree. Jesus makes it obvious that it is parallel to the world, our environment.
There is the person looking at the fig tree, and the knowledge bearer. The general "you", not aimed at anyone in particular.

Here is this fig tree. If you are in spring and you are wondering whether summer is near, look at the fig tree. If the fig tree has tender branches and has put forth leaves, summer is near. Now, to understand what Jesus said would mean in this case. Summer is near. It isn't going to wait five or six years to come. It is coming soon, as in days or weeks. This is how quickly the summer will come from when the signs on the fig tree are seen. (Jesus could have said. that the person who saw the fig tree signs would not age 3 weeks before summer arrives.)

So now he says, if you are looking around and you see the signs Jesus has presented, know that from the time you have seen those signs, the end is near--at the door. That is the simplest I can put it.

The generation that Jesus speaks of with this generation, reflects back upon the one who saw the fig tree, and the one who saw Jesus signs. The generation of those who sees the signs will not pass away until the end has come. This exact generation, this generation that sees the signs will see it all come to pass.

Understand that this passage survived the millennia without the preterists. It is a PARABLE. You can't read it straight and excise portions from the rest. The reason Jesus told the parable was to quantize His remark. He wasn't saying, this generation us, He was saying this generation, this person sees the fig like this so knows summer is near, and this person sees the signs Jesus is saying, so knows the end is near, at the door. This generation stands for those who see the signs. They know it is near the door, and their generation will not pass away until the end has come. (All the things Jesus said happens.)

I can only guess that you will say, but no, He wasn't speaking in hyperbole, it was parable.

There are a few reasons people fight over Jesus talking about the great tribulation. 1. They do not call it hyperbole. 2. They don't talk about the flood. (Oops). 3. It is because of "this generation" passage. Since they believe it meant the people Jesus was talking to, and not what it says in the parable, in order to keep Jesus from being wrong, they have to deal with what Jesus said about the nature of the tribulation. Flood never comes up in any of the arguments I looked at. Probably because I looked up the greek word used for tribulation, and... yeah. No. There is no comparison between the word Jesus used, and the flood. Total false equivalence.

 

[Red Baker]

It is commandment by examples we see in the scriptures~I gave one from Revelation 2:2,3.

Well, let's take a look at Revelation 2:2-3 and see if it does in fact command me to prove men are not following the scriptures.

Not a single word there about proving they are not following the scriptures. The word "scriptures" is nowhere to be found.

Strike one.

You have a problem of selective reading, reading only what you want to read and hearing only what you want to hear, much like one of my youngest grandsons.

Revelation 2:2,3~"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted."

It is very clear reading these verses with an honest, and a sincere spirit to see, that folks in this church tried them which claim to be apostles and were not and found them to be liars by using what litmus test? Of course the scriptures. 1st John 4:1.

Not a single word there about proving they are not following the scriptures. The word "scriptures" is nowhere to be found.

It does not need to be found there to understand the means believers find false professors to be just that~a generation of little serpents whose father is the devil himself.

Red Baker said:
But the same apostle also said said to Titus:

Titus 1:10,11~For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."

Once again, no mention of "scriptures" and nothing commanding me to prove men are not following the scriptures.

Paul clearly said~whose mouth must be stopped. We as Christian do not use physical force to obey God, we are not Muslims, we used the sword of the Spirit of God, which is the word of God, to stopped proud, false prophets, who are vain talkers and deceivers. You are showing disrespect to the scriptures by your childlike spirit in trying to defend your unscriptural position.

Then you will wait for a long time because you have not proven your own claim and are now attempting to shift the burden onto another.

Shifting the burden? No~ trying to give you the opportunity to use scriptures to prove you understanding of them, and then allow others to test your position with scriptures. I thought this is the way this type forums are suppose to work.

One more time: Can you provide me with the command stating I have to prove men are not following scripture? I ask because I can provide you with scripture instructing you to not be divisive and commanding me to have nothing to do with those who are divisive and won't heed requests not to do so

Josheb, it is not about being divisive, these types of forums are set up to discuss doctrines, and to spread the truth. We are being divisve when we do such things as:

Strike one.

Strike two.

That's games children play, not spiritual minded adults.

One more time: Can you provide me with the command stating I have to prove men are not following scripture?

No problem in providing scriptures, there are tons of them, plus many examples of Christ confronting false professors.

Jude 1:3~"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

It is impossible to heed this command without confrontation, face to face, battling is a spiritual warfare.

Jeremiah 9:3~"And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD."

Again, it is impossible to be valiant for the truth without confronting those men and women who corrupt the truth by preaching things they ought not to preach, etc.

Acts 9:22~"But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ."

Actc 18:4-6~"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles."

Acts 18:28~"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ."

1st Timothy 6:12~"Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses."

One more of many that could be provided:

2nd Timothy 4:7,8~"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."

The Christian life is a life of a spiritual warfare, we war with the children of darkness over the truths/testimony of the God of heaven, it is a never ending warfare until Jesus comes again. We are called to stand in the gap and to make up the hedge.

Ezekiel 22:30~".And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none."

It is impossible to fulfill such scriptures without confronting folks and that publicly if need be. You call it being divisive, I call it being a faithful warrior/soldier for Christ.

Show me the command.

Showing you would most likely not convince you~unless God moves your spirit to accept his word from such scriptures as Jude 1:3, quoted above.

That being said, you actually do contend for certain truths, or else you would not be here, but, it is the ones you feel comfortable in defending if I had my guess, the ones you do not, you dance around them, or, play silly mind games.

 

[Josheb]

I found out what your problem is,

ad hominem

which is common among the preterists.

ad hominem

You don't understand the parable of the fig tree.

ad hominem

You don't understand what "this generation" refers to in the parable.

ad hominem


I am not the problem, and any argument built on that premise if both logically fallacious and factually erroneous. I bid you adieu.

 

[Josheb]

You have a problem of selective reading, reading only what you want to read and hearing only what you want to hear, much like one of my youngest grandsons.

Prove it.

Oh, wait. I can't get you to prove your last two accusations so why should I think I'll get any further with this one. My bad. Thank you for your time.


I encourage you and @TMSO to make a renewed effort to read scripture exactly as written and question what others say. When you hear a preacher say some verse "says" X, Y, and/or Z take the time to look up the verse(s) and verify if the claim made is actually what the text states. If the preacher is an adherent to long held and well-established principles of sound exegesis, then read/listen for how consistent they are with their own standards. Thank you for your time. I bid you adieu.

 

[Red Baker]

Prove it.

Oh, wait. I can't get you to prove your last two accusations so why should I think I'll get any further with this one. My bad. Thank you for your time.

Oh , but I did above to any honest, sincere, lover of the truth. You should prove your sincerity by addressing those verses I provided for you. I have many more btw ~ But why waste the time.

I encourage you and @TMSO to make a renewed effort to read scripture exactly as written and question what others say. When you hear a preacher say some verse "says" X, Y, and/or Z take the time to look up the verse(s) and verify if the claim made is actually what the text states. If the preacher is an adherent to long held and well-established principles of sound exegesis, then read/listen for how consistent they are with their own standards. Thank you for your time. I bid you adieu.

Well sir, I have many times over the past fifty years of being in the faith, and for the most part of those fifty years, earnestly contending for the same, just as Jude 1:3 exhorts us to do~ one of those verses you just closed your eyes to that you asked for and never acknowledge that I gave it to you.

As you said~

Thank you for your time. I bid you adieu.

 

[Josheb]

Oh , but I did above to any honest, sincere, lover of the truth.

No, you didn't. You left out the word "objective." Everything you've posted is a doctrinally biased position, not objective truth. Everything you've posted applies an inferential interpretation and rarely reads scripture exactly as written. Tony Warren is not God. Tony Warren is not an authority over scripture and he's simply passing on what others taught him as you pass on what he taught you - and none of you are reading scripture as written. Every single futurist here violated the FIRST rule of exegesis: read the text as written applying the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless the text itself gives reason for doing otherwise. Post 222 is filled with eisegesis. It is a textbook example of what should be avoided, disdained and instantly discarded whenever and wherever it occurs.

The opening statement, "Matthew chapter twenty-four has been a difficult chapter for many Reformed Christians to understand, as even seasoned theologians seem to stumble when exegeting the phrase 'this generation,'" is just hogwash. Reformed Christians who practice sound exegesis have no problem whatsoever understanding Matthew 24. What Warren means is Reformed Christians have difficulty understand Matthew 24 the way he does. That is a hugely different premise.

Thus he shows his dishonesty.

His examination of "generation" and the scriptures using the term in its various conjugations is sloppy. If you've read D. A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" then you should have recognized Warren's many errors, and if you haven't read it then you should because Warren was sloppy. Take, for example, his bait and switch replacing "this generation," with "of the generation," and "O generation." YOU should have caught that error the instant you read his article and immediately discarded it as faulty, because of the fallacy of ambiguity he argued (same word different meanings/uses). It should never have been posted in this thread as evidence for anything other than how not to read scripture. You commit a fallacious appeal to authority and, apparently, think everyone here should consider him wise. In my opinion you did nothing more with the appeal to Warren than to make your own posts impoverished and demonstrate to everyone how susceptible you are to sophistry.

Post 218 is demonstrably better than Post 222. ANYONE with a Bible can open it up and read for themselves, objectively verify what I posted is correct in every sentence and just as objectively verify much of what Warren wrote is incorrect. No end times biases are needed to do that. The moment he departed from "this generation," he was off to fallacy land. There are 27 uses of "generation" in the gospels but only half of them (14) are "this generation." and only a handful are in the near demonstrative conjugation.

Warren lied.

How can I say that? Because if he went through seminary then he is an intelligent man who learned logic and exegesis and was trained to apply those tools correctly. When people make mistakes there are only four explanations:

• momentary lapse in judgment,
• incompetency,
• lack of some cognitive faculty,
• willful deceit.

The first explanation can be ruled out because the errors are plentiful in that article. The second and third can be ruled out because of his training and experience. He knows better and erred any way. That is the definition of a lie.

You should prove your sincerity by addressing those verses I provided for you

Shifting onus.

If you truly believed in your own standards, then you wouldn't be asking me to prove anything until you'd finished proving your own claims FIRST. Other posters may go back and forth arguing tu quoque fallacies, but I am unyielding: if a poster makes a claim, then I expect him/her to prove and prove it before asking anything else of others.


You not only haven't proven so of your original claims, but you've hijacked this thread by posting a plethora of lengthy posts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the answer to "When is the tribulation period?" You should be ashamed of that and asking the mods to delete most of those posts not asking me to accept your burden of proof.

 

[TMSO]

ad hominem

Um no. I am pointing out a problem. That is not ad hominem dear sir. Perhaps you need to come to understand what it is?

ad hominem

Ah, so you are a preterist. Good to know. (I think you know I again said, not it wasn't. And it is common among the preterists.)

ad hominem

No. No it isn't. Did I explain the parable of the fig tree? I mean really.

ad hominem

This is not how to argue. You didn't understand what generation means in the parable, because you isolated the one sentence. That is not ad hominem. There should be a rule against people who abuse this just to avoid having to argue.

I am not the problem, and any argument built on that premise if both logically fallacious and factually erroneous. I bid you adieu.

I didn't say you were the problem. If I did, I would say that you talk funny and your teeth are crooked. I talked about what you are saying. I found a problem in your logic. Here is what it is. Perhaps you need to consider what Irenaeus had to say about people who are wrong in this area, and what he believes God thinks.

 

[TMSO]

Prove it.

Ad hominem...ad hominem...ad hominem...

 

[Red Baker]

You not only haven't proven so of your original claims, but you've hijacked this thread by posting a plethora of lengthy posts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the answer to "When is the tribulation period?" You should be ashamed of that and asking the mods to delete most of those posts not asking me to accept your burden of proof.

I'm starting with what you ended with, to clear up a false accusation of yours.

It was not me which brought this subject into this thread, but you, you have a very short memory. From post #213, you said:

• 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.

Of course, you misinterpreted the meaning of the phrase "this generation" ~ which I asked for you to enlarge more on your meaning of this generation which you were happy to do so, for at this point you thought you had the upper hand in what you were presenting, not knowing that there were other views that would prove your understanding to be in error and with no support from God's word. So, what do you do? You went on a rant of displaying a unchristian behavior of a man ~ using using logical fallacies to make your opponents look bad, instead of using the word of God to support your position you just keep hiding behind.

Oh, wait. I can't get you to prove your last two accusations so why should I think I'll get any further with this one. My bad. Thank you for your time.

Yet we did in post #269 with zero response back from you on those scriptures you asked for. But, that's to be expected from men without understanding of the subject under consideration, for I have deal with spirits like you for most likely before you were even born.

I'm breaking my points into a few points/post so each point will not get lost in a multitude of words back and forth.

 

[Red Baker]

Tony Warren is not God. Tony Warren is not an authority over scripture and he's simply passing on what others taught him as you pass on what he taught you - and none of you are reading scripture as written. Every single futurist here violated the FIRST rule of exegesis: read the text as written applying the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless the text itself gives reason for doing otherwise. Post 222 is filled with eisegesis. It is a textbook example of what should be avoided, disdained and instantly discarded whenever and wherever it occurs.

The opening statement, "Matthew chapter twenty-four has been a difficult chapter for many Reformed Christians to understand, as even seasoned theologians seem to stumble when exegeting the phrase 'this generation,'" is just hogwash. Reformed Christians who practice sound exegesis have no problem whatsoever understanding Matthew 24. What Warren means is Reformed Christians have difficulty understand Matthew 24 the way he does. That is a hugely different premise.

Thus he shows his dishonesty.

His examination of "generation" and the scriptures using the term in its various conjugations is sloppy. If you've read D. A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" then you should have recognized Warren's many errors, and if you haven't read it then you should because Warren was sloppy. Take, for example, his bait and switch replacing "this generation," with "of the generation," and "O generation." YOU should have caught that error the instant you read his article and immediately discarded it as faulty, because of the fallacy of ambiguity he argued (same word different meanings/uses). It should never have been posted in this thread as evidence for anything other than how not to read scripture. You commit a fallacious appeal to authority and, apparently, think everyone here should consider him wise. In my opinion you did nothing more with the appeal to Warren than to make your own posts impoverished and demonstrate to everyone how susceptible you are to sophistry.

A few things here concerning Mr. Warren. He would be happy, more than happy to discuss his postion with you on his forum~https://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology.html He's a black gentleman which is rare among the Reformed Churches in this world~a very gifted gentleman and first class debater, one of the very best I have ever been around. His greatest gift is humility, a very humble man.

He has a section that will take you to the forum. He's of the Reformed community of believers which I am not, yet I do appreciate when he teaches certain truths, and do not mind sharing them with others~on a some things we strongly disagree, yet I still respect truth which he does teach.

Philippians 1:15-18~"Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

I agree, no man is the authority over the word of God, for Christians, except the Man Christ Jesus, and to him we submit to and labor to follow as much as lieth within us~so help us God.

We all are here sharing and testing others understanding of the truth, trusting to do so without attaching the individual, but their teachings using the word of God to do so. So much about Tony Warren. I know very little about him, but pretty sure he has no formal biblical education based on all that I have read behind him,, and he certainly puts no trust in education. Overall, he's very good in using scriptures to support what he has to say, whether or not one agrees with the scriptures he brings to the forefront as support is another story.

I'm coming back later today to make one more short post to you and then I'm finish, with this point in this thread, but hope to start another thread on this subject using only my notes.

 

[Josheb]

A few things here concerning Mr. Warren. He would be happy, more than happy to discuss his position with you...

Invite him to join the forum and I'll gladly go through the article you posted line by line and do a forensic analysis with him. Until then YOU are the one here and the burden is on you to prove problems I cited do not exist. Otherwise, you should never have used that article. No more attempts at shifting the burden.

He's a black gentleman...

Racist.

The color of his skin is irrelevant. Even black people make mistakes, and Warren has made several. I'm sure he's a great guy but his article is seriously flawed. I am aware of Warren's teachings. Many of his articles can be found on monegrismdotorg. Never assume another poster lacks knowledge unless they ask you for information.

NEVER​

Warren being Reformed does not insulate him from error and anyone who knows how to read can see he moved from "this generation" to other phrases without justification. He fooled even you and the instant I pointed that out the immediate, direct, uneqivocated response should have been, "Ah, yes, I can see change. Thank you for pointing out his subtle shift. I will watch for that kind of subterfuge in the future," instead of defending the man.

But it was not.

I'm coming back later today to make one more short post to you and then I'm finish,....

Don't bother. I find your posts rife with baseless claims, highly interpretive and reckless eisegesis, logical fallacy and an abject failure to account for any of it. I am not interested in more of the same.

 

[Josheb]

Of course, you misinterpreted the meaning of the phrase "this generation" ~ which I asked for you to enlarge more on your meaning of this generation which you were happy to do so, for at this point you thought you had the upper hand in what you were presenting, not knowing that there were other views that would prove your understanding to be in error and with no support from God's word. So, what do you do? You went on a rant of displaying a unchristian behavior of a man ~ using using logical fallacies to make your opponents look bad, instead of using the word of God to support your position you just keep hiding behind.

I am not the subject of discussion, no one here is a mind reader (including you), and the above is a rant.

The phrase "this generation" answers this op's inquiry and Christians should stop abusing scripture to make it say, "that generation."

Question: When is the tribulation period?
Answer: In this generation, not that generation. No one knew the day or hour, but it happened in the generation to whom Jesus was speaking when he said the near demonstrative "this generation" and all 14 uses of "this generation" can objectively be read to apply to those to whom he was speaking. There is no variation when God used that specific phrase and appeals to other phrases using the word, "generation" are not equivalent.​

All anyone has to do is read the text of scripture exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in ordinary usage. The disciples went through the tribulation. Jesus looked them in the face and stated, "You will be handed over to tribulation. You will see.... You will hear...." and the ONLY place in Revelation where "the great tribulation" is mentioned is one in which disciples of Jesus had endured it.

Revelation 1:3, 18-19
Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near...... Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.


That is when the tribulation period was.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I'm coming back later today to make one more short post to you and then I'm finish, with this point in this thread, but hope to start another thread on this subject using only my notes.

I'm much more interested in your own notes, Red, whether or not I find agreement with all of them. You I know. Tony Warren I don't, and can't get ready feedback as we all can from you directly.