Rise in Anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric?

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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!

[eahaddix]

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 :):

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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;)).

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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.

[eahaddix]

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