Rise in Anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric?

[removed]

In surveying different Christian forums, I noticed that anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric has increased. These individuals do not simply oppose our position, but aggressively attack our position with one-way preaching, pushy barbs, and acidic behavior. In fact, many of these individuals do nothing but attack the Pre-Tribulation Rapture doctrine.

To be honest, such single-minded aggression baffles me. Is this the extent of their spiritual walk?

In examining this behavior, I notice that a worldly motivation is behind such behavior. These individuals believe in "proving yourself to God," either through a "martyr complex" or a "defeat the Anti-Christ" mentality. Moreover, such individuals are usually adherents to Conditional Salvation Theology, Replacement Theology, and/or other such self-glorifying doctrines.

What say you?

[Chrystalwuzhere]

I say you see what I see.

I was perusing through Kim Clement's website, and realized that he is very Kindom Now theology, as well as Manifest Sons of God. He believes we will take over the world for Christ, and then He'll come back to earth. I'm not sure, but there may be some Replacement Theology mixed in as well.

When you're visiting other forums, do you notice that they have another Tribulation view (such as Mid-Trib, Post-Trib, Amil?), or do they just not believe in the rapture at all.

What I have found in my personal life is that people believe in the Rapture, they just either DON'T want to talk about it and change the subject, or they're zealously awaiting His return like I am. One or the other. But, I can't say that I've run into very many who are anti-pretrib.

But...the Internet has a much far reaching scope than my community. There a many more people, from many different places, and you get a broader scope of what people believe.

[removed]

When you're visiting other forums, do you notice that they have another Tribulation view (such as Mid-Trib, Post-Trib, Amil?), or do they just not believe in the rapture at all.

These people are a combination of "all the above," with adherents to Post-Tribulation Rapture Theology and Amillennialism causing the worst provocations. While these individuals have their disagreements between each other, nothing provokes, unifies, and energizes these individuals like a joint attack on Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology.

Such behavior is very strange, if not horribly suspicious.

What I have found in my personal life is that people believe in the Rapture, they just either DON'T want to talk about it and change the subject, or they're zealously awaiting His return like I am. One or the other. But, I can't say that I've run into very many who are anti-pretrib.

Hmm . . . In my experience, suburban churchgoers with no appetite for theological debate have this attitude.

But...the Internet has a much far reaching scope than my community. There a many more people, from many different places, and you get a broader scope of what people believe.

I am speaking about groups on debate forums such as BibleForums.org (http://bibleforums.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12), 123 Christian Forums (http://www.christianforums.net/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=c413072b6261446108ef48ba21a57337), OurChurch Christian Forums (http://forums.ourchurch.com/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=4330c10c86c4defa803f53ac26a835b7), and Christianity.com Forums (http://forums.christianity.com/forumid_53/tt.htm).

Now, an in-depth Google search demonstrates that this behavior is not a universal phenomenon. However, at the same time, an in-depth search will evidence a "creeping dissatisfaction" with Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theology. For instance, when people question or re-think their doctrinal beliefs, Pre-Trib Theology is one of the items mentioned first. In another instance, most "Pre-Tribbers" ignore or poorly answer challenges to their position by other eschatological viewpoints, which the audience interprets as doctrinal weakness.

In short, Pre-Trib Theology is losing ground in online debate. Pro-Pre-Trib books, blogs, and official statements of beliefs do not "cut the mustard" anymore.

[CoreIssue]

There is also a new Rapture thinking that is on the rise. One that is more absurd than others, to me.

I call it Post-Trib Amil. They combine Amil on the MK with Post-Trib on the Trib and Rapture.

A really messed up doctrine. In some ways worse than Amil.

[removed]

I believe that I have seen this position before, or similar combos. Sadly, the confusion of most "rapture timing debates" produces a mix-and-match approach to Eschatology, as motivated by bad logic and arbitrary presuppositions.

It is no wonder that most people fear Eschatology.

[Brandli5]

I have a question for you about all that you have posted here.

Why do you think God did not print exactly what will happen?? (Not when but what)

Concerning the Rapture. Why is there such an uprise at all when it comes to Post, Pre, ect??

I have always been taught one way, but as I read more and more posts on sites, I get more confused. I know for sure there are more ways than one to look at all this. But when it all gets down to the nitty gritty I must look at it all and say one thing...

We just will not know until it all happens. I guess to me that is the most suprise in my life, to look at the news, and bible and see it all coming together. Its a great joy. Even though it does not really tell me post, pre ect, it still shows me more and more the truths in the events.

Exciting, and uplifting really!

[CoreIssue]

I have a question for you about all that you have posted here.

Why do you think God did not print exactly what will happen?? (Not when but what)

He actually made it abundantly clear.

The 6th Church is promised Rapture. It says we will not be tested in the coming test, which is the Trib. Point blank statement there.

7th church is completely apostate. God says he will spit them out. He does. Into the Trib.

Next event are the 7 Seals. You have 24 OT Elders from Israel sitting there resurrected, glorified and rewarded.

These are 3 clear cut statements showing the Rapture occurs as the Trib begins.

Bride is Raptured, apostates thrown out, Church Age ends and 70th Week of Daniel begins, 24 Elders sitting there now, Church lamps gone, Two Lamps/Two Witnesses on the earth and every reference in Revelation from the 5th church on is now OT style talking about Israel. Israel is again key. 144,000 First Fruits of the New Covenant to the Houses of Israel and Judah are selected and in place and so.

I don't see any room for doubt.

Yes, some try very whirly twirly arguments to try to say Mid, Pre-Wrath, Post-Trib and so on. But just look at tho realities I just laid out and think about what them mean.

All those other Rapture doctrines have to play games with Revelation and word meanings. They have to take Revelation apart and say it acutally means an order other than as presented.

Pre-Trib does not have to do that. Except for some who try to make the 24 Church, or don't like the severity of the events as laid out and so on.
Concerning the Rapture. Why is there such an uprise at all when it comes to Post, Pre, ect??
Because it speaks to the very issue of salvation.

If you note, as you move forward in timeing these doctrines get more and more legalistic and less and less pure salvation by grace. And they really get less and less literal.
I have always been taught one way, but as I read more and more posts on sites, I get more confused. I know for sure there are more ways than one to look at all this. But when it all gets down to the nitty gritty I must look at it all and say one thing...
Stay literal, logical and read straight forward. Posties and such most assuredly are not literal and do not read in sequence presented.
We just will not know until it all happens. I guess to me that is the most suprise in my life, to look at the news, and bible and see it all coming together. Its a great joy. Even though it does not really tell me post, pre ect, it still shows me more and more the truths in the events.
Agree we will not know when the Rapture will happen. But we do know its place in sequence.

Only the Father knows. Oh boy, how the Posties and others struggle trying to get around that one.

First Seal (Treaty) + 3.5 years = invasion of Israel and AC declaring himself god + 3.5 years = Second Coming.

See the point? Once the Trib begins you know timings. One prophetic month = 30 days. 3.5 years = 1,260 days. 7 years = 2,520 days.


Exciting, and uplifting really!

Fully agree. And the time is near.

[Patty T]

I don't believe anyone knows exactly when the rapture will take place - Thank God it's not a salvation issue!!! Many scholars who have studied scripture quite in-depth can't even agree on the timing!!

One thing we know for certain - Jesus is coming back and those who are saved by His precious blood will spend eternity with Him - glory to God!!!

[CoreIssue]

I don't believe anyone knows exactly when the rapture will take place - Thank God it's not a salvation issue!!! Many scholars who have studied scripture quite in-depth can't even agree on the timing!!

One thing we know for certain - Jesus is coming back and those who are saved by His precious blood will spend eternity with Him - glory to God!!!
Agree they do not agree.

But, in having studied many of their statments the ones who take the Biblical literally are Pre-Trib. The more assumptions and non-literal they see the Bible the farther forward the move.

The most liberal see it so figuratively they don't believe there is a Rapture at all. Nor do they believe this earth and life will ever end.

[removed]

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, Patty T.

Many scholars who have studied scripture quite in-depth can't even agree on the timing!!

This statement comes across as an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy. Universal acceptance is not a prerequisite for correct doctrine, otherwise no doctrine could be true.

I don't believe anyone knows exactly when the rapture will take place -

Really? I invite you to put my viewpoint to the test (1 Thessalonians 5:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:21;&version=31;)).

Thank God it's not a salvation issue!!!

Agreed. We should focus on loving mutual edification (Romans 14:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014:19;&version=31;), Ephesians 4:11-16, 25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:11-16,%2025;&version=31;)), not "winning debates" coldly (1 Corinthians 13:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:6;&version=31;)).

[CoreIssue]

An added note here is proper. I believe.

The most held view out there is Amillinnialism. Which says there is no Rapture at all.

[Brandli5]

Thank you all for your responses.

Thank you for clearing up for me what my brain was scambling to figure out. I am disapointed now in some people because they try (knowing, or not) to confuse you. I have been taught their will be a pre rapture. That is what I am sticking to! ITs just that some will call try to put more info than needed in and after a while, whish its all mixed.


Thanks, core and all you.

Have a blessed day.

[Patty T]

Agree they do not agree.

But, in having studied many of their statments the ones who take the Biblical literally are Pre-Trib. The more assumptions and non-literal they see the Bible the farther forward the move.

The most liberal see it so figuratively they don't believe there is a Rapture at all. Nor do they believe this earth and life will ever end.

Well my friend, I take the bible quite literal and do not adhere to the pre-trib view :D

It's one of those situations that we as believers will continue to "agree to disagree" on until Jesus does come back!

For what it's worth - I believe in the rapture of the church - a literal 1000 millennial kingdom reign here on earth - and that the church has NOT, NOT replaced God's beloved Israel.

I personally see scripture pointing to the return of Christ either mid trib, or at the end.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that He is coming back just like He said He would, and I long, long for that day when the last trump sounds and I will see my wonderful Savior face-to-face!!! :yowza:

[CoreIssue]

Well my friend, I take the bible quite literal and do not adhere to the pre-trib view :D

It's one of those situations that we as believers will continue to "agree to disagree" on until Jesus does come back!

For what it's worth - I believe in the rapture of the church - a literal 1000 millennial kingdom reign here on earth - and that the church has NOT, NOT replaced God's beloved Israel.

I personally see scripture pointing to the return of Christ either mid trib, or at the end.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that He is coming back just like He said He would, and I long, long for that day when the last trump sounds and I will see my wonderful Savior face-to-face!!! :yowza:
I agree in the joy he is coming back! :tiphat:

But how anyone can deal with such as the 24 Elders at the First Seal and say the Rapture comes later is beyond any logic I can find. And I have debated a TON on this issue in the past.

Really, they are saints who have been resurrected, glorified and rewarded. That should not be a point of debate at all by anyone who reads a literal Bible.

Sure, we can disagree without doing any damage to our relationship in Christ or to each other. No problem there. None at all!

[removed]

It's one of those situations that we as believers will continue to "agree to disagree" on until Jesus does come back!

Why? :shrug:

[Patty T]

Why? :shrug:

Why? Because there are various views regarding the timing of the rapture :):

[removed]

Why? Because there are various views regarding the timing of the rapture :):

:laugh: :dance:

[CoreIssue]

I believe the point being made is that there are many views on many things. But that does not make them right.

Like Amillennialism. By far the most held view.

But is it logical, evidence backed or just plain doctrine developed as a denominational teaching defense or personally desired view? The latter.

Again, for me, not trying to stir up a big debate where one is not wanted, but in response to this exchange, the 24 Elders are there at the First Seal. Yet, non Pre-Trib doctrines try to explain them away with statements of a prior Resurrection (which the Bible denies), not saints and even the 24 looking back from a future position well after the First Seal.

Not a salvation issue to me. But one of logic and evidence examination.

[removed]

I believe the point being made is that there are many views on many things. But that does not make them right.

Like Amillennialism. By far the most held view.

But is it logical, evidence backed or just plain doctrine developed as a denominational teaching defense or personally desired view? The latter.

Again, for me, not trying to stir up a big debate where one is not wanted, but in response to this exchange, the 24 Elders are there at the First Seal. Yet, non Pre-Trib doctrines try to explain them away with statements of a prior Resurrection (which the Bible denies), not saints and even the 24 looking back from a future position well after the First Seal.

Not a salvation issue to me. But one of logic and evidence examination.

I share your zeal. However, I believe that this situation calls for patience. She does not want to debate this issue now, so let us restrain ourselves. You cannot penetrate a closed mind.

1 Corinthians 3 [NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203:5-9;&version=76;)]
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

Let us wait on 'Elohiym (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430). 'Elohiym (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430) will provide an opportunity, according to his will.

[CoreIssue]

I share your zeal. However, I believe that this situation calls for patience. She does not want to debate this issue now, so let us restrain ourselves. You cannot penetrate a closed mind.

1 Corinthians 3 [NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203:5-9;&version=76;)]
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

Let us wait on 'Elohiym (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430). 'Elohiym (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430) will provide an opportunity, according to his will.
You misunderstand.

I was not going to say anything more until your post exchange.

Seemed you were prodding for a debate.

[removed]

You misunderstand.

I was not going to say anything more until your post exchange.

Seemed you were prodding for a debate.

I was prodding. But the answer was an erected wall, so I will wait.

I appreciate your help. Thanks! :tiphat:

[CoreIssue]

I was prodding. But the answer was an erected wall, so I will wait.

I appreciate your help. Thanks! :tiphat:
You know I believe in discussing things.

But, pushing a discussion where not wanted does not get very far.

[Sid]

The most held view out there is Amillinnialism. Which says there is no Rapture at all.


Maybe some discussion of the problems of amillenialism are in order:



The [amillennial] viewpoint is a very important one because it is the predominant concept of end time events in Christendom today. It is the official view of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is the doctrine that is held by the majority of mainline Protestant denominations.

The view holds that the current Church Age will end abruptly with the appearance of Jesus for the redeemed. At that point the redeemed will be resurrected in spiritual bodies, the unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the material universe will cease to exist, and the redeemed will take up residence eternally with God in Heaven. The amillennial view was developed in 400 A.D. by St. Augustine. It was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church in 431 A.D. at the Council of Ephesus.

When this view was originally presented by St. Augustine, it caused a considerable stir because it differed so drastically from the premillennial view that had been the orthodox doctrine up to that time. Premillennial literally means "before the thousand years." The title refers to the fact that this viewpoint places the return of Jesus before a future one thousand year reign upon the earth.

There is considerable difference between the two viewpoints. The premillennial view that had been held by the early Church Fathers did not envision history ending with the completion of the Church Age. Instead, the Church Age would be followed by a seven year period called the Tribulation, and this time of unparalled horror on earth would ultimately give way to the thousand year reign of Jesus. Another significant difference is that according to the premillennial view, the redeemed would live eternally in glorified bodies on a new earth.

Augustine's view, which was based on a spiritualization of Scripture, was quickly adopted by the Roman Catholic Church because it gave enhanced importance to the Church. It enabled the Church to claim that it was the fulfillment of all the kingdom promises in the Bible, and therefore it had the right to rule over all the nations of the earth.

It also enabled the Church to claim that it was the new Israel, replacing the old Israel composed of the Jewish people. The Jews were dismissed as a people divorced by God. Their kingdom promises had been inherited by the true Israel, the Church.

The new view also laid the foundation for the head of the Church to claim that he was the "Vicar of Christ" on earth; that is, the representative of Christ's reigning authority over the planet.



More Amillennialism Problems (http://ca.geocities.com/rdryan12000/id163.htm)

[CoreIssue]

Good idea.

There is so many things wrong with Amil. The biggest, to me, is Satan is suppose to be bound during the MK and the Church is suppose to bring unparalleled spirituality to the world.

I sure don't see either being true.

[Sid]

There is so many things wrong with Amil. The biggest, to me, is Satan is suppose to be bound during the MK and the Church is suppose to bring unparalleled spirituality to the world.

I sure don't see either being true.


I also have higher expectations for the MK, obviously we aren't in it.


Another thread is in order.

[disciplej]

Here is a good diagram for the end time sequence


http://www.geocities.com/brotherjohndavid/timeline.gif (http://www.timlahaye.com/)

[CoreIssue]

Hi Disciplej,

Being picky here, but the chart leaves out several points and issues that should be included. Those who haven't studied the issues come away with a false impression in several areas.

You might like taking a look at our End Times Charts. Not a quick read, for sure. :D

Thanks for posting it. I like graphics. They say many things faster than words could possibly do. :tiphat:

[Edge]

In surveying different Christian forums, I noticed that anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric has increased. These individuals do not simply oppose our position, but aggressively attack our position with one-way preaching, pushy barbs, and acidic behavior. In fact, many of these individuals do nothing but attack the Pre-Tribulation Rapture doctrine.

To be honest, such single-minded aggression baffles me. Is this the extent of their spiritual walk?

In examining this behavior, I notice that a worldly motivation is behind such behavior. These individuals believe in "proving yourself to God," either through a "martyr complex" or a "defeat the Anti-Christ" mentality. Moreover, such individuals are usually adherents to Conditional Salvation Theology, Replacement Theology, and/or other such self-glorifying doctrines.

What say you?

Hi LuckyStrike,

What is anti-pretribulation rapture rhetoric? :scratch:

Hi Sid,

You seem to know about the ealy church fathers before Augustine, and what they believed. Could you elaborate on this?

Thanks.

[Sid]

Hi Sid,

You seem to know about the ealy church fathers before Augustine, and what they believed. Could you elaborate on this?



The only early church fathers I subscribe any authority to to their writings are those who wrote the New Testament.

Anything past that has no more authority than the opinions of any other dead theologian.

Augustine was a garden of BAD THEOLOGY all by himself.

. . . amillennialism chief among it.

[removed]

Hi LuckyStrike,

What is anti-pretribulation rapture rhetoric? :scratch:

I define "Anti-Pre-Tibulation Rapture Rhetoric" as any material which reflects the irrational need to continually preach against and disprove Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology.

For instance, consider the website entitled "LastTrumpet.com (http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/)." Instead of focusing on defending the Gospel, the author, Tim Warner (http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/twbio.html), focuses on refuting Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology. In fact, his website appears to preach "the Gospel of the Post-Tribulation Rapture," where salvation is earned by "perseverance in the faith" until death or the Post-Tribulation Rapture (ref. LastTrumpet.com Doctrinal Statement (http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/doctrine.html)).

Likewise, other independent users, such as L.T. Keeble (mr.keeble@yahoo.com) (ref. NoPreTribRapture.org (http://www.nopretribrapture.org/)) and "postrib (postrib@yahoo.com)" (ref. "Jesus Christ is Lord (http://www.geocities.com/postrib/)" website), focus their energies on refuting Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology, as opposed to defending the Gospel. And many of these individuals appear to congregate on certain Christian forums (see Post #3 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=12568&postcount=3)).

Is this unbalanced focus on the Rapture spiritually healthy? I do not believe so (ref. Ephesians 4:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:29%20;&version=31;), Colossians 4:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%204:6;&version=31;)).

[removed]

The only early church fathers I subscribe any authority to to their writings are those who wrote the New Testament.

Anything past that has no more authority than the opinions of any other dead theologian.

Augustine was a garden of BAD THEOLOGY all by himself.

. . . amillennialism chief among it.

:thumbup2: Amen and amen, Sid.

No denominational collective, such as Roman Catholics, Anglicans, or Eastern Orthodox, can demonstrate that the Apostles passed down any unwritten Apostolic teachings, or "Sacred Tradition." To the contrary, such individuals must rely on unsubstantiated institutional declarations and arbitrary personal revelation to substantiate any such belief.

[Sid]

No denominational collective, such as Roman Catholics, Anglicans, or Eastern Orthodox, can demonstrate that the Apostles passed down any unwritten Apostolic teachings, or "Sacred Tradition." To the contrary, such individuals must rely on unsubstantiated institutional declarations and arbitrary personal revelation to substantiate any such belief.


LS:


Whenever I see any apologist cite the authority of ECF's [Early Church Fathers] or cleric conventions [Church councils], I see an invention of men that cannot be supported by the plain reading of Scriptures.

. . . so much of ECF-based religions are based on myths, legends, fables and confused mysticism that has no basis in the Scriptures or common sense.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Whenever I see any apologist cite the authority of ECF's [Early Church Fathers] or cleric conventions [Church councils], I see an invention of men that cannot be supported by the plain reading of Scriptures.

. . . so much of ECF-based religions are based on myths, legends, fables and confused mysticism that has no basis in the Scriptures or common sense.

:nod: Amen, Sid. When I think about the ECF and their traditions, I remember what Jesus told the Pharisees (and it applies to the RCC as well):

Mark 7:5-9:

5 And the Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"

6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.

7 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'

8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

9 He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

According to Lord Jesus, they neglect the commandment of God to hold onto their traditions. There is no scripture in them.

As for the pre-trib rapture, recently my mother flip-flopped. She is no longer pre-trib, but mid-trib. She and I were discussing it. I put a simple statement to her; the time of testing that is to come is full of wrath...God will NOT pour out His wrath on the body of His Son. On the faithful. She couldn't say anything to that.

Also, Daniel's 70th week, as mentioned by Core above. That 70th week is the completion of God's dealings with Israel...not the church. And scripture doesn't say it is a half week...or even one day of that week, it says it is a WEEK! Split that up half-way, or take it way completely (as with post-trib and amill), and you don't have a week.

Daniel's 70th week is a strong point they cannot explain away, and presents huge problems for mid, post, and amill believers.

[removed]

LS:


Whenever I see any apologist cite the authority of ECF's [Early Church Fathers] or cleric conventions [Church councils], I see an invention of men that cannot be supported by the plain reading of Scriptures.

I see the "quote mining" of the "Early Church Fathers' " (ECFs) writings as a "rope a dope" tactic. Who elevated the said ECFs to the position of ECF? "Sacred Tradition," no? ;)

[Edge]

The only early church fathers I subscribe any authority to to their writings are those who wrote the New Testament.

Anything past that has no more authority than the opinions of any other dead theologian.

Augustine was a garden of BAD THEOLOGY all by himself.

. . . amillennialism chief among it.

Thanks Sid (and LuckyStrike).

I am looking at the different views on the end times.

I see the "quote mining" of the "Early Church Fathers' " (ECFs) writings as a "rope a dope" tactic. Who elevated the said ECFs to the position of ECF? "Sacred Tradition," no?

So where does the (is it called pretrbulation?) rapture teaching come from? I've always been taught a rapture that comes before 7 years of tribulation, but there seems to be a lot of argument about it.

One person asked me where the teaching comes from, and said that it is a recent teaching, that is why I ask about the Early fathers. Surely they can't all be into 'Anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric'.

[CoreIssue]

Sid and Lucky will have more to say on this. Just tossing in my 2 cents.
So where does the (is it called pretrbulation?) rapture teaching come from?

The Bible and the Apostles.

I don't mean that sarcastically. Just a plain statement of literal truth.
I've always been taught a rapture that comes before 7 years of tribulation, but there seems to be a lot of argument about it.

Yes there is.

But note those who oppose do not read literally and interestingly, you will they believe in salvation by works, even if only in the aspect one can loose their salvation, which makes them part of their salvation. They are also usually into Replacement Theology.
One person asked me where the teaching comes from, and said that it is a recent teaching,
A very common argument from Post-Tribbers. And nonsense.
that is why I ask about the Early fathers. Surely they can't all be into 'Anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric'.
The EFC were not clear on Rapture, Trib and such. There was a range, from Pre-Trib (which some dispute) to Amil. The deeper they were into Replacement Theology the later they dated the Rapture, or rejected it altogether.

The more they were into denying the Bible was literal, the more vague they were on Rapture, as well.

Check out the End Times Charts at the top of the page. Might be helpful.

[removed]

So where does the (is it called pretrbulation?) rapture teaching come from? I've always been taught a rapture that comes before 7 years of tribulation, but there seems to be a lot of argument about it.

One person asked me where the teaching comes from, and said that it is a recent teaching, that is why I ask about the Early fathers. Surely they can't all be into 'Anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric'.

CoreIssue is correct. We do not need extra-Scriptural historical justification for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology, since the Biblical Scriptures teach this doctrinal position.

:nod: I plan to post a file on the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202:6-8;&version=31;). However, I need more time to finish it.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

:nod: I plan to post a file on the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202:6-8;&version=31;). However, I need more time to finish it.

I'm looking forward to reading that.

[Edge]

Thank you for the replies.

This is a subject that needs a lot of study.

[removed]

So where does the (is it called pretrbulation?) rapture teaching come from? I've always been taught a rapture that comes before 7 years of tribulation, but there seems to be a lot of argument about it.

One person asked me where the teaching comes from, and said that it is a recent teaching, that is why I ask about the Early fathers. Surely they can't all be into 'Anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric'.

CoreIssue is correct. We do not need extra-Scriptural historical justification for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology, since the Biblical Scriptures teach this doctrinal position.

:nod: I plan to post a file on the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202:6-8;&version=31;). However, I need more time to finish it.

As promised, I have posted the said file. My file is posted on the thread entitled, "The Restrainer and 2 Thessalonians 2 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2888)."

I hope that this file helps you. If you need any further assistance, please let me know.

[Edge]

Thanks, I'll go over and have a look.

[CoreIssue]

The Amillennialism discussion that followed has been give its own thread here (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=19497#post19497).

[frankDH]

In surveying different Christian forums, I noticed that anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric has increased. These individuals do not simply oppose our position, but aggressively attack our position with one-way preaching, pushy barbs, and acidic behavior. In fact, many of these individuals do nothing but attack the Pre-Tribulation Rapture doctrine.

To be honest, such single-minded aggression baffles me. Is this the extent of their spiritual walk?

In examining this behavior, I notice that a worldly motivation is behind such behavior. These individuals believe in "proving yourself to God," either through a "martyr complex" or a "defeat the Anti-Christ" mentality. Moreover, such individuals are usually adherents to Conditional Salvation Theology, Replacement Theology, and/or other such self-glorifying doctrines.

What say you?

Raises a question for me. Do you see all who question the pretrib position as anti pre trib? Is there no room for a reasonable person to question this belief?

[Sid]

Raises a question for me. Do you see all who question the pretrib position as anti pre trib?


Frank:

It depends on whether a poster expresses honest inquiry or an arrogant, lecture attitude.



http://charltonhestonworld.homestead.com/files/ch-moses_blue.jpg

The One True Prophet of God attitude basically brings any dialogue to a halt.



Is there no room for a reasonable person to question this belief?


The Rapture, especially it's timing, is not a salvation issue.

As such, speculation and opinions are in order.

[frankDH]

Raises a question for me. Do you see all who question the pretrib position as anti pre trib?


Frank:

It depends on whether a poster expresses honest inquiry or an arrogant, lecture attitude.



http://charltonhestonworld.homestead.com/files/ch-moses_blue.jpg

The One True Prophet of God attitude basically brings any dialogue to a halt.



Is there no room for a reasonable person to question this belief?
The Rapture, especially it's timing, is not a salvation issue.

As such, speculation and opinions are in order.

Glad to hear that. It is in keeping with one of my favorite verses.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Still checking the landscape. And if one became persuaded of another rapture view, would staing that view be considered anti pretrib?

[CoreIssue]

I long ago got to the point where I expect those in other views to challenge me as having another Gospel, not being saved, being a coward and not believing in Eternal Security.

There is an arrogance and elitism in the majority of none Pre-Tribbers.

And no matter how often it is said that it is not a salvation issue, to me, they make it clear it is to them.

So, yes, for the vast majority it is an strong anti-Pre-Trib belief. Sadly.

[frankDH]

I long ago got to the point where I expect those in other views to challenge me as having another Gospel, not being saved, being a coward and not believing in Eternal Security.

There is an arrogance and elitism in the majority of none Pre-Tribbers.

And no matter how often it is said that it is not a salvation issue, to me, they make it clear it is to them.

So, yes, for the vast majority it is an strong anti-Pre-Trib belief. Sadly.

Ah my friend, you've become jaded. Don't you remember our first debate? You and I and JoeNC? We spent almost as much time defending our motives for debate, against those who critisized us, as we did debating each other. And in an extremely harsh environment we remained civil and forged some great memories and managed some pretty deep study in the process. I think time is wearing you down bud.

[CoreIssue]

I long ago got to the point where I expect those in other views to challenge me as having another Gospel, not being saved, being a coward and not believing in Eternal Security.

There is an arrogance and elitism in the majority of none Pre-Tribbers.

And no matter how often it is said that it is not a salvation issue, to me, they make it clear it is to them.

So, yes, for the vast majority it is an strong anti-Pre-Trib belief. Sadly.

Ah my friend, you've become jaded. Don't you remember our first debate? You and I and JoeNC? We spent almost as much time defending our motives for debate, against those who critisized us, as we did debating each other. And in an extremely harsh environment we remained civil and forged some great memories and managed some pretty deep study in the process. I think time is wearing you down bud.
I do indeed remember, Buddy.

But harshness has gotten much worse over time.

Many of those into those doctrines don't feel the slightest hesitation to challenge salvation.

That is sad. But a sign of the times.

It is hard, at times, for it not the weigh heavily.

But every little and big success gives the gusto to go the next mile.

Many disappointments. But great successes as well. Which makes it all worthwhile.

:tiphat:

[frankDH]

I long ago got to the point where I expect those in other views to challenge me as having another Gospel, not being saved, being a coward and not believing in Eternal Security.

There is an arrogance and elitism in the majority of none Pre-Tribbers.

And no matter how often it is said that it is not a salvation issue, to me, they make it clear it is to them.

So, yes, for the vast majority it is an strong anti-Pre-Trib belief. Sadly.

Ah my friend, you've become jaded. Don't you remember our first debate? You and I and JoeNC? We spent almost as much time defending our motives for debate, against those who critisized us, as we did debating each other. And in an extremely harsh environment we remained civil and forged some great memories and managed some pretty deep study in the process. I think time is wearing you down bud.
I do indeed remember, Buddy.

But harshness has gotten much worse over time.

Many of those into those doctrines don't feel the slightest hesitation to challenge salvation.

That is sad. But a sign of the times.

It is hard, at times, for it not the weigh heavily.

But every little and big success gives the gusto to go the next mile.

Many disappointments. But great successes as well. Which makes it all worthwhile.

:tiphat:

I don't know. The way I remember it you couldn't converse with someone for more than a few sentences before someone was leveling charges of heresy or recommending you get aquainted with the Spirit, in those days. But I don't remember any anti any camp in those talks we had. And I don't remember us leaving all on the same page either.

[CoreIssue]

I don't know. The way I remember it you couldn't converse with someone for more than a few sentences before someone was leveling charges of heresy or recommending you get aquainted with the Spirit, in those days. But I don't remember any anti any camp in those talks we had. And I don't remember us leaving all on the same page either.

It has gotten worse.

Now many start with accusations instead of waiting a few pages.

In our conversations they general stayed out. Seeing what we said.

But in many others they now plow right in.

And many, Posties, in example, won't even talk any more. They have isolated themselves on their pro Post boards.

Strange things abound, Frank. And getting stranger.

There is a difference in not leaving on the same page, just disagreeing, and leaving with condemnations and personal attacks. The condemnations and personal attacks are now the rule, not the exception.

And those who feel a special entitlement to preach. The numbers that have to be banned because they come on preaching and refuse to discuss has grown a lot.

[frankDH]

I don't know. The way I remember it you couldn't converse with someone for more than a few sentences before someone was leveling charges of heresy or recommending you get aquainted with the Spirit, in those days. But I don't remember any anti any camp in those talks we had. And I don't remember us leaving all on the same page either.
It has gotten worse.

Now many start with accusations instead of waiting a few pages.

In our conversations they general stayed out. Seeing what we said.

But in many others they now plow right in.

And many, Posties, in example, won't even talk any more. They have isolated themselves on their pro Post boards.

Strange things abound, Frank. And getting stranger.

There is a difference in not leaving on the same page, just disagreeing, and leaving with condemnations and personal attacks. The condemnations and personal attacks are now the rule, not the exception.

And those who feel a special entitlement to preach. The numbers that have to be banned because they come on preaching and refuse to discuss has grown a lot.

Yeah there's a difference, but there always was. We just didn't buy into it. I get to a lot of boards in my travels. Everyone has the welcome mat out until you disagree with them. It's like that for all camps. There are some pretty influential pretrib leaders out there who preach I have a blasted hope. Todd's site has a birds of a feather case that lumps posties in with a lot of cults like JW's and Mormons.

A postie could just as easily compare the pretrib hope of an imminent return of their Messiah to the Ayatollah Khomeni's hope of an imminent return of his hidden imam and do the same thing in return, but it doesn't happen.

It's all where you place your focus. Whatsoever things are good and all that. If all you see is attacks you're going to begin to harbor feelings that are going to come out sooner or later. We can all claim to be attacked from outside the body as well as inside if we focus on it.

There is a real change in the prophetic circles I do see. Lots of babes in Christ have taken an interest. And they get fired up like us old guys. But they don't have their ducks in a row yet. It's causing an evolution in doctrine. Everything is beginning to fragment.

Take a look at pretrib. Used to be any pretribber worth his salt would claim the rapture takes us to heaven for the wedding week. Nowadays there are people running around claiming, on one hand, there can be up to 10 yrs between the raptureand 2nd coming and on the other hand still claiming the wedding analogy applies. There are just as stark of examples in all the camps.

That only happens when the older guys are focused on changing the other camps. No one left to guide the newbies. They have to snag a little here and a little there without really understanding how it all works. In the end, there will be more factions than there can be imagined and they will battle within and without their respective camps. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see something like that usher in the great falling away. :catfight:

It's different for me. There's no camp I really fit in. Posties think I've held on to too many of my pretrib roots. Pretribbers can't understand whatever possessed me to lose my way. Prewrathers would like me to join but can"t abide my timeline. If I let myself focus on the attacks I'd fall apart. :sob: Ya just gotta :snooty: and :pray:. And every once in a while :yowza:.
Hobbies help. I've developed a fetish for smilies. :D

[CoreIssue]

Well, Frank, I have never accepted the normal Pre-Trib Doctrine of Imminency. Plainly, it is taking a certain statement out of total information provided.

There are a huge number of prophecies that have to be fulfilled before the Rapture. Plain and simple.

True, they have been fulfilled, at this time, so NOW it is imminent. But for centuries it was not.

And yea, I have collided with those who have developed some time line thinking that amazes me. And still call themselves Pre, like Sky whatever the name was.

But I solidly say we are Raptured for the Wedding Supper for 7 years. A solid teaching that solidly mates with the Jewish Wedding Custom of that time.

No, I am not a traditional Pre-Tribber.

And I am a Pre-Adamic beleive, as posted on CTZ, not what some nut cases have come up with. Which is not traditional to much of any group.

I am a solidly literalistic. More than most. And see no reason to depart from it, since it has never presented any problems, and has clarified many issues.

As for your position, I think the biggest issue in your clarity is that you are not quite literal enough. Kinda stuck half way between literal and figurative, which doesn't allow you to come down solidly anywhere.

My opinion.

But, we agree on the essentials. And that is what matters the most.

[frankDH]

As for your position, I think the biggest issue in your clarity is that you are not quite literal enough. Kinda stuck half way between literal and figurative, which doesn't allow you to come down solidly anywhere.



I knew if I just prodded around long enough a test would pop up. Give me examples. You know I can't see my own bias. That's why I test. If you can't come up with any off the top of your head I have some for you. Let's do something.

[CoreIssue]

As for your position, I think the biggest issue in your clarity is that you are not quite literal enough. Kinda stuck half way between literal and figurative, which doesn't allow you to come down solidly anywhere.



I knew if I just prodded around long enough a test would pop up. Give me examples. You know I can't see my own bias. That's why I test. If you can't come up with any off the top of your head I have some for you. Let's do something.
Like the crown issue.

There are 2 statements on crown, Revelation and Daniel, one says crown and one does not.

How does one literally reconcil that?

First, look up the definition of crown in Revelation. Meaning 3 does not mean royal, but, you are seeing the rider on the horse in the figurative imagery of a king on his horse. The image is outweighing the word meaning.

Add to that Daniel says he is a ruler without royalty. A ruler can wear a crown without being of royal birth.

Those references were pointing to a human AC.

Now, on the 7 kings the Harlot sits on. Those connect to the the 7 heads, the kings, of the Dragon she sits on. Mystery Babylon.

Daniel lays out the 7 kings in the Statue. Literally.

John says the king that was, is not and will be is of the 5.

Immediately we logically know he is not talking about a human king, since no dead person is coming back.

We also know the AC has a demon in him, via the 6th Bowl.

So, if the AC human part was alive before the king that was returned, then the king that was must be the demon, since there is no other logical and literal being around that can be pointed to.

Therefore, it all makes literally sense.

Alexander was of royal birth, is the king that was, both in his humanity and the demon, but is not coming back physically, so the king that was fulfilled via the demon, who was a royal king.

But, per Daniel, the human king was not of royal birth, wich the human AC is not.

There is no other possible answer. Every other avenue leads to a dead end and confusion.

The AC is the melding of human and demon. And is the only way he can be the king who is not of royal birth, who did not live before, while being the royal king, who was of the 5, and of royal birth.

All conditions statisfied.

Including the AC rising from the horn of the RAM and also rising from one of the Ten Toes.

The demon didn't cease to be at Alexanders death. He went forward. And is never said to be in the Pit.

So, he can did come out of the Ram's horn, did move forward to come out of the Ten Toes, and will, again, be king and operating through a human in the AC.

But, one has to get past the imagery of the First Seal rider, first, to see it. And that requires the literal word meaning of crown to define the imagery into a literal person.

Now, bring it on. I hear it coming now. :tiphat:

[frankDH]

[quote=CoreIssue;19800]

As for your position, I think the biggest issue in your clarity is that you are not quite literal enough. Kinda stuck half way between literal and figurative, which doesn't allow you to come down solidly anywhere.



I knew if I just prodded around long enough a test would pop up. Give me examples. You know I can't see my own bias. That's why I test. If you can't come up with any off the top of your head I have some for you. Let's do something.


Like the crown issue.

There are 2 statements on crown, Revelation and Daniel, one says crown and one does not.


Speaking literally, there is a statement abouit a crown, in Rev 6, and no mention of a crown in Daniel. It is not literal to state that Daniel makes any comment about a crown at all. Not saying something is not the same as making a statement.


How does one literally reconcil that?

You can't reconcile something with nothing. You lack half the equation. You have to work with what you are given, and if given enough, you proceed to a conclusion. Otherwise you do not conclude anything.

G4735
στέφανος
stephanos
stef'-an-os
From an apparently primary “stepho” (to twine or wreathe); a chaplet (as a badge of royalty, a prize in the public games or a symbol of honor generally; but more conspicuous and elaborate than the simple fillet, G1238), literally or figuratively: - crown.

The definition of crown, as used in Rev 6:2, offers three possible options.

1] a badge of royalty
2] a prize in public games
3] a symbol of honor

Daniel treats all three definitions in the same manner. He avoids commenting on them. If you can say he says it is not a badge of royalty, you have to also admit he says it is not a prize or a symbol. Daniel's lack of input effects every option equally. His lack of input does nothing to make one choice greater than another.

So my answer would be there can be no reconcilliation that leads to sufficient information to draw a conclusion. But if I were to speculate, I would opt for royalty because Daniel links the little horn and the king of fierce countenance in the same passage. And this is the meaning of king, as used in Dan 8:23.

H4428
מלך
melek
meh'-lek
From H4427; a king: - king, royal.


First, look up the definition of crown in Revelation. Meaning 3 does not mean royal, but, you are seeing the rider on the horse in the figurative imagery of a king on his horse. The image is outweighing the word meaning.

Add to that Daniel says he is a ruler without royalty. A ruler can wear a crown without being of royal birth.

I have never stated that the imagry suggests royalty. I have said that the imagry and the definition do not rule it out nor does it prove it. The definition allows for royal and non royal applications. The context does not favor either option, IMO. And daniel does not say ruler without royalty [from birth]. You are reading that into the passage. You cannot produce a verse that says it.

Daniel does mention a royal king with the same identity as the little horn. and the type found in Anitiochus confirms a royal king in the partial fulfillment of the passage. But there is no demand that the final fulfillment be born royal to fulfill the passage totally. That has been my consistent position from the beginning and remains so.


Those references were pointing to a human AC.

Now, on the 7 kings the Harlot sits on. Those connect to the the 7 heads, the kings, of the Dragon she sits on. Mystery Babylon.

Daniel lays out the 7 kings in the Statue. Literally.

John says the king that was, is not and will be is of the 5.

Immediately we logically know he is not talking about a human king, since no dead person is coming back.

We also know the AC has a demon in him, via the 6th Bowl.

So, if the AC human part was alive before the king that was returned, then the king that was must be the demon, since there is no other logical and literal being around that can be pointed to.

Melchizedek was a type foreshadowing Christ, and a literal man. But he didn't have to come back to life for Jesus to fulfill prophecy as a literal man. There is no literal being around yet, as far as we know, that can fill the billet as the AC. But when this role is fulfilled, a literal man will fulfill it. And Anitiochus will not have to be raised for it to happen. A type foreshadows an individual in the future. There is no demand he become that future being.


Therefore, it all makes literally sense.

Alexander was of royal birth, is the king that was, both in his humanity and the demon, but is not coming back physically, so the king that was fulfilled via the demon, who was a royal king.

But, per Daniel, the human king was not of royal birth, wich the human AC is not.

There is no other possible answer. Every other avenue leads to a dead end and confusion.

You are pulling this stuff out of thin air. Scripture never indicates that Alexander was demon possessed. Antiochus was of royal birth. And daniel never says the king would not be of royal birth. You are reading all of that into what Daniel fails to state. That's not literal interpretation. It's just speculation through preceived implication.


The AC is the melding of human and demon. And is the only way he can be the king who is not of royal birth, who did not live before, while being the royal king, who was of the 5, and of royal birth.

All conditions statisfied.

Rev 13 describe show the beast [AC] will be mortally wounded by the sword and will be healed. On this basis alone the terms was, is not, and will be apply. And no demon is required to make it happen. I don't have a problem if a demon does possess the AC. The description would still apply. But I would have to see a literal statement or rock solid logic it happens before I advanced the notion myself.



Including the AC rising from the horn of the RAM and also rising from one of the Ten Toes.

The demon didn't cease to be at Alexanders death. He went forward. And is never said to be in the Pit.

So, he can did come out of the Ram's horn, did move forward to come out of the Ten Toes, and will, again, be king and operating through a human in the AC.

What demon? Where are we told Alexander was possessed?

Here's the meaning of literal.

Literal
LIT'ERAL, a. [L. litera, a letter.]

1. According to the letter; primitive; real; not figurative or metaphorical; as the literal meaning of a phrase.

2. Following the letter or exact words; not free; as a literal translation.

3. Consisting of letters.

The literal notation of numbers was known to Europeans before the ciphers.

LIT'ERAL, n. Literal meaning. [Not used.]

Show me the letters or words that say a demon possesses Alexander.


But, one has to get past the imagery of the First Seal rider, first, to see it. And that requires the literal word meaning of crown to define the imagery into a literal person.

Now, bring it on. I hear it coming now. :tiphat:

I'm shocked, Core. You are basing everything you advance on what is not said and claiming it is literal. We don't speak the same language. Why do I have to get past something that has never been my position? How can things that are not found in the text be a literal representation of anything? None of this makes any sense.

[CoreIssue]

You can't reconcile something with nothing. You lack half the equation. You have to work with what you are given, and if given enough, you proceed to a conclusion. Otherwise you do not conclude anything.

G4735
στέφανος
stephanos
stef'-an-os
From an apparently primary “stepho” (to twine or wreathe); a chaplet (as a badge of royalty, a prize in the public games or a symbol of honor generally; but more conspicuous and elaborate than the simple fillet, G1238), literally or figuratively: - crown.

The definition of crown, as used in Rev 6:2, offers three possible options.

1] a badge of royalty
2] a prize in public games
3] a symbol of honor

Yep. Definition 3 is not royalty.
Daniel treats all three definitions in the same manner. He avoids commenting on them. If you can say he says it is not a badge of royalty, you have to also admit he says it is not a prize or a symbol. Daniel's lack of input effects every option equally. His lack of input does nothing to make one choice greater than another.
No. Daniel does not. That is not true.

In fact, in the Daniel reference I am citing it does not even mention a crown. It says he is not royal, period.

You are adding to something what Daniel said that he did not say regarding the dual statement concerning Antiochus. Crown is never mentioned in that verse.

Stick with what Daniel said. He stated he is not royal. Period.

Thus looking the Greek definition of the word, which Daniel did not use, since Daniel used Hebrew, definition is one cannot be used because it cannot be applied to someone who is not royal.

Definition 2 cannot apply because the Seal is not a reward.

But default, it has to be definition 3.

Stop adding words to Daniel he didn't say. Again, he did not make any mention of a crown regarding the ruler who was not royal.
So my answer would be there can be no reconcilliation that leads to sufficient information to draw a conclusion.
Of course there cannot be when you just introduced false, non-existant data to the equation.
But if I were to speculate, I would opt for royalty because Daniel links the little horn and the king of fierce countenance in the same passage. And this is the meaning of king, as used in Dan 8:23.
And what king came out of the RAM to be the 8th King from the 5? Sure not a human king.

H4428
מלך
melek
meh'-lek
From H4427; a king: - king, royal.

Again. You do not deal with the fact that this king is the 5th king who will be the 8th. And the 5th king was human.

Are you suggestion resurrection here?


First, look up the definition of crown in Revelation. Meaning 3 does not mean royal, but, you are seeing the rider on the horse in the figurative imagery of a king on his horse. The image is outweighing the word meaning.

Add to that Daniel says he is a ruler without royalty. A ruler can wear a crown without being of royal birth.

I have never stated that the imagry suggests royalty. I have said that the imagry and the definition do not rule it out nor does it prove it.

It does in the light of Daniel stating the king to come, human wise, is not royal.

The definition allows for royal and non royal applications. The context does not favor either option, IMO. And daniel does not say ruler without royalty [from birth]. You are reading that into the passage. You cannot produce a verse that says it.

You are not paying attention.

Antiochus WAS royal from birth. So it cannot be him.

And it says when that ruler comes his is not royal.

So, he cannot be born royal. That is logic in its simpliest form.

How do you have a not royal ruler being royal when stated not royal?
Daniel does mention a royal king with the same identity as the little horn.
The next king was royal. Rome.

You now have created a contradiction from Daniel. How can a single man come to power royal and not royal the same time?

Until you can answer that you have a major problem on your hands.
and the type found in Anitiochus confirms a royal king in the partial fulfillment of the passage.
Good grief, Frank! I says he is NOT royal. You cannot turn him royal.

But there is no demand that the final fulfillment be born royal to fulfill the passage totally. That has been my consistent position from the beginning and remains so.

Good. Because he is not royal. Which means the First Seal is definition 3.


Those references were pointing to a human AC.

Now, on the 7 kings the Harlot sits on. Those connect to the the 7 heads, the kings, of the Dragon she sits on. Mystery Babylon.

Daniel lays out the 7 kings in the Statue. Literally.

John says the king that was, is not and will be is of the 5.

Immediately we logically know he is not talking about a human king, since no dead person is coming back.

We also know the AC has a demon in him, via the 6th Bowl.

So, if the AC human part was alive before the king that was returned, then the king that was must be the demon, since there is no other logical and literal being around that can be pointed to.

Melchizedek was a type foreshadowing Christ, and a literal man. But he didn't have to come back to life for Jesus to fulfill prophecy as a literal man.

Non comparable. It says Christ is in the priesthood of Melchizedek. It never says he is Melcizedek returned.

But it does say the 5th King does come back and is the 8th from the 7 and the 5.

Totally false analogy you trying to compare. Priesthood of is not the same as saying he returns.
There is no literal being around yet, as far as we know, that can fill the billet as the AC.
I believe he is alive and working in the EU right now.
But when this role is fulfilled, a literal man will fulfill it.
A man with a demon in him.
And Anitiochus will not have to be raised for it to happen.
It never hints at Antiochus being raised. It says the AC will be the 8th king who was the 5th king. That is a statement of return.

A type foreshadows an individual in the future. There is no demand he become that future being.

But most assuredly it says the 5th King, of Greece, will return.


Therefore, it all makes literally sense.

Alexander was of royal birth, is the king that was, both in his humanity and the demon, but is not coming back physically, so the king that was fulfilled via the demon, who was a royal king.

But, per Daniel, the human king was not of royal birth, wich the human AC is not.

There is no other possible answer. Every other avenue leads to a dead end and confusion.

You are pulling this stuff out of thin air.

Nope. I am not. It is all there.
Scripture never indicates that Alexander was demon possessed.
And never says he was not, either.
Antiochus was of royal birth. And daniel never says the king would not be of royal birth.
Grrrr.

Daniel 11
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty.

Not royal. Thus not born royal.

You are reading all of that into what Daniel fails to state. That's not literal interpretation. It's just speculation through preceived implication.

What does the verse say?


The AC is the melding of human and demon. And is the only way he can be the king who is not of royal birth, who did not live before, while being the royal king, who was of the 5, and of royal birth.

All conditions statisfied.

Rev 13 describe show the beast [AC] will be mortally wounded by the sword and will be healed.

No. It shows one head will be mortally wounded on. That head is the 5th king, who was mortally wounded in life. He will return.

Alexander dies thusly.
On this basis alone the terms was, is not, and will be apply.
Nonsense.

John was speaking relative to when he lived. The king was, is dead at the time of John, and will, in the future, be again.

Not all future tense.

And no demon is required to make it happen. I don't have a problem if a demon does possess the AC. The description would still apply. But I would have to see a literal statement or rock solid logic it happens before I advanced the notion myself.

Was, past tense to the time of John. Is not, present tense to the time of John. Will be, future tense to the time of John.

Head, not AC, mortally wounded. ONE head, being ONE past king. Not the AC.


Including the AC rising from the horn of the RAM and also rising from one of the Ten Toes.

The demon didn't cease to be at Alexanders death. He went forward. And is never said to be in the Pit.

So, he can did come out of the Ram's horn, did move forward to come out of the Ten Toes, and will, again, be king and operating through a human in the AC.

What demon? Where are we told Alexander was possessed?

Logic, Frank.

How else can a long dead king come back, be royal and not royal at the same time.

And here is a literal statement there is a demon.

Revelation 16
13Then I saw three evil[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2016;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30952a)] spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.

The dragon is indwelt by the Dragon, Satan. The FP by the demon that rises out of the Pit at Mid. And the AC is indwelt with no mention of his demon rising because the demon was with him from the beginning of the Trib. Probably before.

Here's the meaning of literal.

Literal
LIT'ERAL, a. [L. litera, a letter.]

1. According to the letter; primitive; real; not figurative or metaphorical; as the literal meaning of a phrase.

2. Following the letter or exact words; not free; as a literal translation.

3. Consisting of letters.

The literal notation of numbers was known to Europeans before the ciphers.

LIT'ERAL, n. Literal meaning. [Not used.]

Show me the letters or words that say a demon possesses Alexander.

Tell me how else the king that was of the 5 can come back thousands of years later?

Either resurrection or it is referring to the demon within him as king.

Which is it?


But, one has to get past the imagery of the First Seal rider, first, to see it. And that requires the literal word meaning of crown to define the imagery into a literal person.

Now, bring it on. I hear it coming now. :tiphat:

I'm shocked, Core. You are basing everything you advance on what is not said and claiming it is literal.

Pay attention to what I said.

What is literally said demands, by the evidence given, the logical conclusions I gave you.

Don't go there that we are not allowed to deduct logical conclusions from literal evidence.
We don't speak the same language.
True. I am obsessed with using rules of grammar and proper word meanings to allow for proper and logical deductions and conclusion.

I do not try to use Greek words to define what Daniel said about crowns.

I do not see how not royal can possibly allow for royal birth.
Why do I have to get past something that has never been my position? How can things that are not found in the text be a literal representation of anything? None of this makes any sense.
That is a tough one to answer.
Not being royal is literally said.

The 5th returning from the ancient past is literally said.

Now, how one puts all the evidence together and achieves a conclusion is where we really part part comany.

King that was, is not and will be eliminates a human being as the subject, unless one accept resurrection. I don't.

The AC has a demon. That is literal.

The Bible says demons do rule through humans.

So, I see nothing illogical in saying if the demon who rules through the AC is the same as the one who ruled through Alexander. then the king that was literally returns.

I also see that the man who is the AC is not of royal birth because Daniel says he literally is not royal.

The only way to avoid contradiction is for the man to be not royal with the king who was to be referring to the demon.

Of course the demon was not born royal, but the only demand is that he be king, by John.

All conditions are satisfied.

I see the thinking the AC suffers the head wound getting in your way. Read more carefully.

The AC Beast is fully alive, with only one head showing mortal wound.

Why is that significant? Only significant if the 5th king, that that is healed and returned to seeming life.

[frankDH]

Core, I'm tied up on phone. Will respond as I can.

[CoreIssue]

Core, I'm tied up on phone. Will respond as I can.
No problem.

I doubt we will agree on this one, which is no sweat.

[frankDH]

Yep. Definition 3 is not royalty.

Definition 2 and 3 are not royalty. But does that exclude definition 1 from being a possible option? I considered all 3.


No. Daniel does not. That is not true.

In fact, in the Daniel reference I am citing it does not even mention a crown. It says he is not royal, period.


What Daniel reference are you citing? If I saw it I could consider it. All you do is keep saying he said something I can’t see being said.


You are adding to something what Daniel said that he did not say regarding the dual statement concerning Antiochus. Crown is never mentioned in that verse.

Stick with what Daniel said. He stated he is not royal. Period.

Well, until you can show me where he said that we will have to agree we to disagree.


Thus looking the Greek definition of the word, which Daniel did not use, since Daniel used Hebrew, definition is one cannot be used because it cannot be applied to someone who is not royal.

Definition 2 cannot apply because the Seal is not a reward.

What seal? If I remember correctly you use NIV. The only seals in Daniel, in that translation seal a vision, prophecy and book. How does a seal have anything to do with anything we are discussing?


But default, it has to be definition 3.

Stop adding words to Daniel he didn't say. Again, he did not make any mention of a crown regarding the ruler who was not royal.

We must be from different planets. I don’t understand any of your logic.


Of course there cannot be when you just introduced false, non-existant data to the equation.

LOL, I feel like I’m in the twilight zone.


And what king came out of the RAM to be the 8th King from the 5? Sure not a human king.


Remains to be seen.


Again. You do not deal with the fact that this king is the 5th king who will be the 8th. And the 5th king was human.

Are you suggestion resurrection here?


No. I believe these verses will apply to someone in the future. It is moren likely to be some sort of miraculous resuscitation.


It does in the light of Daniel stating the king to come, human wise, is not royal.

If you say so.


You are not paying attention.

Antiochus WAS royal from birth. So it cannot be him.

And it says when that ruler comes his is not royal.

So, he cannot be born royal. That is logic in its simpliest form.

How do you have a not royal ruler being royal when stated not royal?

Agree to disagree?


The next king was royal. Rome.

You now have created a contradiction from Daniel. How can a single man come to power royal and not royal the same time?

Until you can answer that you have a major problem on your hands.

Are you reading anything I’m writing? How can I create a contradiction when I haven’t taken a position? I don’t see anything that comments on his birth status at all. Now I know that you take meaning from what is not said, but when I’m not saying anything I’m not meaning anything. No need to interpret it.



Non comparable. It says Christ is in the priesthood of Melchizedek. It never says he is Melcizedek returned.

But it does say the 5th King does come back and is the 8th from the 7 and the 5.

Totally false analogy you trying to compare. Priesthood of is not the same as saying he returns.

The type never comes back in any analogy you choose.


I believe he is alive and working in the EU right now.

It’s possible.


A man with a demon in him.

I’m interested in how you know that but I’m afraid to ask.


It never hints at Antiochus being raised. It says the AC will be the 8th king who was the 5th king. That is a statement of return.

Or linage.


Quote:
A type foreshadows an individual in the future. There is no demand he become that future being.

But most assuredly it says the 5th King, of Greece, will return.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue Therefore, it all makes literally sense.

Alexander was of royal birth, is the king that was, both in his humanity and the demon, but is not coming back physically, so the king that was fulfilled via the demon, who was a royal king.

But, per Daniel, the human king was not of royal birth, wich the human AC is not.

There is no other possible answer. Every other avenue leads to a dead end and confusion.
You are pulling this stuff out of thin air.

Nope. I am not. It is all there.
Quote:
And never says he was not, either.

We can agree on that.


Grrrr.

Down Boy LOL.


Not royal. Thus not born royal.

Finally. A verse that I can see. I’ve been over chapters 7 & 8 with a fine toothed comb. I had no idea you were looking outside that area. I’m going to tell you what I know from my research. You can accept it or reject it. Just passing it along for whatever purpose you want to put it to.

Antiochus was of royal birth. He was in Athens at the time of his father’s demise. In his absence a number of his relatives attempted to lay claim to the throne. Rather than attempt to fight for the throne, Antiochus played politics. He flattered the king of Pergamus to gain his support. He deceived his brother with flatteries and got his support. He kissed up to Rome by paying off some tributes he was behind on. And he flattered various dignitaries in Syria with gifts and bought their support. As a result, upon ascending the throne of his father, the Syrian elite gave him the title of Epiphanes [ The Illustrious]. But he was a drunkard who continually made a fool of himself in the streets and could not gain the respect of the general population. They too tagged him with a title. Instead of Antiochus Epiphanes, they referred to him as Antiochus Epimanes [The Madman]. This verse isn’t saying that he did not become a king or that he was not the son of a king. It is a statement that he never received the respect of a king. It doesn’t address his birthright in any way.


No. It shows one head will be mortally wounded on. That head is the 5th king, who was mortally wounded in life. He will return.

Alexander dies thusly.

Try reading it again.

Rev 17:9 "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. 12 "The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.


Nonsense.

John was speaking relative to when he lived. The king was, is dead at the time of John, and will, in the future, be again.

Not all future tense.

John was speaking relative to the vision he saw. Not the time he lived in.

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.

Everything after this verse was future. That’s what hereafter means.


Was, past tense to the time of John. Is not, present tense to the time of John. Will be, future tense to the time of John.

Head, not AC, mortally wounded. ONE head, being ONE past king. Not the AC.

You are not treating hereafter in a literal manner.


The dragon is indwelt by the Dragon, Satan. The FP by the demon that rises out of the Pit at Mid. And the AC is indwelt with no mention of his demon rising because the demon was with him from the beginning of the Trib. Probably before.

Core, if that’s what you see scripture saying you should go with it. But you are assigning meaning to biblical silence. That’s not literal, it’s intuitive. It didn’t come out of God’s mouth. It isn’t inspired. I do not believe it is sufficient to base doctrine on.


Tell me how else the king that was of the 5 can come back thousands of years later?

Either resurrection or it is referring to the demon within him as king.

Which is it?


In the first place you misread the verse. It says 5 are fallen, 1 is and 1 is to come. And it says the 8th beast is of the 7, not 5. Here’s the word translated as “of”.

G1537
ἐκ / ἐξ
ek / ex
Thayer Definition:
1) out of, from, by, away from
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative

The 8th beast comes out of the 7. Jacob was “of” Abraham and “of” Isaac. “out of” is not “is”. He can come out of a revived kingdom, out of a linage, etc. But you have to go with what you see. Belief is a personal matter.


Pay attention to what I said.

What is literally said demands, by the evidence given, the logical conclusions I gave you.

Don't go there that we are not allowed to deduct logical conclusions from literal evidence.

Again. We will have to agree to disagree. With three options, it could be the one you pick or not. I am not intuitive like you.


True. I am obsessed with using rules of grammar and proper word meanings to allow for proper and logical deductions and conclusion.

I do not try to use Greek words to define what Daniel said about crowns.

I do not see how not royal can possibly allow for royal birth.

I have explained Dan 11:23 as best as I can. For me, it does not say what you believe it says. I must do as I advise you to do. Go where you are led. I don’t have to agree with you for you to do that and you don’t have to agree with me for me to make up my own mind.


That is a tough one to answer.
Not being royal is literally said.

If you have interpreted the verse correctly. I have a different interpretation based on my own research.


The 5th returning from the ancient past is literally said.

The verse says of the 7, not 5. There is no evidence Alexander was possessed. There is no demand a demon possessing him will return.


Now, how one puts all the evidence together and achieves a conclusion is where we really part part comany.

I agree.


King that was, is not and will be eliminates a human being as the subject, unless one accept resurrection. I don't.

Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed : and all the world wondered after the beast.

Deadly
G2288
θάνατος
thanatos
than'-at-os
From G2348; (properly an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively): - X deadly, (be . . .) death.

Healed
G2323
θεραπεύω
therapeuō
Thayer Definition:
1) to serve, do service
2) to heal, cure, restore to health
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the same as G2324
Citing in TDNT: 3:128, 331


The AC has a demon. That is literal.

Agreed, at trib’s end.


The Bible says demons do rule through humans.

agreed


So, I see nothing illogical in saying if the demon who rules through the AC is the same as the one who ruled through Alexander. then the king that was literally returns.

Then embrace it.


I also see that the man who is the AC is not of royal birth because Daniel says he literally is not royal.

Go with what you see.


The only way to avoid contradiction is for the man to be not royal with the king who was to be referring to the demon.

Of course the demon was not born royal, but the only demand is that he be king, by John.

All conditions are satisfied.


Then you have your answer.


I see the thinking the AC suffers the head wound getting in your way. Read more carefully.

The AC Beast is fully alive, with only one head showing mortal wound.

Why is that significant? Only significant if the 5th king, that that is healed and returned to seeming life.

If you don’t mean mortal don’t say mortal. It is fine with me however you come to your belief. But your method leaves me scratching my head. In one instance, you have 3 possible definitions for crowns but insist on one and claim to be literal. But when you have one definition for deadly you reject it and claim to be literal. Definition is only important when you chose to accept it as such. I need something more reliable. You won’t always be there to tell me when it counts and when it doesn’t.

[removed]

Raises a question for me. Do you see all who question the pretrib position as anti pre trib? Is there no room for a reasonable person to question this belief?

No, I would never say such a thing. I believe in the spirit of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:21;&version=31;) wholeheartedly and without limit. To the contrary, I am separating constructive discussion and debate from the fleshy intolerance, bigotry, and vitriol of people who have the irrational need to attack my Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology.

Look at this thread. If I really wanted to contentious about this issue, then I would have jumped on this thread as soon as the others appeared. But instead, God the Spirit indicated that any attempt to do so would not edify anyone, so I should back off and simply watch the others fight. And, sure enough, the said replies "trashed" this thread with contentiousness, were split from this thread, and were deposited into the other forum.

Do you want to hear my voice instead of CoreIssue's voice? Listen to my absence, which I have sustained until now.

Tell me, if we were face to face right now, would we behave as the others have done so? I seriously doubt this, but we seemed to have forgotten that we are all living and feeling human beings in the household of God the Father, not digital abstractions.

CoreIssue means well. I know this. He is like me, as in having a fiery passion to unwaveringly defend sound doctrine. But, very much like me, he can get carried away with this Spirit-led mission and get "in the flesh."

God the Spirit has convicted me of being a spiritual Ephesian (ref. Revelation 2:1-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:1-7;&version=31;), cross ref. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:1-3;&version=31;)). I accept this conviction. And, in doing so, I highly suspect that many others suffer from the same problem as well. As frankDH is hinting at, we have let the sting of battle with unGodly behavior dull our humanity and sense of love. And our situation is not unique, as most Christians have a habit of dichotomizing between lifestyles of "Christian life" and "doctrinal debate," as if any type of apologetics is too harsh for love's ears.

:nod: You are a valuable brother in Christ Jesus, frankDH. Likewise, CoreIssue is a valuable brother in Christ Jesus as well. God the Spirit has brought you two together, so you two should act like brothers in Christ Jesus, not a focus group of some sort. And if you decided to permanently stay at CTZ's forums, then I would be very glad about this.

May the peace of Christ Jesus be with both of you.

[frankDH]

Raises a question for me. Do you see all who question the pretrib position as anti pre trib? Is there no room for a reasonable person to question this belief?

No, I would never say such a thing. I believe in the spirit of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:21;&version=31;) wholeheartedly and without limit. To the contrary, I am separating constructive discussion and debate from the fleshy intolerance, bigotry, and vitriol of people who have the irrational need to attack my Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology.

Look at this thread. If I really wanted to contentious about this issue, then I would have jumped on this thread as soon as the others appeared. But instead, God the Spirit indicated that any attempt to do so would not edify anyone, so I should back off and simply watch the others fight. And, sure enough, the said replies "trashed" this thread with contentiousness, were split from this thread, and were deposited into the other forum.

Do you want to hear my voice instead of CoreIssue's voice? Listen to my absence, which I have sustained until now.

Tell me, if we were face to face right now, would we behave as the others have done so? I seriously doubt this, but we seemed to have forgotten that we are all living and feeling human beings in the household of God the Father, not digital abstractions.

CoreIssue means well. I know this. He is like me, as in having a fiery passion to unwaveringly defend sound doctrine. But, very much like me, he can get carried away with this Spirit-led mission and get "in the flesh."

God the Spirit has convicted me of being a spiritual Ephesian (ref. Revelation 2:1-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:1-7;&version=31;), cross ref. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:1-3;&version=31;)). I accept this conviction. And, in doing so, I highly suspect that many others suffer from the same problem as well. As frankDH is hinting at, we have let the sting of battle with unGodly behavior dull our humanity and sense of love. And our situation is not unique, as most Christians have a habit of dichotomizing between lifestyles of "Christian life" and "doctrinal debate," as if any type of apologetics is too harsh for love's ears.

:nod: You are a valuable brother in Christ Jesus, frankDH. Likewise, CoreIssue is a valuable brother in Christ Jesus as well. God the Spirit has brought you two together, so you two should act like brothers in Christ Jesus, not a focus group of some sort. And if you decided to permanently stay at CTZ's forums, then I would be very glad about this.

May the peace of Christ Jesus be with both of you.

Glad to hear it and nice to meet you. I can tell you about core. I know exactly what is wrong with him. He's as stubborn as a I am. LOL. But of course he is wrong. :snooty: You have some nice smilies here.

I asked because I've been around. When some approach the topic it isn't long before there are charges of trying to steal their blessed hope and such. But then there are others that just get motivated to dig a little deeper. They are who I look for. I really can't see my own bias. It takes someone else to make it evident. They render quite a service.

I'll probably be around at times. I've enjoyed myself. I'm a regular at the rapture ready [now the new and impoved prophecyfellowship.org]. Been a fixture there for so long they have become family. But there's always room for new friends.

[removed]

Glad to hear it and nice to meet you. I can tell you about core. I know exactly what is wrong with him. He's as stubborn as a I am. LOL. But of course he is wrong. :snooty: You have some nice smilies here.

I asked because I've been around. When some approach the topic it isn't long before there are charges of trying to steal their blessed hope and such. But then there are others that just get motivated to dig a little deeper. They are who I look for. I really can't see my own bias. It takes someone else to make it evident. They render quite a service.

I'll probably be around at times. I've enjoyed myself. I'm a regular at the rapture ready [now the new and impoved prophecyfellowship.org]. Been a fixture there for so long they have become family. But there's always room for new friends.

Likewise, I am glad to meet you, frankDH. :): :tiphat:

You and CoreIssue need to stop trying to definitively convince each other of your position, as if any of you can control the other. God the Spirit is big enough to guide you two, so just have fun discussing this issue and let your discussions go where they may.

Honest and fun debate itself is a crucible, which will burn away all irrelevances and provide you with a pure product.

I may join you on the new ProphecyFellowship.org forums, if our Lord wills it. But not as LuckyStrike, since the time of LuckyStrike is ending.

[CoreIssue]

Yep. Definition 3 is not royalty.

Definition 2 and 3 are not royalty. But does that exclude definition 1 from being a possible option? I considered all 3.

When Daniel says no, it is no.


No. Daniel does not. That is not true.

In fact, in the Daniel reference I am citing it does not even mention a crown. It says he is not royal, period.

What Daniel reference are you citing? If I saw it I could consider it. All you do is keep saying he said something I can’t see being said.

I posted it before.

Daniel 11
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty.

Says not royal, but this is also referring to Antiochus, who was born royal. So a duel statement.


Thus looking the Greek definition of the word, which Daniel did not use, since Daniel used Hebrew, definition is one cannot be used because it cannot be applied to someone who is not royal.

Definition 2 cannot apply because the Seal is not a reward.

What seal? If I remember correctly you use NIV. The only seals in Daniel, in that translation seal a vision, prophecy and book. How does a seal have anything to do with anything we are discussing?

You tried to apply the Greek word of crown to what Daniel said. You cannot do that. Different languages give different meanings.


But default, it has to be definition 3.

Stop adding words to Daniel he didn't say. Again, he did not make any mention of a crown regarding the ruler who was not royal.

We must be from different planets. I don’t understand any of your logic.

Look at the quote above. Daniel said not royal.
quote=coreissue]
And what king came out of the RAM to be the 8th King from the 5? Sure not a human king.


Again. You do not deal with the fact that this king is the 5th king who will be the 8th. And the 5th king was human.

Are you suggestion resurrection here?
No. I believe these verses will apply to someone in the future. It is moren likely to be some sort of miraculous resuscitation.

Excuse me? Resustitate someone dead for thousands of years?


You are not paying attention.

Antiochus WAS royal from birth. So it cannot be him.

And it says when that ruler comes his is not royal.

So, he cannot be born royal. That is logic in its simpliest form.

How do you have a not royal ruler being royal when stated not royal?

Agree to disagree?

I sure disagree that Daniel saying not royal in any way allows him to be royal.


The next king was royal. Rome.

You now have created a contradiction from Daniel. How can a single man come to power royal and not royal the same time?

Until you can answer that you have a major problem on your hands.

Are you reading anything I’m writing? How can I create a contradiction when I haven’t taken a position? I don’t see anything that comments on his birth status at all. Now I know that you take meaning from what is not said, but when I’m not saying anything I’m not meaning anything. No need to interpret it.

Because you are not looking at the Statue or Daniel 11. Only the 3rd Beast.


Non comparable. It says Christ is in the priesthood of Melchizedek. It never says he is Melcizedek returned.

But it does say the 5th King does come back and is the 8th from the 7 and the 5.

Totally false analogy you trying to compare. Priesthood of is not the same as saying he returns.

The type never comes back in any analogy you choose.

Because the priesthood, not the Man, is what Christ is of.


I believe he is alive and working in the EU right now.

It’s possible.


A man with a demon in him.

I’m interested in how you know that but I’m afraid to ask.

Because the AC has to be alive and in power before the First Seal/opening of the 70th Week, to have already negotiated the Treaty shown in both.


It never hints at Antiochus being raised. It says the AC will be the 8th king who was the 5th king. That is a statement of return.

Or linage.

I never even hinted at lineage.


Grrrr.

Down Boy LOL.

:D


Not royal. Thus not born royal.

Finally. A verse that I can see. I’ve been over chapters 7 & 8 with a fine toothed comb. I had no idea you were looking outside that area. I’m going to tell you what I know from my research. You can accept it or reject it. Just passing it along for whatever purpose you want to put it to.

There is a lot more to this than the 3rd Beast. There is John and the Statue, as well.

Antiochus was of royal birth. He was in Athens at the time of his father’s demise. In his absence a number of his relatives attempted to lay claim to the throne. Rather than attempt to fight for the throne, Antiochus played politics. He flattered the king of Pergamus to gain his support. He deceived his brother with flatteries and got his support. He kissed up to Rome by paying off some tributes he was behind on. And he flattered various dignitaries in Syria with gifts and bought their support. As a result, upon ascending the throne of his father, the Syrian elite gave him the title of Epiphanes [ The Illustrious]. But he was a drunkard who continually made a fool of himself in the streets and could not gain the respect of the general population. They too tagged him with a title. Instead of Antiochus Epiphanes, they referred to him as Antiochus Epimanes [The Madman]. This verse isn’t saying that he did not become a king or that he was not the son of a king. It is a statement that he never received the respect of a king. It doesn’t address his birthright in any way.

Since when did royalty need respect to be royalty? He was royal by birth, even if hated.


No. It shows one head will be mortally wounded on. That head is the 5th king, who was mortally wounded in life. He will return.

Alexander dies thusly.

Try reading it again.

Rev 17:9 "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. 12 "The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.

Now you read again.

Only one head is wounded, not the whole Beast.

And one of the 5 that were is the AC.


Nonsense.

John was speaking relative to when he lived. The king was, is dead at the time of John, and will, in the future, be again.

Not all future tense.

John was speaking relative to the vision he saw. Not the time he lived in.

No. He was speaking relative to then. During the 6th King with the 7th Future.

Else all 7 would have been were, not just 5.

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.

Everything after this verse was future. That’s what hereafter means.


No. Being shown the future in the present does not make all future.

Was, past tense to the time of John. Is not, present tense to the time of John. Will be, future tense to the time of John.

Head, not AC, mortally wounded. ONE head, being ONE past king. Not the AC.

You are not treating hereafter in a literal manner.

Most assuredly am. 7 Heads, not one. Only one wounded, not the whole beast.

The Beast is not dead, only the one Head.


The dragon is indwelt by the Dragon, Satan. The FP by the demon that rises out of the Pit at Mid. And the AC is indwelt with no mention of his demon rising because the demon was with him from the beginning of the Trib. Probably before.

Core, if that’s what you see scripture saying you should go with it. But you are assigning meaning to biblical silence. That’s not literal, it’s intuitive. It didn’t come out of God’s mouth. It isn’t inspired. I do not believe it is sufficient to base doctrine on.

It says the demon comes out of his body. That is literal.



Tell me how else the king that was of the 5 can come back thousands of years later?

Either resurrection or it is referring to the demon within him as king.

Which is it?


In the first place you misread the verse. It says 5 are fallen, 1 is and 1 is to come. And it says the 8th beast is of the 7, not 5. Here’s the word translated as “of”.

G1537
ἐκ / ἐξ
ek / ex
Thayer Definition:
1) out of, from, by, away from
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative

The 8th beast comes out of the 7. Jacob was “of” Abraham and “of” Isaac. “out of” is not “is”. He can come out of a revived kingdom, out of a linage, etc. But you have to go with what you see. Belief is a personal matter.


Wrong. Now read the part you missed.
8The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction.
He is of the 5.


King that was, is not and will be eliminates a human being as the subject, unless one accept resurrection. I don't.

Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed : and all the world wondered after the beast.

Deadly
G2288
θάνατος
thanatos
than'-at-os
From G2348; (properly an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively): - X deadly, (be . . .) death.

Healed
G2323
θεραπεύω
therapeuō
Thayer Definition:
1) to serve, do service
2) to heal, cure, restore to health
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the same as G2324
Citing in TDNT: 3:128, 331

Only ONE head, not the whole Beast.


The AC has a demon. That is literal.

Agreed, at trib’s end.

No. The FP is at Mid and in the Harlot discussion the demon is already there.


[quote=coreissue]
The only way to avoid contradiction is for the man to be not royal with the king who was to be referring to the demon.

Of course the demon was not born royal, but the only demand is that he be king, by John.

All conditions are satisfied.


Then you have your answer.

And you have a contradiction.

[frankDH]

Excuse me? Resustitate someone dead for thousands of years?

I can see how that would sound confusing from your point of view. But I do not see the things beyond the point that John was told would happen hereafter as happening thousands of years ago.


Because you are not looking at the Statue or Daniel 11. Only the 3rd Beast.

If I haven’t taken a position what does it matter what I look at. Whatare you attempting to refute? I haven’t made a claim to refute.


Because the AC has to be alive and in power before the First Seal/opening of the 70th Week, to have already negotiated the Treaty shown in both.

That doesn’t mean he has to be possessed at the time the treaty is signed, if he gets possessed at all.


I never even hinted at lineage.

The hint is mine. It is an option that enables the AC to be of the 7 without bringing back some demon from thousands of years before that is never shown in scripture thousands of years ago to begin with. That’s the part I have trouble accepting. All I have is your word that Alexander was possessed by a demon. Scripture never indicates that happens. So bringing back the demon that possessed him is questionable to me.


There is a lot more to this than the 3rd Beast. There is John and the Statue, as well.

Dan 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

Neither the statue nor John have anything to do with the honor of the kingdom. The verse literally says he is not given the honor of the kingdom, not his is not given the kingdom. The description I gave you satisfies that while allowing a type that can still reign. It may not be something that you see any value in. It does provide answers for me.


Since when did royalty need respect to be royalty? He was royal by birth, even if hated.


Whether he was royalty is not in question in Dan 11:21. Whether he received the respect of that position is. The kingdom is not questioned. The honor is what is withheld.


Now you read again.

Only one head is wounded, not the whole Beast.

And one of the 5 that were is the AC.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

It is the beast that the woman rides on that has seven heads. Not the AC. One of the seven heads of the scarlet beast is wounded. The AC is of those 7 heads and Rev 13 says he is the one that receives the mortal wound. It doesn’t say the AC has 7 heads, one of which was wounded.


No. He was speaking relative to then. During the 6th King with the 7th Future.

Else all 7 would have been were, not just 5.


Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.

Must
G1163
δεῖ
dei
Thayer Definition:
1) it is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper
1a) necessity lying in the nature of the case
1b) necessity brought on by circumstances or by the conduct of others toward us.
1c) necessity in reference to what is required to attain some end
1d) a necessity of law and command, of duty, equity
1e) necessity established by the counsel and decree of God, especially by that purpose of his which relates to the salvation of men by the intervention of Christ and which is disclosed in the Old Testament prophecies
1e1) concerning what Christ was destined finally to undergo, his sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: third person singular active present of G1210
Citing in TDNT: 2:21, 140

Must is an absolute demand of this verse. Everything described after this point must take place after this point. It is absolutely necessary.


Most assuredly am. 7 Heads, not one. Only one wounded, not the whole beast.

The Beast is not dead, only the one Head.

So you actually believe there is a literal 7 headed, demon possessed person running around in the UE somewhere waiting to sign a treaty with Israel someday? It is the scarlet beast that has 7 heads. The AC will look like a normal man.


It says the demon comes out of his body. That is literal.

I accept that a demon comes out of him at that time. But that does not prove that he has that demon going into the trib. He can be possessed at anytime prior to the demon coming out of him and the demon could still come out.


Wrong. Now read the part you missed.
Quote:
8The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction.


He is of the 5.

I read that part and the part that says the things that are described MUST come hereafter.


Only ONE head, not the whole Beast.

Scarlet beast the woman sits on, not the AC.


And you have a contradiction.

Only if I apply your timeline to my statements. I do not agree with your timeline. Your timeline makes things that must come hereafter thousands of years before hereafter begins. You can’t resolve this conflict so I can’t accept it.

[frankDH]

Glad to hear it and nice to meet you. I can tell you about core. I know exactly what is wrong with him. He's as stubborn as a I am. LOL. But of course he is wrong. :snooty: You have some nice smilies here.

I asked because I've been around. When some approach the topic it isn't long before there are charges of trying to steal their blessed hope and such. But then there are others that just get motivated to dig a little deeper. They are who I look for. I really can't see my own bias. It takes someone else to make it evident. They render quite a service.

I'll probably be around at times. I've enjoyed myself. I'm a regular at the rapture ready [now the new and impoved prophecyfellowship.org]. Been a fixture there for so long they have become family. But there's always room for new friends.

Likewise, I am glad to meet you, frankDH. :): :tiphat:

You and CoreIssue need to stop trying to definitively convince each other of your position, as if any of you can control the other. God the Spirit is big enough to guide you two, so just have fun discussing this issue and let your discussions go where they may.

Honest and fun debate itself is a crucible, which will burn away all irrelevances and provide you with a pure product.

I may join you on the new ProphecyFellowship.org forums, if our Lord wills it. But not as LuckyStrike, since the time of LuckyStrike is ending.

Actually I get a lot of fun out of it. I just get more cantankerous as I get older. It would be easier to put lightning in a bottle than control core. Never been my hope. Our conversation are more for giving lurkers options to consider.

Prophecyfellowship.org will be down for a bit while servers are changed, but stop by RDD when you come. That's where they keep the crazy relatives in the family. I live there.

[CoreIssue]

Frank, the Scarlet Beast and the AC Beast both represent Mystery Babylon consumated in the AC and his kingdom.

The body is composed of all 4 Beasts of Daniel. The Heads are all 7 kings of the Statue. The 10 Crowns are the Ten Toe nations that the Roman Empire literally broke apart into in history.

The EU encompasses the area of the Ten Toes.

The AC rises out of that area, eliminating your national option from consideration, and physical Bablyon.

7 Hills = 7 Heads = 7 Kings. Only one king is spoken of as dead from a head would and coming back to life. Not the whole Beast, not the AC.

If you cannot see that I don't know what more to say.

The coming back to life is deception. Just as the AC image, the dragon, coming to life deceoption.

Satan seemingly brings the Statue to life and the demon seemingly is the return of Alexander.

God does not allow anyone in hell to come back to the earth. That would violate his promise of dying once and then judgement.

But, of course, you can believe otherwise.

[frankDH]

Core, Please clarify.

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Is the entity that I have highlighted the AC?
When "he" is revealed, how many heads will people see him having?

[TEXASGRANDMA]

I was attacked on another board for my pre-trib beliefs. I took two weeks and stayed off the computer, studied the BBS's and asked God to help me see the truth. At the end of the two weeks I still am a pre-tribber. I have taken 5 studies on the end times at least 4 Churches and each one taught a pre-trib rapture.
So now I don't argue with anyone. I put my trust in God and I don't worry about the tribulation, except of course of praying for the lost. I don't plan on being here for the trib.
betty

[CoreIssue]

Core, Please clarify.

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Is the entity that I have highlighted the AC?
When "he" is revealed, how many heads will people see him having?
Let us first get it out of Old English and into how we talk today, and expand to give that answer.
3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20th%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-29649a)] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
What day? The Rapture, from the prior chapter.

The Apostacy must occur and the Man of Lawlessness must be revealed.

So, the Rapture cannot occur unless the AC is revealed and he cannot be revealed unless the Rapture occurs.

Hence, Pre-Trib.

Looking further in the chapter.
5Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.
The Holy Spirit, the Restrainer, must be removed for the AC to be revealed and his lawlessness unleashed.

Not the Church, the Church did not restrain in the OT, is not a person and does not cover the earth to be able to restrain.

ONLY the Holy Spirit fits the bill.

And to remove the Holy Spirit requires removing the Church.

So, yes, he is the AC.

And I already told you the Beast represents Mystery Babylon fulfilled in the restored empire and the AC.

So how many heads he has has nothing to do with the issue.

The AC has one human head. The wounded head is figurative of a past king, not the AC.

Now, how does a past king return and get represented within a future human being, who is not the old king alive again.

Nothing in Revelation says the 'he' opening the 70th Week of Daniel on riding the horse of the First Seal dies and is brought back to life.

He cannot be an acient resusitated king because he alive before the First Seal.

Mystery Bablyon begins in ancient Babylon, moves through Medo-Persia into Greece and then Rome. Broke into the Ten and is restored.

It isn't the physical land at issue, but the evil spiritual kindom of Mystery Babylon. The Satanic False Kingdom of God.

So, trying to make the Beast the actual physical AC is a none starter. It is symbolic of all Mystery Babylon, land, king, religion and all else.

[CoreIssue]

I was attacked on another board for my pre-trib beliefs. I took two weeks and stayed off the computer, studied the BBS's and asked God to help me see the truth. At the end of the two weeks I still am a pre-tribber. I have taken 5 studies on the end times at least 4 Churches and each one taught a pre-trib rapture.
So now I don't argue with anyone. I put my trust in God and I don't worry about the tribulation, except of course of praying for the lost. I don't plan on being here for the trib.
betty
I admit it is easy to let a discussion become an argument. Too easy.

Suprising how many make it a salvation issue now.

Frank and I disagree a lot, but neither would accuse the other of not being saved over it.

He is my brother in Christ and friend. :hug:

[frankDH]

Core,

Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

Which beast is this? AC or Mystery Babylon?

If it is Mystery Babylon, is the AC described in Rev 13? Where?

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Is the beast a woman?

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

What beast is the woman scripture calls Mystery Babylon sitting on?

[CoreIssue]

Core,

Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

Which beast is this? AC or Mystery Babylon?
Both Frank. The AC is part of and the cumulation of Mystery Babylon.

He sums it up, rules it and gives it meaning.

The head wound is one aspect of the total. It isn't his human head.

If it is Mystery Babylon, is the AC described in Rev 13? Where?

It does not have to be one or the other, Frank. It is both.

The Beasts body shows all the historical aspects of Mystery Babylon finally coming together into one entity. And this represented by the AC.

The AC is not literally all the 7 kings. He is the sum of what made them kings.

And the 4 Beasts that are merged into the Beasts body is not his human body. But the sum of the historical kingdoms merged into the final kingdom he rules.

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Is the beast a woman?

No. The Harlot is the religion of Mystery Babylon manifest through Rome.

Pagan Rome was cloaked in Christianity, but is still Pagan Rome.

That is why she is called the Harlot. Unfaithful Chrisitianity that is not Chrisitianity at all.

The Anti-Religion as the AC is the Anti-Christ, the FP the Anti-Holy Spirit and the dragon, the Statue with Satan the Dragon the Anti-Father and together they are the Anti-Trinity.

Mystery Babylon is the Anti-Kingdom of God.

All mockeries and imitations.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

What beast is the woman scripture calls Mystery Babylon sitting on?

Satan, who at Mid gives his power to the AC.

That is why he is the Dragon on the Shore and why the First Beast looks just like him, except for being scarlot.

The FP Beast, the Second Beast, looks totally different.

[frankDH]

Both Frank. The AC is part of and the cumulation of Mystery Babylon.

He sums it up, rules it and gives it meaning.

The head wound is one aspect of the total. It isn't his human head.

If the head that is wounded isn’t a real human head but is really a demon that has returned from thousands of years in the past, how do you wound it with a sword?


The AC is not literally all the 7 kings. He is the sum of what made them kings.

Then the AC is a figurative entity?


Quote:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Is the beast a woman?

No. The Harlot is the religion of Mystery Babylon manifest through Rome.

Pagan Rome was cloaked in Christianity, but is still Pagan Rome.

That is why she is called the Harlot. Unfaithful Chrisitianity that is not Chrisitianity at all.

The Anti-Religion as the AC is the Anti-Christ, the FP the Anti-Holy Spirit and the dragon, the Statue with Satan the Dragon the Anti-Father and together they are the Anti-Trinity.

Mystery Babylon is the Anti-Kingdom of God.

All mockeries and imitations.

The woman is said to have Mystery Babylon written on her head. The beast she sits on has 7 heads and no scripture says any of them have Mystery Babylon written on them. You have a one headed woman sitting on her 7 headed self representing the religious aspect of her total kingdom personality. Part literal and part figurative. Called he in some places and she in others. One seventh of which is demon possessed and consisting of a beast, false prophet, and dragon who all have demons. How in the world can someone like that be revealed after the restrainer is removed? No one could comprehend such a thing. And who would follow it. Everyone would run from something like that.


Quote:
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

What beast is the woman scripture calls Mystery Babylon sitting on?

Satan, who at Mid gives his power to the AC.

That is why he is the Dragon on the Shore and why the First Beast looks just like him, except for being scarlot.

The FP Beast, the Second Beast, looks totally different.

I sure hope you don’t try leaving any left behind letters explaining all of this. There are enough problems in the trib without trying to figure out this mix of figurative and literal stuff. If you don’t plan on being there, no one is going to be able to decipher it all by themselves.

[CoreIssue]

Both Frank. The AC is part of and the cumulation of Mystery Babylon.

He sums it up, rules it and gives it meaning.

The head wound is one aspect of the total. It isn't his human head.

If the head that is wounded isn’t a real human head but is really a demon that has returned from thousands of years in the past, how do you wound it with a sword?

The head wound is referring to Alexander being murdered. He was. It is not talking about happening in the Trib.


The AC is not literally all the 7 kings. He is the sum of what made them kings.

Then the AC is a figurative entity?

No. He is real. Part of the reality the Beast represents.


Quote:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Is the beast a woman?

No. The Harlot is the religion of Mystery Babylon manifest through Rome.

Pagan Rome was cloaked in Christianity, but is still Pagan Rome.

That is why she is called the Harlot. Unfaithful Chrisitianity that is not Chrisitianity at all.

The Anti-Religion as the AC is the Anti-Christ, the FP the Anti-Holy Spirit and the dragon, the Statue with Satan the Dragon the Anti-Father and together they are the Anti-Trinity.

Mystery Babylon is the Anti-Kingdom of God.

All mockeries and imitations.

The woman is said to have Mystery Babylon written on her head. The beast she sits on has 7 heads and no scripture says any of them have Mystery Babylon written on them.

The kings are the foundation of Mystery Babylon and the Church is the foundation of the NJ.
You have a one headed woman sitting on her 7 headed self
Not on herself.
representing the religious aspect of her total kingdom personality.
She is not the whole of Mystery Babylon.
Part literal and part figurative. Called he in some places and she in others.
Rome is never called he.
One seventh of which is demon possessed and consisting of a beast, false prophet, and dragon who all have demons.
No, they are all distinct and separate persons.

How in the world can someone like that be revealed after the restrainer is removed? No one could comprehend such a thing. And who would follow it. Everyone would run from something like that.

Because you are misdefining it all.

Quote:
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

What beast is the woman scripture calls Mystery Babylon sitting on?

Satan, who at Mid gives his power to the AC.

That is why he is the Dragon on the Shore and why the First Beast looks just like him, except for being scarlot.

The FP Beast, the Second Beast, looks totally different.

I sure hope you don’t try leaving any left behind letters explaining all of this. There are enough problems in the trib without trying to figure out this mix of figurative and literal stuff. If you don’t plan on being there, no one is going to be able to decipher it all by themselves.
Read my left behind letter in that forum.

[frankDH]

The head wound is referring to Alexander being murdered. He was. It is not talking about happening in the Trib.

I've been attempting to verify this information. Historians do not agree as to the cause of Alexander's death. I have found some who say he was poisoned. Others say he died from malaria or another illness accompanied by high fever. I haven't been able to find a single account of his being wounded by a sword. Where did you come by your information?

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by coreissue
The head wound is referring to Alexander being murdered. He was. It is not talking about happening in the Trib.

I've been attempting to verify this information. Historians do not agree as to the cause of Alexander's death. I have found some who say he was poisoned. Others say he died from malaria or another illness accompanied by high fever. I haven't been able to find a single account of his being wounded by a sword. Where did you come by your information?
Just general reading.

There is every theory possible out there. But the vast majority agree he died at the hands of his own people. Not disease.

No one knows exactly how he was killed, just that he was.

So, if the Bible says sword wound, who am I to quibble?


http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

[CoreIssue]

An interesting side note is he died at about age 33. Sound familiar?

[frankDH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by coreissue
The head wound is referring to Alexander being murdered. He was. It is not talking about happening in the Trib.

I've been attempting to verify this information. Historians do not agree as to the cause of Alexander's death. I have found some who say he was poisoned. Others say he died from malaria or another illness accompanied by high fever. I haven't been able to find a single account of his being wounded by a sword. Where did you come by your information?Just general reading.

There is every theory possible out there. But the vast majority agree he died at the hands of his own people. Not disease.

No one knows exactly how he was killed, just that he was.

So, if the Bible says sword wound, who am I to quibble?


http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/misc/progress.gif


That's my whole point. Before I can accept that that alexander's death fulfills the mortal wounded head I need something reliable to align it with scripture. It's the same for telling me He was possessed by a demon. Scripture doesn't say that Alexander was possessed by a demon. These are crucial points in your arguement. I'm not trying to quibble. I'm trying to take a Berean approach to what I'm being told. Scripture isn't verifying these things. I'm not seeing anything in reliable historic accounts either.

BTW, what's that little swirly thing that shows up in your posts. Are you trying to hypnotize me? LOL. I'm dizzy enough today.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by coreissue
The head wound is referring to Alexander being murdered. He was. It is not talking about happening in the Trib.

I've been attempting to verify this information. Historians do not agree as to the cause of Alexander's death. I have found some who say he was poisoned. Others say he died from malaria or another illness accompanied by high fever. I haven't been able to find a single account of his being wounded by a sword. Where did you come by your information?Just general reading.

There is every theory possible out there. But the vast majority agree he died at the hands of his own people. Not disease.

No one knows exactly how he was killed, just that he was.

So, if the Bible says sword wound, who am I to quibble?


http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/misc/progress.gif


That's my whole point. Before I can accept that that alexander's death fulfills the mortal wounded head I need something reliable to align it with scripture. It's the same for telling me He was possessed by a demon. Scripture doesn't say that Alexander was possessed by a demon. These are crucial points in your arguement. I'm not trying to quibble. I'm trying to take a Berean approach to what I'm being told. Scripture isn't verifying these things. I'm not seeing anything in reliable historic accounts either.

BTW, what's that little swirly thing that shows up in your posts. Are you trying to hypnotize me? LOL. I'm dizzy enough today.
Then you cannot assume any one is resusitated either. Not stated.

To rigid means you don't get very far in anything.

The little swirly thing is annoying. That is what it is. Other than that, I think it means something is processing. But not sure.

[MHz]

I was attacked on another board for my pre-trib beliefs. I took two weeks and stayed off the computer, studied the BBS's and asked God to help me see the truth. At the end of the two weeks I still am a pre-tribber. I have taken 5 studies on the end times at least 4 Churches and each one taught a pre-trib rapture.
So now I don't argue with anyone. I put my trust in God and I don't worry about the tribulation, except of course of praying for the lost. I don't plan on being here for the trib.
betty
As long as a that doesn't alter what is said about who is saved by the time everything is said and done. Some pre-tribbers tend to see themselves as the 11th hour workers in the field, that would result in one possible outcome. If there are others saved after them it is probably already written down.
How the time of tribulation goes just prior to Christ's return? During that time God demonstrates to the Gentiles how He cares for His People, the 12 tribes of Israel. They are a complete people by the time the thousand years starts. The 11th hour workers could certainly be from 'the rest'. The thousand years are for the Gentiles what the tribulation (just before Christ's return) is for the tribes of Israel, some fare better than others but they end up being equal by the time it is all over.
The GWT is when Gentiles become a complete people,
Re:21:24:
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it:
and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Re:21:26:
And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Re:21:27:
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
neither whatsoever worketh abomination,
or maketh a lie:
but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Re:22:2:
In the midst of the street of it,
and on either side of the river,
was there the tree of life,
which bare twelve manner of fruits,
and yielded her fruit every month:
and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


Since I am unsure of how you see the trib 'playing out' if it is much different from the above then we are in a disagreement. If it is somewhat similar then we at least agree on somethings and further discussion might lead to something new, or another confirmation to what you already believe.

These verses are my strongest verses for 'the rest' being included in the 'saved'
Isa:65:12-17
Servants are the ones alive for the thousand years, the ones given to the sword and then have their sins are put in a bag and forgotten are 'the rest' of Re:20

And then those ones are resurrected, and they are the ones that build the houses and such, like having children.

Hi Core and Frank,
Long time no see.
Say hi to PT for me would you Frank?

I'll maybe have a comment or two later. I don't want to speed read either of your posts and chance missing something that,,, results in me digging a hole for myself LOL

[MHz]

I am a solidly literalistic. More than most. And see no reason to depart from it, since it has never presented any problems, and has clarified many issues.

As for your position, I think the biggest issue in your clarity is that you are not quite literal enough. Kinda stuck half way between literal and figurative, which doesn't allow you to come down solidly anywhere.
If figurative were changed to spiritual then you would be onto something because both do exist. The 1st chapter of Genesis it a description of literal events. Chapter 2 is about the spiritual relationship with man, lots of talking, witness to most of creation (knowledge of how it came about). All parables are spiritual messages, the explanations of various visions (Daniel & Revelation). If Scripture says the waters of the Dead Sea will be 'healed' so you could catch fish there then it is something to look forward to as being a physical event.

Core, would you say Ezekiel 37 is a literal event being described in the first 12 verses?

[kay-gee]

I'm still completely amazed at how much doctrine there is out there hinging on a few words that are not even found in the Bible (not even once) ie "rapture" , "pre-trib". Those are really limbs there is no need to go out on. As you can see, look at just how much animosity is generated, over these meaning-less things! You fellows that profess to be such experts in interpretation of scripture, should try interpreting easy stuff first like 1Timothy 1:4, 6:20-21, before going for the hard stuff. Also check out my thread "Jekyll and Hyde" for insights into getting along. Core has already been there. All the best.........

[CoreIssue]

I was attacked on another board for my pre-trib beliefs. I took two weeks and stayed off the computer, studied the BBS's and asked God to help me see the truth. At the end of the two weeks I still am a pre-tribber. I have taken 5 studies on the end times at least 4 Churches and each one taught a pre-trib rapture.
So now I don't argue with anyone. I put my trust in God and I don't worry about the tribulation, except of course of praying for the lost. I don't plan on being here for the trib.
betty
As long as a that doesn't alter what is said about who is saved by the time everything is said and done. Some pre-tribbers tend to see themselves as the 11th hour workers in the field, that would result in one possible outcome. If there are others saved after them it is probably already written down.
How the time of tribulation goes just prior to Christ's return? During that time God demonstrates to the Gentiles how He cares for His People, the 12 tribes of Israel. They are a complete people by the time the thousand years starts. The 11th hour workers could certainly be from 'the rest'. The thousand years are for the Gentiles what the tribulation (just before Christ's return) is for the tribes of Israel, some fare better than others but they end up being equal by the time it is all over.
The GWT is when Gentiles become a complete people,
Re:21:24:
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it:
and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Re:21:26:
And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Re:21:27:
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
neither whatsoever worketh abomination,
or maketh a lie:
but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Re:22:2:
In the midst of the street of it,
and on either side of the river,
was there the tree of life,
which bare twelve manner of fruits,
and yielded her fruit every month:
and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


Since I am unsure of how you see the trib 'playing out' if it is much different from the above then we are in a disagreement. If it is somewhat similar then we at least agree on somethings and further discussion might lead to something new, or another confirmation to what you already believe.

These verses are my strongest verses for 'the rest' being included in the 'saved'
Isa:65:12-17
Servants are the ones alive for the thousand years, the ones given to the sword and then have their sins are put in a bag and forgotten are 'the rest' of Re:20

And then those ones are resurrected, and they are the ones that build the houses and such, like having children.

Hi Core and Frank,
Long time no see.
Say hi to PT for me would you Frank?

I'll maybe have a comment or two later. I don't want to speed read either of your posts and chance missing something that,,, results in me digging a hole for myself LOL
Hi MHz! :tiphat:

Just remember the topic subject. Not a discussion on what happens in the Trib and such, but attitudes some have about Pre-Trib doctrine.

I do see us as 11th hour workers. We are on a salvage, not a revival or establishing the Gospel.

Things are sliding down hill, not growing.

Of course there will be people saved in the Trib. But they will not be Church.

Of course there will be people save in the MK. But they will not be Church.

And that is where some, not all, non Pre-Tribbers launch into another Gospel and Pre-Tribbers are not saved.

The Gospel is simply the message Christ came and died for our sins. We can be saved by repentence through grace by faith.

But many non-Pretribbers add works to salvation. They try to claim they do not, but they do.

As a Pre-Tribber, I do not make Rapture and End Times doctrinal views salvation issues. They are not.

But I have lost track of how many times I have been accused of being unsaved because I do not agree with Post, Amill, Post-Mill or Amil.

[CoreIssue]

I am a solidly literalistic. More than most. And see no reason to depart from it, since it has never presented any problems, and has clarified many issues.

As for your position, I think the biggest issue in your clarity is that you are not quite literal enough. Kinda stuck half way between literal and figurative, which doesn't allow you to come down solidly anywhere.
If figurative were changed to spiritual then you would be onto something because both do exist. The 1st chapter of Genesis it a description of literal events. Chapter 2 is about the spiritual relationship with man, lots of talking, witness to most of creation (knowledge of how it came about). All parables are spiritual messages, the explanations of various visions (Daniel & Revelation). If Scripture says the waters of the Dead Sea will be 'healed' so you could catch fish there then it is something to look forward to as being a physical event.

Core, would you say Ezekiel 37 is a literal event being described in the first 12 verses?
That is getting into End Times discussion. Not appropriate for a thread dealing with general, not specific issues.

The point was in how one looks at Bible. Not what specific verses say.

Feel free to start a thread on it, if you want to discuss it. I will post, as hopefully others will. :tiphat:

[CoreIssue]

I'm still completely amazed at how much doctrine there is out there hinging on a few words that are not even found in the Bible (not even once) ie "rapture" , "pre-trib". Those are really limbs there is no need to go out on. As you can see, look at just how much animosity is generated, over these meaning-less things! You fellows that profess to be such experts in interpretation of scripture, should try interpreting easy stuff first like 1Timothy 1:4, 6:20-21, before going for the hard stuff. Also check out my thread "Jekyll and Hyde" for insights into getting along. Core has already been there. All the best.........
That is a strawman argument, KG.

Rapture is a short hand, English word, for a Greek word, that translates into a phrase, in English, not a word.

Pre-Trib is a word that applies to a general theological stance. What would you want? A layout of every verse, every time, or a short hand phrase that names a theological doctrine built upon extensive verse, grammar and semantics.

And no need to go out on the limbs? Well, so much for John saying those who go out on those limbs and study in earnest are blessed and receive a special reward.

Meaningless? Hardly.

There should be discussion, not animosity. Discussion is in keeping with the Bible. Animosity is a human error and failure.

Avoiding it all together is another form of error.

There is reason and need. God didn't waste his time, or Paul's, dealing with futile issues.

And read the easy stuff first?

Pay attention, KG. For myself, 46 years of study put me past the easy stuff.

Avoiding human failures to deal with God's word is not Biblical, it is escapism.

The hard road is working to get it right.

[kay-gee]

I mean meaningless in the sense that it accounts for nothing (salvation as you yourself admit) or the building of christian character which are the two things the NT deals with. It is totally outside of "the gospel" or edification, so therefore falls into the category of the scriptures I gave from 1 Timothy. Meaning-less! The Lord will see His plan to the end regardless of what you or I think, about how it is going to come about. all the best....

[CoreIssue]

I mean meaningless in the sense that it accounts for nothing (salvation as you yourself admit) or the building of christian character which are the two things the NT deals with.
I disagree and so does John.

Revelation 1
3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

It is totally outside of "the gospel" or edification,
John says otherwise.
so therefore falls into the category of the scriptures I gave from 1 Timothy. Meaning-less!
Here are your verses, with full context added.
1 Timothy 1
3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.

False doctrine? You cannot even begin to know what is false or true unless you study it.

EVERY teaching in the Bible can have false doctrine. Salvation is loaded with them.

So, with your logic, we should not study that either?

Contradiction and strawman argument. And excuse not to study to find Sound Doctrine.

If it is a blessing to study Revelation and such, then what is the opposite of blessing to reject and discourage studying in, in contradiction to what John says?

You do not understand the context. Myth and geneologies is a reference to the Jews who wanted to distort the Gospel and restored their supremacy via their Jewish lineage and legalisms via Mosaic Law.

Meaningless geneologies and legalisms that pervert the Gospel. That strike right at the heart of Christ's teachings.
20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.
Grace be with you.
Discussing what John declares a blessing to study is Godless chatter? Opposing learning is Godless chatter?

Godless chatter is calling what God calls a blessing to study and learn meaningless. It is saying God wasted his time and promoted Godless chatter himself.

Doctrine, on salvation, on anything else, framed in human desires and demands is false knowledge, Unsound Doctrine.

We are not told to be silent on such issues. We are told to defend Sound Doctrine.

Is it Sound to have to read the Bible figuratively to achieve a desired outcome, as many do? No!

Is it Sound to divide over Rapture and such doctrine? No!

But is it revealing that those who will not read the Bible literally are the ones who attack others with accusations of believing in Pre-Trib as being unsaved? Most assuredly!

Is it revealing that those into certain Rapture and other doctrines also believe one can loose their salvation, thus denying we are dead to the Law by the grace of our Savior? Yes!

So, no, it is not a salvation issue, directly. But it speaks volumes about what someone believes about salvation. It is an element in the formation of their thinking.

Thus, there is a blessing and wisdom to be gained by the study of Revelation. But the blessing and understanding is not obvious UNTIL one does it.

THEN, and only THEN, does one see how it relates to understanding and appreciating salvation more deeply. And such understaning IS an issue of growth in sanctification.
The Lord will see His plan to the end regardless of what you or I think, about how it is going to come about. all the best....
And the same logic and excuse is used to not witness and study to be prepared to give an answer.

After all, the Lord knows who will be saved and thus doesn't need us to get overtly worried about it? Right?

There is more to this than you are seeing.

[kay-gee]

I have been accused by some as being a Calvinist. Another category! Yeesh! does it ever end?........all the best.......

[MHz]

Hi Core,

Just remember the topic subject. Not a discussion on what happens in the Trib and such, but attitudes some have about Pre-Trib doctrine.
General topic with no specifics, I'll try to stick to that.

Am I anti pre-trib? If I happen to be alive when the time for that event occurs I would be quite happy to 'know' that some will miss the coming tribulation. Certainly anybody included in the dozen verses, more or less, that refer to those who are 'blessed' would qualify for rapture.
That doesn't mean I've found any Scripture that supports it clearly. Those same people could be live witnesses to what the rest of the world went through during the time just before His return rather than missing that time and only seeing the end results without knowing just what happened to make it that way.

I don't know why the ones from the 7 Churches that had things to overcome would get raptured, I tend to think it goes 'overcome then gathered', or is this a part of saving grace in that those things are forgiven?

While the discussion of when the rapture takes place is not an issue of any individual salvation (in that any concept is based on Scripture) the way the events play out before and after does result in a variance of who is alive after the GWT. Depending on the view, it is from a very small % of all people ever born to a much higher %, something like these ratios (10/90, 90/10)
If that 'little matter' doesn't make the rapture a issue of salvation then none of the other things matter either. That is not exclusive to just the issue of the rapture, other doctrines also affect what the actual ratio is going to be.


I do see us as 11th hour workers. We are on a salvage, not a revival or establishing the Gospel.

This will probably need a new thread. A summary of how I see this summary of how that ratio is based on the parable of the workers and the penny at the end of the day. If pre-trib were the 11th hour workers then the door would be closed to all others to have the opportunity to be in Christ's field. There is an unknown number that are alive for the thousand years that are from the tribulation just prior to Christ's return, nor is it specific in that they are all resurrected. If those are the last to be offered employment then they would be the 11th hour workers.

How many people would M't:20:8: include? I would put that number at the same as there are people that are offered a drink of living water.

When the last are hired who would be left out if they were all hired?



Things are sliding down hill, not growing.
I had a good laugh a while back watching a show about the bones of Jesus and how they had been found. Mostly I listened but one of the segments I saw was when they were sealing or resealing the 'casket' or whatever in a small room. They were welding it shut and some of the hosts of the show were inside that little room and camerman and soundmen, etc and they were watching the welder weld. Eyes wide open just looking at the 'light'. For more than just a few seconds.
They should have done an 'update' if any of those people got 'welders flash' took it as having a 'religious connotations' LOL


Of course there will be people saved in the Trib. But they will not be Church.
I only see two possibilities, you are either a 'natural branch' or an 'unnatural branch' that has been graphed into the tree, that includes all people belonging to Christ as He is the root of that tree.


Of course there will be people save in the MK. But they will not be Church.
The Church comes from the Nations, do the righteous people who lived and died before Israel was called to be 'my people' belong to the "Church"? Do the ones in Re:22:2: qualify as belonging to Christ and being from the Nations?


And that is where some, not all, non Pre-Tribbers launch into another Gospel and Pre-Tribbers are not saved.
Not an issue with me, the same group that pre-trib fits in with are all still gathered, no matter the timing, same as none are lost who should not be lost.


The Gospel is simply the message Christ came and died for our sins. We can be saved by repentence through grace by faith.
With the understanding that doing more things that need repentance is not the same as trying to make that number as small as possible.


But many non-Pretribbers add works to salvation. They try to claim they do not, but they do.
Works are still the best way to 'spot a Christian' outside of being in 'Church', anybody can talk. "By their fruits you shall know them."
[QUOTE=CoreIssue;20660]
As a Pre-Tribber, I do not make Rapture and End Times doctrinal views salvation issues. They are not.

If those topics have any influence on who is said to be saved and who is not then it is an issue in the discussions of those topics.


But I have lost track of how many times I have been accused of being unsaved because I do not agree with Post, Amill, Post-Mill or Amil.

When you can't attack the message attack the messenger, LOL, that is an old tactic that has never gone out of style.

Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you called some people who have a different view than you as being 'cultish'? How is that any different?

Later,
if there is already a thread that references the workers and the penny perhaps we could discuss it there rather than start a brand new one.

[kay-gee]

Is not salvation based on ones belief in an event that already has taken place, not on some event that is yet in the future? If we are made righteous according to the views we hold of prophetic understanding, then we all are in a lot of trouble! There are more speculations on the meaning of the book of Revelation than there are hairs on a dog! I cannot believe that folks refuse to see just how silly this all has become!....all the best...

[CoreIssue]

I have been accused by some as being a Calvinist. Another category! Yeesh! does it ever end?........all the best.......
It isn't a sound doctrine.

Total denies freewill and has God creating being specifically to go to Hell.

Not saying you are.

Who every said the Bible was simple?

Salvation, yes. All the Bible teaches, no.

[CoreIssue]

Hi Core,

Just remember the topic subject. Not a discussion on what happens in the Trib and such, but attitudes some have about Pre-Trib doctrine.
General topic with no specifics, I'll try to stick to that.

Am I anti pre-trib? If I happen to be alive when the time for that event occurs I would be quite happy to 'know' that some will miss the coming tribulation. Certainly anybody included in the dozen verses, more or less, that refer to those who are 'blessed' would qualify for rapture.
That doesn't mean I've found any Scripture that supports it clearly. Those same people could be live witnesses to what the rest of the world went through during the time just before His return rather than missing that time and only seeing the end results without knowing just what happened to make it that way.
'Could be' isn't the same as what the Bible says.

A lot of people use that phrase to say something. But it is better to stick with what the Bible states.
I don't know why the ones from the 7 Churches that had things to overcome would get raptured, I tend to think it goes 'overcome then gathered', or is this a part of saving grace in that those things are forgiven?
A subject unto itself. That being what the 7 churches mean, historically and church history wise.
While the discussion of when the rapture takes place is not an issue of any individual salvation (in that any concept is based on Scripture) the way the events play out before and after does result in a variance of who is alive after the GWT.
The place in time of the White Throne Judgement is, again, another topic.

One we disagree with on timing.

Depending on the view, it is from a very small % of all people ever born to a much higher %, something like these ratios (10/90, 90/10)
If that 'little matter' doesn't make the rapture a issue of salvation then none of the other things matter either. That is not exclusive to just the issue of the rapture, other doctrines also affect what the actual ratio is going to be.

To those who believe the White Throne is AFTER the End of this earth, then the salvation issue is moot in sense that is already a fully resolved issue.


I do see us as 11th hour workers. We are on a salvage, not a revival or establishing the Gospel.

This will probably need a new thread. A summary of how I see this summary of how that ratio is based on the parable of the workers and the penny at the end of the day.


Again, you are starting from the assumption of agreeing on when the White Throne is. We don't agree.
If pre-trib were the 11th hour workers then the door would be closed to all others to have the opportunity to be in Christ's field.
Definitely another topic. And I don't agree with you at all.

There is an unknown number that are alive for the thousand years that are from the tribulation just prior to Christ's return, nor is it specific in that they are all resurrected. If those are the last to be offered employment then they would be the 11th hour workers.

Another thread. We disagree.

How many people would M't:20:8: include? I would put that number at the same as there are people that are offered a drink of living water.

When the last are hired who would be left out if they were all hired?

Part of that other thread.


Things are sliding down hill, not growing.
I had a good laugh a while back watching a show about the bones of Jesus and how they had been found. Mostly I listened but one of the segments I saw was when they were sealing or resealing the 'casket' or whatever in a small room. They were welding it shut and some of the hosts of the show were inside that little room and camerman and soundmen, etc and they were watching the welder weld. Eyes wide open just looking at the 'light'. For more than just a few seconds.
They should have done an 'update' if any of those people got 'welders flash' took it as having a 'religious connotations' LOL

:p


Of course there will be people saved in the Trib. But they will not be Church.
I only see two possibilities, you are either a 'natural branch' or an 'unnatural branch' that has been graphed into the tree, that includes all people belonging to Christ as He is the root of that tree.

Not quite. But another thread.


Of course there will be people save in the MK. But they will not be Church.
The Church comes from the Nations, do the righteous people who lived and died before Israel was called to be 'my people' belong to the "Church"? Do the ones in Re:22:2: qualify as belonging to Christ and being from the Nations?

No. They do not. Any more than Israel is Church.


And that is where some, not all, non Pre-Tribbers launch into another Gospel and Pre-Tribbers are not saved.
Not an issue with me, the same group that pre-trib fits in with are all still gathered, no matter the timing, same as none are lost who should not be lost.

Agree.


The Gospel is simply the message Christ came and died for our sins. We can be saved by repentence through grace by faith.
With the understanding that doing more things that need repentance is not the same as trying to make that number as small as possible.

That didn't make sense. Sorry.


[quote=CoreIssue;20660]
But many non-Pretribbers add works to salvation. They try to claim they do not, but they do.
Works are still the best way to 'spot a Christian' outside of being in 'Church', anybody can talk. "By their fruits you shall know them."

I agree.


As a Pre-Tribber, I do not make Rapture and End Times doctrinal views salvation issues. They are not.
If those topics have any influence on who is said to be saved and who is not then it is an issue in the discussions of those topics.

Nope. The error is trying to make it a salvation issue at all.


But I have lost track of how many times I have been accused of being unsaved because I do not agree with Post, Amill, Post-Mill or Amil.

When you can't attack the message attack the messenger, LOL, that is an old tactic that has never gone out of style.

True!

Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you called some people who have a different view than you as being 'cultish'? How is that any different?

It is different because those folk demand works for salvation, deny the divinity of Christ, deny the Trinity and such attacks on the very fundamentals of what it means to be Christian.

Not even comparable with End Times discussion.
Later,
if there is already a thread that references the workers and the penny perhaps we could discuss it there rather than start a brand new one.
I cannot think of one.

[MHz]

Am I anti pre-trib? If I happen to be alive when the time for that event occurs I would be quite happy to 'know' that some will miss the coming tribulation. Certainly anybody included in the dozen verses, more or less, that refer to those who are 'blessed' would qualify for rapture.
That doesn't mean I've found any Scripture that supports it clearly. Those same people could be live witnesses to what the rest of the world went through during the time just before His return rather than missing that time and only seeing the end results without knowing just what happened to make it that way.
'Could be' isn't the same as what the Bible says.

A lot of people use that phrase to say something. But it is better to stick with what the Bible states.
The 1/3 that are in Zec:13:9 are Gentiles so the Bible does state how many Gentiles make it through all tribulation alive. A number that is large enough to include 'the Church'.


A subject unto itself. That being what the 7 churches mean, historically and church history wise.
While the discussion of when the rapture takes place is not an issue of any individual salvation (in that any concept is based on Scripture) the way the events play out before and after does result in a variance of who is alive after the GWT.
The place in time of the White Throne Judgement is, again, another topic.

One we disagree with on timing.
The resurrection of 'the rest' has only one place it can happen.


Depending on the view, it is from a very small % of all people ever born to a much higher %, something like these ratios (10/90, 90/10)
If that 'little matter' doesn't make the rapture a issue of salvation then none of the other things matter either. That is not exclusive to just the issue of the rapture, other doctrines also affect what the actual ratio is going to be.

To those who believe the White Throne is AFTER the End of this earth, then the salvation issue is moot in sense that is already a fully resolved issue.
It isn't a moot issue even when it does come right after Satan is cast into the Lake.



I do see us as 11th hour workers. We are on a salvage, not a revival or establishing the Gospel.

This will probably need a new thread. A summary of how I see this summary of how that ratio is based on the parable of the workers and the penny at the end of the day.


Again, you are starting from the assumption of agreeing on when the White Throne is. We don't agree.

Do the verses at the end of Re:20 date when the GWT is?


If pre-trib were the 11th hour workers then the door would be closed to all others to have the opportunity to be in Christ's field.
Definitely another topic. And I don't agree with you at all.

There is an unknown number that are alive for the thousand years that are from the tribulation just prior to Christ's return, nor is it specific in that they are all resurrected. If those are the last to be offered employment then they would be the 11th hour workers.

Another thread. We disagree.

How many people would M't:20:8: include? I would put that number at the same as there are people that are offered a drink of living water.

When the last are hired who would be left out if they were all hired?

Part of that other thread.
Do you want me to start it or will you?



Of course there will be people saved in the Trib. But they will not be Church.

I only see two possibilities, you are either a 'natural branch' or an 'unnatural branch' that has been graphed into the tree, that includes all people belonging to Christ as He is the root of that tree.

Not quite. But another thread.
Maybe all the topics the parables cover can be covered in 1 thread.




Of course there will be people save in the MK. But they will not be Church.
The Church comes from the Nations, do the righteous people who lived and died before Israel was called to be 'my people' belong to the "Church"? Do the ones in Re:22:2: qualify as belonging to Christ and being from the Nations?

No. They do not. Any more than Israel is Church.
I didn't say all Israel was Church but that does not mean the Apostles are not in the Church, or those who have been gathered by their teachings.



The Gospel is simply the message Christ came and died for our sins. We can be saved by repentence through grace by faith.

With the understanding that doing more things that need repentance is not the same as trying to make that number as small as possible.

That didn't make sense. Sorry.
I'm just saying that even though grace does cover (some sin) I have my doubts sins committed with the forethought that grace will cover it will actually be covered by grace.

Ro:6:1:
What shall we say then?
Shall we continue in sin,
that grace may abound?
Ro:6:2:
God forbid.
How shall we,
that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein?

Ro:6:14:
For sin shall not have dominion over you:
for ye are not under the law,
but under grace.
Ro:6:15:
What then?
shall we sin,
because we are not under the law,
but under grace?
God forbid.




As a Pre-Tribber, I do not make Rapture and End Times doctrinal views salvation issues. They are not.
If those topics have any influence on who is said to be saved and who is not then it is an issue in the discussions of those topics.

Nope. The error is trying to make it a salvation issue at all.

Does your view on when the rapture is affect who is alive for the thousand years (compared to other views)?



Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you called some people who have a different view than you as being 'cultish'? How is that any different?

It is different because those folk demand works for salvation, deny the divinity of Christ, deny the Trinity and such attacks on the very fundamentals of what it means to be Christian.

Not even comparable with End Times discussion.
So they are twisting Scripture?
The base of Christianity is belief that Jesus died and rose again. Discussion of how things are fulfilled don't touch on that topic in any way.

Later

[CoreIssue]

MHz, you are determined to start a theology discussion on this thread.

Please start separate threads on the other subjects. This one is about people who attack those are Pre-Trib, not if Pre-Trib is right or wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=20687#post20687)
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you called some people who have a different view than you as being 'cultish'? How is that any different?
It is different because those folk demand works for salvation, deny the divinity of Christ, deny the Trinity and such attacks on the very fundamentals of what it means to be Christian.

Not even comparable with End Times discussion.

So they are twisting Scripture?
The base of Christianity is belief that Jesus died and rose again. Discussion of how things are fulfilled don't touch on that topic in any way.
No, the basis for Christianity is more than simply dying and resurrecting.

To deny Christ is God incarnate, per Paul, means one is against Christ and is not Christian.

But again, that is not relevant to people saying belief in Pre-Trib means they are unsaved, simply because they believe in Pre-Trib.

[kay-gee]

The reason for the rise is that the holes in the premill theories are becoming more apparent. More folks weaned on premill are discovering things worth questioning. I will never believe that it's worth fighting over. Other components of our christian lives are left lacking like sanctification etc... all te best...

[CoreIssue]

The reason for the rise is that the holes in the premill theories are becoming more apparent. More folks weaned on premill are discovering things worth questioning. I will never believe that it's worth fighting over. Other components of our christian lives are left lacking like sanctification etc... all te best...
Sorry, KG, but that is an absurd statement.

Why? Because you have admitted you have not studied the issues.

Thus you are basing your statements on personal feelings, not facts.

It is fascinating that as more and more events come out proving Pre-Mill, the more shrill and emotional Post-Mill and Amill get.

Things are getting worse, not better. The Church is declining, net growing. Israel is back, thus Church is not now Israel. All things 180 degrees from the claims of Amillennialism, which you say you are.

[MHz]

Hi Core,
MHz, you are determined to start a theology discussion on this thread.

Please start separate threads on the other subjects. This one is about people who attack those are Pre-Trib, not if Pre-Trib is right or wrong.

People who question the validity of the teaching of a pre-trib rapture are 'attackers'?
Perhaps what seems like an attack is simple an attempt to get some people to accept that the Church is not going anywhere. I doubt when a pre-tribber questions others about when they believe man goes to Heaven in a glorified body (for the very first time) it is called an 'attack'.
How can you leave the 'if pre-trib is correct or a false teaching' out of the conversation? The Christians who 'attack' pre-tribbers are not doing so because they see that doctrine as being correct, it is because they believe the whole concept of it is a false teaching. That doesn't mean it is promoted as being true by people who know it is in error. It is promoted by the way certain verses are understood.



No, the basis for Christianity is more than simply dying and resurrecting.
I assume you mean (belief) that Christ died and rose from the dead. Where do you see 'more conditions imposed than what is written'? The verses below are quite straight forward in their meaning.
Ro:10:9:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved.
Ro:10:10:
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Ro:10:13:
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.


To deny Christ is God incarnate, per Paul, means one is against Christ and is not Christian.
Are these (some of) the verses you mean? Again I believe in them just as they are written. I'm not convinced that the word 'spirit' is restricted to just the 'spirit in men' in this instance.
1Jo:4:2:
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo:4:3:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:
and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it should come;
and even now already is it in the world.

1Jo:4:14:
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
1Jo:4:15:
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God,
God dwelleth in him,
and he in God.


But again, that is not relevant to people saying belief in Pre-Trib means they are unsaved, simply because they believe in Pre-Trib.

How many of the 'cults' that you 'attack' believe in the pre-trib? Many, some, or none.
At the very least you still see anybody who doesn't believe in the pre-trib as simple being wrong.

[CoreIssue]

People who question the validity of the teaching of a pre-trib rapture are 'attackers'?
I didn't say that.

Questioning is one thing. But attacking is another.

There are guilty parties from all camps.

But my experience is the farther one moves from the Pre-Trib timing, the more often they attack instead of question.
How can you leave the 'if pre-trib is correct or a false teaching' out of the conversation?
I am not. I am saying one can question with attacking.

When one declares a Pre-Tribber unsaved, for being Pre-Trib, in example, it is an attack, not a quesiton.


No, the basis for Christianity is more than simply dying and resurrecting.
I assume you mean (belief) that Christ died and rose from the dead. Where do you see 'more conditions imposed than what is written'? The verses below are quite straight forward in their meaning.
Ro:10:9:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved.
Ro:10:10:
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Ro:10:13:
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Start a thread if you want to discuss it. There are more verses on the issues that those.

But again, that is not relevant to people saying belief in Pre-Trib means they are unsaved, simply because they believe in Pre-Trib.

How many of the 'cults' that you 'attack' believe in the pre-trib? Many, some, or none.
At the very least you still see anybody who doesn't believe in the pre-trib as simple being wrong.[/quote]
Doesn't matter how many do. But not many, in fact.

Of course I see non Pre-Tribbers as being wrong on that particular issue. How could I see them as being correct?

But that does not make it a salvation issue.

But there is an interlacing of all doctrines in various ways. Error in one place points to error in others, very frequently.

[MHz]

Hi Core,

But my experience is the farther one moves from the Pre-Trib timing, the more often they attack instead of question.
I am not. I am saying one can question with attacking.
When one declares a Pre-Tribber unsaved, for being Pre-Trib, in example, it is an attack, not a quesiton.
Well I'm about as far from pre-trib timing for the going to Heaven in a glorified body as anybody can get but that only gives me the 'right' to discuss what verses lead me to that belief and to show how the verses that support pre-trib can fit into my belief and still be in context.


Doesn't matter how many do. But not many, in fact.

Of course I see non Pre-Tribbers as being wrong on that particular issue. How could I see them as being correct?

But that does not make it a salvation issue.

But there is an interlacing of all doctrines in various ways. Error in one place points to error in others, very frequently.

So are they 'not saved' or just in error of their understanding?
So could you be correct in that one issue and be totally wrong on other issues?
Could others be wrong about pre-trib and still be very correct on other issues?

Correct, some small errors (one or two verses)can change the big picture dramatically. Sometimes the picture doesn't change all that much, just the when and where something happens.

Later

[CoreIssue]

So are they 'not saved' or just in error of their understanding?
So could you be correct in that one issue and be totally wrong on other issues?
Could others be wrong about pre-trib and still be very correct on other issues?

Correct, some small errors (one or two verses)can change the big picture dramatically. Sometimes the picture doesn't change all that much, just the when and where something happens.

That is the point.

Many into Post-Trib believe we must endure to the end of the Trib or death to be saved. Thus they also believe in Conditional Salvation.

In and of itself, Post-Trib is not a salvation issue.

But the second they attach enduring for salvation, they have rolled in departed to making statements of salvation doctrine.

Believing in Conditional Salvation gives them a false perspective on other verses, that they have to stop reading literally, which leads to errors in other readings and ends up with Post-Trib.

Yes, one can be right on Pre-Trib and wrong on other doctrine. Or one can be wrong on other End Time doctrine but right on others.

Yet, since there are relationships between doctrines, certain doctrines demand error on other doctrines, since they require one to believe the other.

[MHz]

Hi Core,

Many into Post-Trib believe we must endure to the end of the Trib or death to be saved. Thus they also believe in Conditional Salvation.
But the second they attach enduring for salvation, they have rolled in departed to making statements of salvation doctrine.

Believing in Conditional Salvation gives them a false perspective on other verses, that they have to stop reading literally, which leads to errors in other readings and ends up with Post-Trib.


If pre-trib is removal so there is 'no trib for believers', how does that protection get removed just because the gathering is at a later date? It's like saying God will protect a believer only if there is a pre-trib, if there is no pre-trib then God will not protect believers during a time of danger. God is certainly capable of protecting any/all believers even when Satan is after them.

Would prayer during that time be considered 'work'? Would not doing things that would put a person in need of repenting be called 'work'?

[CoreIssue]

Start another thread, MHz. Again, this is hijacking this thread.

[kay-gee]

I still can't help but detect bias. Why is this thread not entitled "The Rise In Anti-Premill Belief" instead of " The rise in anti-premill Rhetoric"? Sorry, but your words betray you! all the best.......

[CoreIssue]

I still can't help but detect bias. Why is this thread not entitled "The Rise In Anti-Premill Belief" instead of " The rise in anti-premill Rhetoric"? Sorry, but your words betray you! all the best.......
Because there are huge differences between Pre and Post-Trib doctrines.

Post are among those attacking Pre-Tribbers, personally, the most.

Why do you keep jumping out there with definitive comments on issues you have not studied?

What is coming across is your dislike for Pre-Trib doctrine is not based on actual knowledge.

[kay-gee]

No Core, I don't dislike anybody. I'm not anti-anything. I feel like i gotta ask the questions! all the best.......

[CoreIssue]

No Core, I don't dislike anybody. I'm not anti-anything. I feel like i gotta ask the questions! all the best.......
Sure. Ask questins!

But negative declaraions about any doctrine should only come after you study and really understand what you commenting on.

It is very clear you have not studied these issues to any depth.

[Esoteric]

Could it be because The Dipensational Pre-Trib Eschatology is doing great harm to the church?

Or maybe they are just tired of being attacked and are giving out some of what they have taken since LaHaye and co began the Left Behind Mythology?

Mike

[CoreIssue]

Could it be because The Dipensational Pre-Trib Eschatology is doing great harm to the church?

Or maybe they are just tired of being attacked and are giving out some of what they have taken since LaHaye and co began the Left Behind Mythology?

Mike
OK. End it until you start proving your claims on other threads.

I see what you are doing and it stops now.

Time to prove yourself.

[Esoteric]

The two covenant peoples undermines the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (since animal sacrifices must be reinstituted)... How is that for dangerous doctrine? Ranks right up there with Arminianism...

Mike

[CoreIssue]

The two covenant peoples undermines the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (since animal sacrifices must be reinstituted)... How is that for dangerous doctrine? Ranks right up there with Arminianism...

Mike
Yea. The old mistake of the covenants equaling salvation.

Salvation has always been by grace through faith in repentence.