View Full Version : The Rapture - MHz
I would have to agree that what goes to the ground and becomes dust is resurrected and becomes alive again will occur to all who have died up to this point in time. What may seperate me from anothers POV is that it is the Breath of Life that comes from Heaven and not 'the person who will retain memories of being in Heaven'.
A puzzle to this is that a 2 or 3 year old can have knowledge of Angels without any 'training'.
CoreIssue
11-02-2006, 12:32 AM
I would have to agree that what goes to the ground and becomes dust is resurrected and becomes alive again will occur to all who have died up to this point in time. What may seperate me from anothers POV is that it is the Breath of Life that comes from Heaven and not 'the person who will retain memories of being in Heaven'.
A puzzle to this is that a 2 or 3 year old can have knowledge of Angels without any 'training'.
Yep. That definitely separates you.
But the topic here is when the Rapture occurs.
That needs to have another thread started. ;)
But the topic here is when the Rapture occurs.
Whenever would first require the 'old body' to be alive and breathing
CoreIssue
11-02-2006, 10:21 AM
Whenever would first require the 'old body' to be alive and breathing
MHz, the topic is timing. Not the ins and out and hows.
Please start a new thread if you want to try to get into soul, sleep, what the spirit is and so on.
Part of the 'who' that are raptured include those whose bodies are now dust. These should come out of the 'grave' and be made alive with living flesh and 'then' raptured along with those still alive.
When the tomb was opened Jesus's body wasn't there, the 'dust' was alive again.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind moving this post to the appropriate place.
CoreIssue
11-06-2006, 12:36 AM
Moved per request.
No. it does not say they are made alive by by resurrection. It says they are resurrected and then Raptured along with those who had not died yet.
Living again in the flesh is not the same as being made alive again because of the flesh.
We have discussed this before. In summary:
1, When Christ died his spirit did not die, ever. he was fully aware, descended to Hell, where he preached to those in prison, and he ascended with the spirits of the saints in train.
2. The Rich Man was most assuredly awake, aware, feeling things, remembered his earthly life and himself and speaking to Abraham about sending Lazarus to cool his thirst. Thus Lazarus and Abraham were most assuredly also in the same state.
They are spirits under the Alter in Revelation. And spirits before the throne. Spirits before the resurrected and glorified saints at the Second Coming.
There is no such thing as soul sleep. The body, called the soul, sleeps in the earth. The OT spirits did not return to God. They were not just breaths of life.
You have a doctrine here that just cannot be mated to the Bible. Which does not mean taking selected issues and forgetting the rest. They all must be considered.
Really don't know what else to say here. We have covered this before, in detail.
Clear statement of the First Resurrection beginning before the Trib begins. The Trib is the time of God's wrath.
Chapter 12 starts with 'at that time', 'that time' is given in the previous verse;
Da:11:45:
And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain;
yet he shall come to his end,
and none shall help him.
Da:12:1:
And at that time shall Michael stand up,
the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:
and there shall be a time of trouble,
such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time:
and at that time thy people shall be delivered,
every one that shall be found written in the book.
This is certainly well after tribulation begins.
CoreIssue
11-09-2006, 11:41 AM
Daniel 12 is a continuation of chapter 11. It does not begin with verse 45, but verse 21, which is Mid Trib.
It does not begin with the Second Coming. The Time of Great Trouble is the Great Trib in the last half of the 7 year Trib.
Daniel 12 is talking about the whole of the Two Resurrections, not just the Rapture, Trib, Second Coming or any other individual event within the DOTL.
The Second Resurrection, in which those who resurrect to contempt are dealt with, is not until the end of the earth, when the present Heavens and Earth are destroyed.
At that time is the DOTL, which includes all from the Pre-Trib Rapture to the end of time.
You just keep trying to cherry pick your verses to support your doctrine. Totally ignoring Rev 3:10 and the 24 Elders sitting at the First Seal, which is at the opening of the Trib, not at the Second Coming.
The First Resurrection is not on a single, 24 hour day. But the Rapture is.
Please remember, this topic is when the Rapture is, not the whole of the First Resurrection.
Daniel 12 is a continuation of chapter 11. It does not begin with verse 45, but verse 21, which is Mid Trib.
Your comment "Clear statement of the First Resurrection beginning before the Trib begins. The Trib is the time of God's wrath." would seem to apply to a pre-trib resurrection from the grave for both ones who will recieve rewards and punishment for others. Since this is 'well after' the beginning of the trib (supported by 'at that time') then how do those few verses from Ch:12 support a pre-trib resurrection of the dead (which must occur before a rapture)?
Daniel 12 is talking about the whole of the Two Resurrections, not just the Rapture, Trib, Second Coming or any other individual event within the DOTL.
"At that time" specifically refers to the time indicated by the event mentioned in the previous verse and that time alone.I would agree that from Vs:5 Daniel does cover events already mentioned in earler chapters.
The Second Resurrection, in which those who resurrect to contempt are dealt with, is not until the end of the earth, when the present Heavens and Earth are destroyed.
"At that time does not allow for a thousand years between the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, this is a single event in which both come out of the graves at the same time, the wicked go to hell, very much aware of where they are.
You just keep trying to cherry pick your verses to support your doctrine. Totally ignoring Rev 3:10 and the 24 Elders sitting at the First Seal, which is at the opening of the Trib, not at the Second Coming.
Re:3:7-13 fails to mention any resurrection of the dead. A pre-trib rapture would seem to make those who partake in this as being the first to have God act with power and authority on their behalf. This would also seem to put them 'before' those who are called firstfruits;
Re:14:4:
These are they which were not defiled with women;
for they are virgins.
These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
These are only sealed just before the first trump sounds;
Re:7:3:
Saying,
Hurt not the earth,
neither the sea,
nor the trees,
till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
The First Resurrection is not on a single, 24 hour day. But the Rapture is.
So what verse(s) cover the very first resurrection of the dead that will occur before the pre-trib rapture.
Please remember, this topic is when the Rapture is, not the whole of the First Resurrection.
In keeping with this, the very first to be resurrected would be resurrected before a rapture, so what verses give the timeframe for this part. Daniel 12 points to a time after tribulation has begun so it doesn't support any resurrection before the time given.
CoreIssue
11-09-2006, 08:30 PM
MHz, this thread is about the Rapture. You are talking First and Second Resurrections.
I split off the other posts buy you are right back here posting on non Rapture issues again.
I will split these off and merge them with that thread. Please reply there and allow this thread to stay on topic.
Dan 12 is not about Rapture. It is about resurrection. Nothing and no mention of Rapture in either Dan 11 or 12.
Really don't know what else to say here. We have covered this before, in detail.
Post the verses that describe the resurrection of the dead before the pre-trib rapture.
CoreIssue
11-11-2006, 02:21 PM
The Rapture happens immediately with the first event of the First Resurrection on the very beginning of the DOTL.
1 Thessalonians 4
The Coming of the Lord
13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.
1 Thessalonians 5
1Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
Start with this one. One at a time.
It state he will come with the spirits of the dead. They will resurrect in their flesh bodies. Then they, and those who had not died, together, will rive up to Christ in the clouds.
He will come as Thief in the Night. Not as King.
Not Second Coming. Christ only comes to the clouds here. He comes as Bridegroom, not King. He comes hidden, not for all eyes to see. He comes in days of when people are at peace and feel safe, not in the destruction and turmoil of the Trib at the Second Coming.
No way to turn this into Second Coming.
Don't try to explain away these verses by jumping elsewhere. Tell me what they say for themselves. By the grammar, word meaning and context given here.
The Rapture happens immediately with the first event of the First Resurrection on the very beginning of the DOTL.
Start with this one. One at a time.
It state he will come with the spirits of the dead. They will resurrect in their flesh bodies. Then they, and those who had not died, together, will rive up to Christ in the clouds.
He will come as Thief in the Night. Not as King.
Not Second Coming. Christ only comes to the clouds here. He comes as Bridegroom, not King. He comes hidden, not for all eyes to see. He comes in days of when people are at peace and feel safe, not in the destruction and turmoil of the Trib at the Second Coming.
No way to turn this into Second Coming.
Don't try to explain away these verses by jumping elsewhere. Tell me what they say for themselves. By the grammar, word meaning and context given here.
Elsewhere, you mean like as far away as this;
2Th:2:1:
Now we beseech you,
brethren,
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th:2:2:
That ye be not soon shaken in mind,
or be troubled,
neither by spirit,
nor by word,
nor by letter as from us,
as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th:2:3:
Let no man deceive you by any means:
for that day shall not come,
except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed,
the son of perdition;
The above adds the information that was previously left out;
1Th:5:1: But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
It is true, He will come like a thief in the night. That is how the wicked will see it happen, they will be thinking peace and safety, but He will not come as a thief in the night to those in His Church;
1Th:5:4:
But ye,
brethren,
are not in darkness,
that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th:5:5:
Ye are all the children of light,
and the children of the day:
we are not of the night,
nor of darkness.
The Thessalonians were not taught two more comings, they were taught one and one alone and the second book gives the timing of that gathering, the first book gave them the details of the one gathering. Interesting that the timeing is the very same as given in Daniel 11/12.
Yes the spirit of life of those who have died will be with Him. Now you say He doesn't come any closer than the clouds. How does the spirit of life get from the clouds to the dust that will come to life?
CoreIssue
11-11-2006, 11:29 PM
There you go again, spinning and adding words.
The Second Coming is not a time of peace and safety. This time is.
The Lord comes all the way to the earth at the Second Coming. Here he does not.
You spin it to coming all the way to the earth and the evil ones are just thinking about peace and safety.
Clearly says you are wrong on both statements.
n2thelight
11-12-2006, 06:34 AM
Can you answer the points made by this author,(Brian O'Connell) they are the same that I have,as far as the trumps are concerned.
Matt. 24:21-22, 29,31 “For then there will be great tribulation...(v22) but for the elects sake those days will be shortened... Immediately after the tribulation .... they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven ..... a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect ....
Mark 13:24-27 But in those days, afterthat tribulation, .... then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds .... send his angels, and shall gather together his elect ....
Luke 21:27-30 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud .... lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Rev. 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloudone sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
1 Thes. 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: [17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught uptogether with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1 Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Although the pre-tribbers recognize 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15, to be the rapture of the church, they have failed to see the harmony of the scriptures and disqualify Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Rev. 14 to be the same rapture of the church! Please note above, harmonizing the scriptures, that the rapture will take place Immediately AFTER the tribulation at the sound of a trumpet with a loud voice, a shout as every tribe on earth sees Jesus coming on the cloudsas the saints are reaped to meet Jesus in the air! The ONLY RAPTURE scripture in the book of Revelations, is shown in Chapter 14, which is either the 7th Trumpet or a trumpet that follows the 7th trumpet, "the last trumpet" which follows the tribulation, not the "secret" rapture of manipulating a non-existant rapture in Revelations chapter 4!
What amazes me, is how the pre-tribbers can define the LAST trumpet as a trumpet that blows before the 7 trumpets of the tribulation! Anyone care to research the word "last" in the dictionary? If 1 Cor. 15 had indicated that it was the last trumpet of a certain series of trumpets, we might be able to catagorize it to belong to a certain string of trumpet blasts. Some pre-trib teachers have taken the liberty of forcing the scripture to such a limitation! But since there is NO mention of any limited string of blasts, a faithful scholar of God's word, would have to interpret the word last, to mean exactly what it means, that there will be no other trumpet blasts to follow!
Pre-tribbers recognize 1 Cor. 15:52 as the bodily resurrection and rapture of the saints "at the last trumpet!" However, they fail to recognize that "the last trumpet" is the same trumpet of Matthew 24:31 were the timing places the rapture "immediately after the tribulation." Pre-tribbers refuse to consider the "elect" who are raptured in this verse to be the saints, even though Col. 1:2 - 3:12 clearly identifies the saints to also be called "the elect" whereby they have reasoned that Matthew 24 is a "second" rapture of another group! Although Matt 24 shows Jesus on the clouds, known by pre-tribbers to be the first coming of Christ, they forcibly redefine this trumpet to be a different trumpet than "the last trumpet!"
This "2nd rapture," by pre-trib doctrine, in Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 17, are at the sound of another trumpet blast that follows thelast trumpet, and the "elect" are redefined to be another group of people (whom some claim are the Jews) while the first rapture sequence of the church is conspicuously silent in these scriptural texts as well as the whole Bible! According to the pre-trib doctrine, Jesus was more interested in telling the details of a non-biblical "second rapture" of the Jewish "elect", than he was in sharing the details of the "first rapture" of the faithful, Christian church!
So pre-tribbers have created "2 raptures!"
1. The invisible rapture of the Christian church with a silent blast of a very silent trumpet with the invisible coming of Christ which is invisibly written in scripture.
And 7 years later:
2. The visible rapture (of the "Jewish" elect) with a loud sound of a trumpet which is heard by every person on earth, and as lightning is visible from the east to the west, the awesome and great appearing of Jesus Christ in the fullness of his glory!
This "two" rapture sequence is non-biblical as is the "invisible, silent, secret rapture!" Nor does the scripture define the "elect" in Matt. 24 as "Jews," which is the only reasoning the pre-tribbers can come up with since they have assumed that "the Christians were already raptured," therefore, it cannot be the Christians! But then, ask them where the Christians are shown to be raptured before the tribulation which negates them as being the "elect" and they cannot show a single verse of scripture that details such a pre-trib. rapture of the Christian church as their proof without resorting to heretical, unbiblical reasoning!
Jesus negated the "two rapture" theory when he declared that the resurrection of the saints would take place on the LAST DAY! May I ask you, will there be a 7 year tribulation (which is 2,555 days) AFTER the LAST DAY?
John 6:39, 40, 44 , 54 Four times Jesus said “and I will raise him up at the LAST DAY.” (again in John 11:24)
Please note that I do not believe in a rapture at all,pre,mid or post
Hi n2thelight,
Please note that I do not believe in a rapture at all,pre,mid or post
While reading your post I did wonder how you viewed the rapture.
I would define rapture as being the first time a member of mankind goes to Heaven while still in a body.
Post would be the earliest as that is when the dead are resurrected but by then Christ is on Earth so going to Heaven at that time would be the same as leaving Christ.
The only Scripture I've seen that cannot be applied to any other possible event would seem to fit the time when fire from God in Heaven comes down at the end of his 'little season' at the end of the thousand years. Since this fire will destroy everything on and in the Earth, even those who are referenced as being 'given up' from both death and hell and the sea would have to be taken at the same time.
Isa:51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
and look upon the earth beneath:
for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke,
and the earth shall wax old like a garment,
and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner:
but my salvation shall be for ever,
and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
Later
CoreIssue
11-12-2006, 11:39 AM
It took a couple of posts, but you are caught.
n2thelight is onelove, who is banned.
So, not only preaching but lying as to one's identity.
There you go again, spinning and adding words.
Spinning what, the second letter to them gave them two events that would occur in regards to what was spoken about in the first letter, namely their gathering and the dead being resurrected back to life before those who were alive would be gathered.
The Second Coming is not a time of peace and safety. This time is.
This time is peace and safety, what is the color code for today? That there even is a color code would suggest this is not a time of safety. This verse would more than suggest that there is a time when 'some' think peace and safety;
Re:11:10:
And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them,
and make merry,
and shall send gifts one to another;
because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
Satan deception get close to decieving the elect, only close to achieving that. The non-elect will take it hook-line-and sinker.
The Lord comes all the way to the earth at the Second Coming. Here he does not.
Then how do the wicked get destroyed? This verse is fulfilled at this time;
1Th:5:3:
For when they shall say,
Peace and safety;
then sudden destruction cometh upon them,
as travail upon a woman with child;
and they shall not escape.
1Th:5:4: But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th:5:5: Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
You spin it to coming all the way to the earth and the evil ones are just thinking about peace and safety.
That is because He will not come for us like a thief in the night, that is reserved for the wicked ones;
1Th:5:4:
But ye,
brethren,
are not in darkness,
that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th:5:5:
Ye are all the children of light,
and the children of the day:
we are not of the night,
nor of darkness.
Clearly says you are wrong on both statements.
Then my record remains intact, wrong on all accounts and points of view.
CoreIssue
11-12-2006, 10:16 PM
Hi MHz,
I have learned not to wander off topic with you. Sorry, but you just don't stay focused.
No matter how you try to spin it, the stated condition is the saints rise to him in the clouds and he comes to the clouds, not the earth.
You refuse to stay in the verses being discussed. Alway want to violate grammar and context by attemping to force verses and passages into other verses and passages and thinking that justifies changing meanings.
Revelation does not determine the meanings of these passages. They determine their own meaning.
Then that meaning can be added to the meaning of Revelation. Two passages with two different statements. Not one passage with one statement.
Then deal with the timing given in the second letter. Really Core you want to spend a huge amount of time on a few select verses and bringing in other verses is nothing short of taking away from the topic.
This part will take us off-topic, right back to square one about how Scriptures are written and (considering how they are written) tells you how to read them. Not me explaining how I read, how God is telling you to read;
Isa:28:9:
Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?
them that are weaned from the milk,
and drawn from the breasts.
Isa:28:10:
For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept;
line upon line,
line upon line;
here a little,
and there a little:
Isa:28:11:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
Isa:28:12:
To whom he said,
This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest;
and this is the refreshing:
yet they would not hear.
You supply a verse you say denotes when the resurrection of the dead that will occur before a rapture can take place, in those verses are words that say 'this isn't going to tell you the when, this is going to tell you the who (will be gathered)'. The 'when' is given in the second book that bears their name. Seriously what is up with that, focus that forbids bringing in verses from (in this case) the letters to one specific group.
You call it wandering off topic, guess what, not all the words written about any subject the Holy Bible covers is written in one single place. To not gather as many verses as you can find that speak about that one subject leaves a blank spot that you (this would include me) get to fill in through 'logic' or whatever devices we can bring to bear. The odds on that method as being 'accurate' are much lower in terms of being accurate than finding another verse that is about the same subject.
Again, it is not a matter of staying 'with the verses' it is a matter of staying with the subject that the verses are talking about, plain and simple. It takes much reading to determine all the verses that deal with any one subject.
Are you seriously saying these two sets of verses have nothing in common;
1Th:4:16:
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel,
and with the trump of God:
and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th:4:17:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds,
to meet the Lord in the air:
and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th:4:18:
Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1Th:5:1:
But of the times and the seasons,
brethren,
ye have no need that I write unto you.
2Th:2:1:
Now we beseech you,
brethren,
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th:2:2:
That ye be not soon shaken in mind,
or be troubled,
neither by spirit,
nor by word,
nor by letter as from us,
as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th:2:3:
Let no man deceive you by any means:
for that day shall not come,
except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed,
the son of perdition;
CoreIssue
11-13-2006, 12:29 AM
MHz, I supplied a passage that demonstrates the Rapture and Second Coming are separate events.
Coming in the clouds, as a thief and groom is not the same as coming with the Church as king at the head of an army visible to the whole earth.
I simply dealt with what the passage says. YOU want to bring in another passage and try to mix them together and then interpret what it says.
You ALWAYS do that. And it don't fly grammatically. Revelation does not define words and context of Thessalonians.
It STATES these conditions:
1. Thief in the Night, not King visible to all.
2. In the clouds, not to the earth.
3. Saints rise TO Christ in the clouds, not gathered to Christ in Jerusalem.
It does not say what Revelation says about the Second Coming. It does not agree with Revelation at the Second Coming.
You just dump thief, dump saints rising, dump in the clouds, dump being a time of peace, and all the rest.
Noah was taken before the Flood. Not after it.
We have covered this before. You just cannot rewrite everything to fit your doctrine.
Clouds DO NOT mean earth.
Rising does NOT mean gathered to him in Jerusalem.
Theif in the Night does NOT mean all eyes will see him.
Little facts you refuse to see or acknowledge.
We have discussed this to overt lengths before. Why should we repeat it here?
You have already made it clear you reject rules of grammar, linquistics and word meaning in favor of some divine set of rules you make up for yourself.
The rest of us here do not do it that way. We use grammar and so on. It flows, it has clear and continous meaning.
You are not an oracle to determine hidden meanings from God. Gnosis is not acceptable.
You are probably right, He will come for you like a thief in the night.
CoreIssue
11-13-2006, 11:53 AM
You are probably right, He will come for you like a thief in the night.
So now you are date setting? Give me the date, MHz.
You are expecting Him to come for you like a thief in the night, right?
I was just saying that it just might happen that way for you if that is what all the verses in the Bible are saying to you.
God alone knows the date.
CoreIssue
11-13-2006, 01:25 PM
Your statement is a bit confusing. So, maybe I misunderstood.
Seemed to be saying thief of me but not for you.
Really, if Pre-Trib, it is unknown, as in only the Father knows, as stated.
But if Second Coming then all can know and then it is false only the Father knows.
Are you French Canadian with English as a second language? That would explain some things on phrasing and potential misunderstandings.
Your statement is a bit confusing. So, maybe I misunderstood.
Seemed to be saying thief of me but not for you.
These few lines of Scripture either include you or they do not;
1Th:5:4:
But ye,
brethren,
are not in darkness,
that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th:5:5:
Ye are all the children of light,
and the children of the day:
we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
Really, if Pre-Trib, it is unknown, as in only the Father knows, as stated.
But if Second Coming then all can know and then it is false only the Father knows.
If God didn't intend us to know the timing of the end of days why did He provide so much information about those times that are coming at some point? Who, but students of Scripture would know anything about the timing that is contained within Scripture. Even within these students there is not a agreement about exactly what those given times mean.
Are you French Canadian with English as a second language? That would explain some things on phrasing and potential misunderstandings.
No.
I wrote it intentionally that way so you would see that there could be a difference in how He will come.
Some will know, some will not know.
I don't see you as being a child of the night so you cannot be in that group that experience Him coming as a thief.
At that time Scripture also says those in the night will not escape. The 'they' in 1Th:5:3: are destroyed, this is more likely to occur with Christ being lower than just the clouds. The pre-trib view does not teach that any are destroyed at this time, only that the 'Church" is taken and those not taken are left 'as they were'.
CoreIssue
11-13-2006, 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16235#post16235)
Your statement is a bit confusing. So, maybe I misunderstood.
Seemed to be saying thief of me but not for you.
These few lines of Scripture either include you or they do not;
1Th:5:4:
But ye,
brethren,
are not in darkness,
that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th:5:5:
Ye are all the children of light,
and the children of the day:
we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
You are NOT paying attention. YOU don't know when he will come, as in exact timing. Only the Father knows.
Pay attention to the Jewish Wedding Custom which these terms come from.
Yes, the Bride/Church knows the Groom/Christ is coming for them. NO, you don't know when. NO, the Jewish Groom did not come in broad daylight letting everyone know. He snuck in at night, his accompanying escorts called the Bride OUT of the house. They did not enter INTO the house for her.
They were in and out and the world around saw nothing.
So, every Pre-Tribber is fully aware Christ is coming, fully ready and fully want to go.
Now, either you know the time of his coming or you are like us, simply knowing he is coming but not when.
Either you are a date setter or not.
If after the Trib, you are a date setter since that time can be calculated once the Trib begins, thus only the Father knows is a lie.
He does not come as a thief at the Second Coming. He comes as King at the head of his army with his Bride at his side.
Again you try to escape literal words in two places describing two events and try to force them into one event.
Noah was gone BEFORE the Flood and BEFORE the world knew the Flood was here. He DID NOT know when the Flood was to begin until God put him on the Ark. The world did not know Noah was gone until the floods began.
Pay attention to the words used in both issues. They are impossible to reconcile into one event.
And you just cover your eyes on Noah, Rev 3:10 and the 24 Elders at the First Seal. Pretend none of them are there because it doesn't work for your doctrine.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16235#post16235)
Really, if Pre-Trib, it is unknown, as in only the Father knows, as stated.
But if Second Coming then all can know and then it is false only the Father knows.
If God didn't intend us to know the timing of the end of days why did He provide so much information about those times that are coming at some point? Who, but students of Scripture would know anything about the timing that is contained within Scripture. Even within these students there is not a agreement about exactly what those given times mean.
He gave you details about the Second Coming. NOT about the Rapture.
Only the Father knows. Period. Kills your assumptions about knowing completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16235#post16235)
Are you French Canadian with English as a second language? That would explain some things on phrasing and potential misunderstandings.
No.
I wrote it intentionally that way so you would see that there could be a difference in how He will come.
There is no difference in how he will come. ONLY the Father knows for the Rapture. The AC, FP, Satan and their armies most assuredly know. They are at Armageddon WAITING for Christ to descend. They KNOW the time of the Second Coming.
Form the First Seal on MANY know that are going to Hell and then the Lake for Eternity.
Some will know, some will not know.
NONE know the time of the Rapture. Only the Father. Not angels, Man or anyone or anything else. ONLY the Father.
ALL can know the time of the Second Coming after the First Seal. The Angels will most assuredly know.
I don't see you as being a child of the night so you cannot be in that group that experience Him coming as a thief.
You don't get it. As to what that phrase means. And you don't listen.
NONE of us know the time of the Rapture. NO one.
At that time Scripture also says those in the night will not escape. The 'they' in 1Th:5:3: are destroyed,
It does not say they are all destroyed. It says destruction comes upon them. That is the Trib, not death for all. The Trib is destruction.
It is NOT the Second Coming. Noah was not taken after the world drowned. He was taken before anyone drowned.
this is more likely to occur with Christ being lower than just the clouds.
It says to the clouds. Your assumptions to try to make this Second Coming are baseless.
It SAYS to the clouds, not the earth. Saints go UP. Not gathered ON the earth, as living Israel is at the Second Coming.
The pre-trib view does not teach that any are destroyed at this time, only that the 'Church" is taken and those not taken are left 'as they were'.
Bingo! Which is what the Bible says.
As with Noah, the destruction falls AFTER the taking, which is what Thes says here. As the Flood began when Noah was taken and the Fire fell when Lot was taken, so does the Trib fall when the Church is taken.
The First Seal is conquest by peace. A false peace the quickly changes in death and destruction.
At a time of Peace, which is most assuredly not the Second Coming, when the earth is laying in ruble, 2/3 of the people are dead, Rome is forever wiped off the face of the earth, etc.
That is the conditions when Christ descends. Already in that condtion.
Living Israel is gathered at the Second Coming. Trib Saints stand before ALREADY resurrected, glorified and rewarded saints on thrones.
Two Witnesses are resurrected at Mid.
Church is gone Pre-Trib per Rev 3:10. Taken as Noah and Lot were immediately before the destruction began. That is why they are used as examples.
Stupid to offer either as examples of the Trib falls first and then they go. Completely absurd examples since they were taken before the destruction fell.
And the 24 Elders sitting at the First Seal.
You never allow yourself to see the absolutely conflict of your dotrine compared to what is literally said. You are constantly trying to explain away events, word meanings, grammar, contextual order.
Why? Because to actually read in order by literal word meaning and context destroys your doctrine.
Rev 3:10, 24 Elders, Noah and Lot. All immediately before the Trib begins. All in harmony.
And yet you actually try to somehow have Noah and Lot protected through the destructions.
Noah was NEVER in or under the water. EVER.
Lot was never in the cities, in the fire or under the fire. EVER.
Both were taken from those places FIRST.
And no. Not being removed from the earth is bad logic and absolutely out of context. The context of removal is always the place being judged and destroyed.
Noah was the land, not the whole earth. Destruction by water that he was never in.
Lot was the cites, not the whole earth. Destruction by fire the he was never in.
Trib is testing of the whole earth and all upon the earth. Get that? WHOLE earth and all upon the earth.
To be on the earth does not allow using Noah or Lot. Out of is not the same as in and through. Thus the Church cannot be on the earth.
Rev 3:10 states that fact. The Church will be kept from/out of the testing upon the whole earth. To be on the earth is to be tested.
You just keep putting out contradiction after contradiction. Out of is not in and through. Before the destruction, as in 1 Thes is not during the Trib.
Sigh. Either you can see these facts or this conversation needs to end. We are just frustrating each other.
I will never stop reading per word meaning, rules of grammar and context. So your method just will never fly with me.
I believe in harmoneutics of the Bible, you do not. The Bible is not one big passage. It is many books, verses and passages that each have their own meanings. Luke and Moses wrote books. Not Lukemoses wrong one book.
If after the Trib, you are a date setter since that time can be calculated once the Trib begins, thus only the Father knows is a lie.
Nobody knows when that date is do they.
He does not come as a thief at the Second Coming. He comes as King at the head of his army with his Bride at his side.
Just how many times does He come as a thief;
Re:16:14:
For they are the spirits of devils,
working miracles,
which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world,
to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
Re:16:15:
Behold,
I come as a thief.
Blessed is he that watcheth,
and keepeth his garments,
lest he walk naked,
and they see his shame.
Re:16:16:
And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
Re:19:7:
Let us be glad and rejoice,
and give honour to him:
for the marriage of the Lamb is come,
and his wife hath made herself ready.
Re:19:8:
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen,
clean and white:
for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
The above occurs after Babylon is destroyed (verse 3). There isn't a year pass until verse 14, something that would be required as after a marriage the groom cannot go to war until a year has passed.
And you just cover your eyes on Noah, Rev 3:10 and the 24 Elders at the First Seal. Pretend none of them are there because it doesn't work for your doctrine.
The seven lamps represent the Church;
Re:1:20:
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand,
and the seven golden candlesticks.
The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches:
and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Re:4:5: And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
He gave you details about the Second Coming. NOT about the Rapture.
Only the Father knows. Period. Kills your assumptions about knowing completely.
Well that is when the resurrection is of those you posted as being the resurrection that has to occur before a rapture.
There is no difference in how he will come. ONLY the Father knows for the Rapture. The AC, FP, Satan and their armies most assuredly know. They are at Armageddon WAITING for Christ to descend. They KNOW the time of the Second Coming.
Form the First Seal on MANY know that are going to Hell and then the Lake for Eternity.
NONE know the time of the Rapture. Only the Father. Not angels, Man or anyone or anything else. ONLY the Father.
ALL can know the time of the Second Coming after the First Seal. The Angels will most assuredly know.
You don't get it. As to what that phrase means. And you don't listen.
NONE of us know the time of the Rapture. NO one.
That is why John says that he is our brother in tribulation before any letters to any of the Churches, the day that is unknown is the day that is before the given times.
It does not say they are all destroyed. It says destruction comes upon them. That is the Trib, not death for all. The Trib is destruction.
It is NOT the Second Coming. Noah was not taken after the world drowned. He was
It says to the clouds. Your assumptions to try to make this Second Coming are baseless.
It SAYS to the clouds, not the earth. Saints go UP. Not gathered ON the earth, as living Israel is at the Second Coming.
None shall escape says they are all destroyed. Are you saying the trib is the death of those who are in darkness?
Bingo! Which is what the Bible says.
As with Noah, the destruction falls AFTER the taking, which is what Thes says here. As the Flood began when Noah was taken and the Fire fell when Lot was taken, so does the Trib fall when the Church is taken.
The First Seal is conquest by peace. A false peace the quickly changes in death and destruction.
At a time of Peace, which is most assuredly not the Second Coming, when the earth is laying in ruble, 2/3 of the people are dead, Rome is forever wiped off the face of the earth, etc.
That is the conditions when Christ descends. Already in that condtion.
Living Israel is gathered at the Second Coming. Trib Saints stand before ALREADY resurrected, glorified and rewarded saints on thrones.
Yes the people in Noah's time did feel safe, they had fallen angels 'to protect them', that will also be the case just before Christ returns.
Two Witnesses are resurrected at Mid.
The vials follow the end of the second woe and it comes quickly;
Re:11:14:
The second woe is past;
and,
behold,
the third woe cometh quickly.
Church is gone Pre-Trib per Rev 3:10. Taken as Noah and Lot were immediately before the destruction began. That is why they are used as examples.
Stupid to offer either as examples of the Trib falls first and then they go. Completely absurd examples since they were taken before the destruction fell.
The ones in darkness are not killed during the trib, they die via Christ's sword, that is after the trib.
Why? Because to actually read in order by literal word meaning and context destroys your doctrine.
Rev 3:10, 24 Elders, Noah and Lot. All immediately before the Trib begins. All in harmony.
And yet you actually try to somehow have Noah and Lot protected through the destructions.
Noah was NEVER in or under the water. EVER.
Lot was never in the cities, in the fire or under the fire. EVER.
Both were taken from those places FIRST.
And no. Not being removed from the earth is bad logic and absolutely out of context. The context of removal is always the place being judged and destroyed.
Noah was the land, not the whole earth. Destruction by water that he was never in.
Lot was the cites, not the whole earth. Destruction by fire the he was never in.
Trib is testing of the whole earth and all upon the earth. Get that? WHOLE earth and all upon the earth.
To be on the earth does not allow using Noah or Lot. Out of is not the same as in and through. Thus the Church cannot be on the earth.
Rev 3:10 states that fact. The Church will be kept from/out of the testing upon the whole earth. To be on the earth is to be tested.
Hopefully the ones in your rapture Church will be able to overcome;
Re:3:12:
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God,
and he shall go no more out:
and I will write upon him the name of my God,
and the name of the city of my God,
which is new Jerusalem,
which cometh down out of heaven from my God:
and I will write upon him my new name.
Pretty hard to 'come back to Earth' if you never leave the temple of Christ's God.
You just keep putting out contradiction after contradiction. Out of is not in and through. Before the destruction, as in 1 Thes is not during the Trib.
Sigh. Either you can see these facts or this conversation needs to end. We are just frustrating each other.
Yes and that is doing neither of us any good.
I will never stop reading per word meaning, rules of grammar and context. So your method just will never fly with me.
I believe in harmoneutics of the Bible, you do not. The Bible is not one big passage. It is many books, verses and passages that each have their own meanings. Luke and Moses wrote books. Not Lukemoses wrong one book.
The only issue I have in this is that a subject is written about in more than one book, many books have at least a few words to say about any certain subject. To get the best possible view on any one subject you should have all the verses.
CoreIssue
11-14-2006, 11:17 AM
MHz,
We have been through this before. I am not cranking up on it again.
You cannot even read the verses correctly, as in stating 7 lamps are 7 churches when the very verse you quote says the lampstands are the churches and the lamps are angels.
The lampstands are gone after the 7th church. Now there are 2 lampstands of the New Covenant.
CTZonEdit
11-14-2006, 12:19 PM
Yes the people in Noah's time did feel safe, they had fallen angels 'to protect them', that will also be the case just before Christ returns.
They did?
So the bible lies in Jude where it states that they all will be chained until judgement?
Jude 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority
Meaning those that rebelled and were cast out. Fallen angels.
Now you claim that fallen rebellious angels 'protected' the one man God saw as godly? They proteced their enemy? Nonsense.
but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
A) These fallen angels are where? In darkness. Not roaming around all over the earth protecting Noah.
B) They are bound with everlasting chains in that darkness. Not free to move here and there and certainly not protecting or harming anyone. Eternal chains bind them.
C) And they are bound until the great Day of judgement. Bound until after the Trib, MK, and so on until the lost are all judged and condemned. Long after Noah was alive, and long after any of us will be either.
They did?
So the bible lies in Jude where it states that they all will be chained until judgment?
So do you deny that Satan will be on Earth?
So do you deny the Beast from the pit is a former Son of God?
So do you deny that the 4 angels that are unbound are fallen angels?
So do you deny that the Sons of God were fallen angels back in Genesis 6?
They were not in chains until the flood.
Meaning those that rebelled and were cast out. Fallen angels.
Okay, but they were not where they are today immediately, they were with men before that occurred.
Now you claim that fallen rebellious angels 'protected' the one man God saw as godly? They proteced their enemy? Nonsense.
The people that died in the flood. You aren't following this any closer than you were following David and his sling.
They did?
So the bible lies in Jude where it states that they all will be chained until judgement?
So do you deny that Satan will be on Earth?
So do you deny the Beast from the pit is a former Son of God?
So do you deny that the 4 angels that are unbound are fallen angels?
So do you deny that the Sons of God were fallen angels back in Genesis 6?
They were not in chains until the flood.
Meaning those that rebelled and were cast out. Fallen angels.
Okay, but they were not where they are today immediately, they were with men before that occurred.
A) These fallen angels are where? In darkness. Not roaming around all over the earth protecting Noah.
I didn't say protecting Noah, I said the OTHER PEOPLE would have thought those fallen ones were the most powerful ones and it would have only been them that they would have feared.
B) They are bound with everlasting chains in that darkness. Not free to move here and there and certainly not protecting or harming anyone. Eternal chains bind them.
The second has just 4 of them killing 1/3 of man, be thankful they are not all unbound at that time.
C) And they are bound until the great Day of judgment. Bound until after the Trib, MK, and so on until the lost are all judged and condemned. Long after Noah was alive, and long after any of us will be either.
Fallen Angels will never see Heaven again, Judgment Day takes place in Heaven, it is for man alone;
Re:12:7:
And there was war in heaven:
Michael and his angels fought against the dragon;
and the dragon fought and his angels,
Re:12:8:
And prevailed not;
neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Any more means never again.
You are more than welcome to provide a verse that puts them at Judgment Day (Re:20 would be a perfect starting point), their day of judgment is another day;
M't:8:29:
And,
behold,
they cried out,
saying,
What have we to do with thee,
Jesus,
thou Son of God?
art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
CTZonEdit
11-14-2006, 04:18 PM
So do you deny that Satan will be on Earth?
So do you deny the Beast from the pit is a former Son of God?
So do you deny that the 4 angels that are unbound are fallen angels?
So do you deny that the Sons of God were fallen angels back in Genesis 6?
They were not in chains until the flood.
Ah yes according to your own timeline which violates the literal biblical account.
Dont be naive its obvious that the ONLY fallen angel not bound is Satan. All the rest are bound by eternal chains in darkness awaiting judgement. Literally.
Everything else you refer to as a fallen angel is not. Why?
Because Jude 6 trumps you again literally.
When you liberally apply meaning as you see fit you violate the bible.
Okay, but they were not where they are today immediately, they were with men before that occurred.
How do you know that?
Because again Jude 6 is sitting right there before you denying your claims.
The people that died in the flood. You aren't following this any closer than you were following David and his sling.
Which makes even less sense. Fallen angels that are eternally bound in darkness with chains until judgement day per Jude 6 are protecting lost people doomed to die in the flood?
And by what logic to you come to that conclusion? Because literally its a mess.
Ah yes according to your own timeline which violates the literal biblical account.
Dont be naive its obvious that the ONLY fallen angel not bound is Satan. All the rest are bound by eternal chains in darkness awaiting judgement. Literally.
Everything else you refer to as a fallen angel is not. Why?
Because Jude 6 trumps you again literally.
When you liberally apply meaning as you see fit you violate the bible.
How do you know that?
Because again Jude 6 is sitting right there before you denying your claims.
Which makes even less sense. Fallen angels that are eternally bound in darkness with chains until judgement day per Jude 6 are protecting lost people doomed to die in the flood?
And by what logic to you come to that conclusion? Because literally its a mess.
Start here;
Psalms:82:1:
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty;
he judgeth among the gods.
Psalms:82:2:
How long will ye judge unjustly,
and accept the persons of the wicked?
Selah.
Psalms:82:3:
Defend the poor and fatherless:
do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Psalms:82:4:
Deliver the poor and needy:
rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psalms:82:5:
They know not,
neither will they understand;
they walk on in darkness:
all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
Psalms:82:6:
I have said,
Ye are gods;
and all of you are children of the most High.
Psalms:82:7:
But ye shall die like men,
and fall like one of the princes.
Psalms:82:8:
Arise,
O God,
judge the earth:
for thou shalt inherit all nations.
Notice the reference to men dieing, this was said after leaving Eden.
Re:9:11:
And they had a king over them,
which is the angel of the bottomless pit,
whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon,
but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
Re:9:14:
Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet,
Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
Re:9:15:
And the four angels were loosed,
which were prepared for an hour,
and a day,
and a month,
and a year,
for to slay the third part of men.
CoreIssue
11-14-2006, 06:44 PM
Notice the reference to men dieing, this was said after leaving Eden.
No mention of fallen angels.
And they had a king over them,
Satan and demons. Not Fallen Agnels and Satan.
Satan, even when speaking of the Fallen Angels, is held separately from the rest.
Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
Angel does not mean a kind of being, as you have been told time after time.
Use as a title for a being is not the same as being a specific kind of being.
Humans, God in the OT and more are called angels.
Strong's Number: 32 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=32&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origina[ggeloßfrom aggello [probably derived from (71 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=71&version=kjv)), cf (34 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=34&version=kjv))] (to bring tidings)Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=32&version=kjv#Legend) EntryAggelos1:74,12Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechang'-el-os http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0032g) Noun Masculine Definition
a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God
As CTZ told you, Jude proves you totally wrong.
But as always, you simply disregard what does not fit your doctrine.
Even in the rebellion, Satan and the Fallen Angels are given distinction in application and meaning.
CoreIssue
11-14-2006, 06:45 PM
Sorry, CTZ. Just felt like tossing that in. I will refrain from posting, again. :tiphat:
As CTZ told you, Jude proves you totally wrong.
I love the way you guys leave out the best parts;
Jude:1:6:
And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation,
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Now you get the reason they are in chains until their judgment;
Jude:1:7:
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha,
and the cities about them in like manner,
giving themselves over to fornication,
and going after strange flesh,
are set forth for an example,
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Two sins are listed above, having children and going after strange flesh, in this case the daughters of Adam. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah suffered fire from Heaven so will the fallen ones who are in chains.
Likewise would include both fallen angels and those in those two cities;
Jude:1:8:
Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh,
despise dominion,
and speak evil of dignities.
CoreIssue
11-14-2006, 07:57 PM
Talk about leaving out.
Put in the rest of Jude. It is not talking about Fallen Angels going after strange flesh.
It is talking about human sinners and using Fallen Angels as but one example.
Again, you fail to follow grammar and full context.
Ah yes, I forgot that human sin can cause the birth of giants with 6 fingers and 6 toes.
CoreIssue
11-14-2006, 09:06 PM
Ah yes, I forgot that human sin can cause the birth of giants with 6 fingers and 6 toes.
Yep. Good that you finally remembered that.
As you forgot Nephilim were also born long after the Flood.
Yep. Good that you finally remembered that.
As you forgot Nephilim were also born long after the Flood.
Apparently Noah's son's daughters were not perfect in their generations.
CoreIssue
11-15-2006, 11:50 AM
Apparently Noah's son's daughters were not perfect in their generations.
Again you need to stop using the KJV. The word perfect is not in the Hebrew there.
Strong's Number: 08549 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=8549&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin~ymtfrom (08552 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=8552&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08549&version=kjv#Legend) EntryTamiymTWOT - 2522dPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechtaw-meem' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=8549h) Adjective Definition
complete, whole, entire, sound
complete, whole, entire
whole, sound, healthful
complete, entire (of time)
sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity
what is complete or entirely in accord with truth and fact (neuter adj/subst)
It was talking of spiritual, not physical condition.
Of course at that stage of time everyone was physically less than perfect due to sin.
Being righteous and complete in God does not mean any living human is perfect in the flesh on this earth.
CTZonEdit
11-15-2006, 02:36 PM
I love the way you guys leave out the best parts;
Jude:1:6:
And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation,
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Nothing was left out.
Now you get the reason they are in chains until their judgment;
Jude:1:7:
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha,
and the cities about them in like manner,
giving themselves over to fornication,
and going after strange flesh,
are set forth for an example,
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Really now?
There are 3 examples given of how God deals with those who rebel.
The first example is Gods chosen ones from Israel.
Then an example of how God punished angels.
Third example again how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah.
All had been given positions of authority and been blessed by God in many ways. Yet He still destroyed those who rebelled due their own desires and sin nature.
Other than being about rebellion and how God punishes those in rebellion (which is the entire context of Jude) there is no other information we need to take away from these examples.
That is the context of the entire book. How believers or those in postions of authority will be dealt with when they follow their own sinful desires.
It has nothing to do with fallen angels roaming the planet and fornicating with humans. That is your personal liberal interpretation and imagination running wild.
Two sins are listed above, having children and going after strange flesh, in this case the daughters of Adam. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah suffered fire from Heaven so will the fallen ones who are in chains.
When and where does God say that having children is a sin exactly?
The error is your interpretation that "in a like manner" means that the angels "in a like manner" fornicated as Sodom and Gomorrah.
Why does this logic completely fall apart, as we have explained to you before? The simple fact is that angels do not have flesh. They are spirits. They are spirit beings.
Spiritual beings have no need to fornicate, they have no means to fornicate. They dont have the desire. Why? Because they are not a race of beings needing to procreate as humans do. They are a company of spiritual beings created for a specific purpose that God created in perfection.
You cannot compare the natural desires and inner workings of a race of beings created from imperfection and a company of beings created in perfection. Apples and oranges.
Now we will ask you again and you need to be very clear, logical and precise.
Why would a spirit being crave something it has no innate understanding of whatsoever, human flesh.
How does a spirit being created as neither male nor female, meaning it has neither male nor female reproductive parts, crave sexual activity with human males or females?
Nothing was left out.
Would you rather God had spent more time and words on this so you could understand it better?
There are 3 examples given of how God deals with those who rebel.
The first example is Gods chosen ones from Israel.
Then an example of how God punished angels.
Third example again how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah. You didn't mention another group, false Christians;
Lu:6:46:
And why call ye me,
Lord,
Lord,
and do not the things which I say?
M't:25:41:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
Depart from me,
ye cursed,
into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels:
M't:25:42:
For I was an hungred,
and ye gave me no meat:
I was thirsty,
and ye gave me no drink:
M't:25:43:
I was a stranger,
and ye took me not in:
naked,
and ye clothed me not:
sick,
and in prison,
and ye visited me not.
M't:25:44:
Then shall they also answer him,
saying,
Lord,
when saw we thee an hungred,
or athirst,
or a stranger,
or naked,
or sick,
or in prison,
and did not minister unto thee?
M't:25:45:
Then shall he answer them,
saying,
Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these,
ye did it not to me.
M't:25:46:
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:
but the righteous into life eternal.
All had been given positions of authority and been blessed by God in many ways. Yet He still destroyed those who rebelled due their own desires and sin nature.
The difference between men that sin and Angels that sin is that man can be forgiven, Angels who sin (I doubt you can define what sins Angels can commit) have no possibility of being forgiven.
Other than being about rebellion and how God punishes those in rebellion (which is the entire context of Jude) there is no other information we need to take away from these examples.
If God was gracious enough to explain why Sodom was destroyed He would also explain why some Angels will also suffer the same fate. Since you will also be alive and knowing good and evil you really should pay attention to this information, of course this is not the only time it will be given to you, just in case you do not understand it at the present time. RE:21 is quite clear on this matter.
That is the context of the entire book. How believers or those in postions of authority will be dealt with when they follow their own sinful desires.
Just imagine, a book with just one chapter that talks about fallen angels just before a much larger book that deals with fallen angels, what's up with that?
It has nothing to do with fallen angels roaming the planet and fornicating with humans. That is your personal liberal interpretation and imagination running wild.
That would be with women. After all they do want children. Go ahead, let your lack of comprehension blind you to it, hopefully you will not be so blind about unholy watchers should they come back within your lifetime.
When and where does God say that having children is a sin exactly?
Same place it say any in the thousand years will not have children, if they are not given in masrriage they 'better not' have children, not only will they be punished so will their children, and now you know the rest of the story.
The error is your interpretation that "in a like manner" means that the angels "in a like manner" fornicated as Sodom and Gomorrah.
The sin of the Angels came first as to going after flesh, that man will suffer what they did for not respecting what God originally intended explains why angels suffer what they will.
Why does this logic completely fall apart, as we have explained to you before? The simple fact is that angels do not have flesh. They are spirits. They are spirit beings.
That they are not flesh means any reproduction would be different from the way God made man, six fingers and six toes would be just one example that comes to mind.
Spiritual beings have no need to fornicate, they have no means to fornicate. They dont have the desire. Why? Because they are not a race of beings needing to procreate as humans do. They are a company of spiritual beings created for a specific purpose that God created in perfection.
A very good example of your imagination at work. Since some did fall apparently they exceeded their bounds of perfection. Looking after a creation is beyond their abilities. That is why man and not angels were given a dominion. That is also what most likely made Satan snap. Dominion given to 'something' that doesn't even know that ther is 'good and evil'.
You cannot compare the natural desires and inner workings of a race of beings created from imperfection and a company of beings created in perfection. Apples and oranges.
Now who is being daft? Both were created in perfection. There was one single sin comitted by man, the apple was not the last in a long string of sins. Satan comitted two sins in the Garden, he lied and he murdered through a lie.
Now we will ask you again and you need to be very clear, logical and precise.
Why would a spirit being crave something it has no innate understanding of whatsoever, human flesh.
How does a spirit being created as neither male nor female, meaning it has neither male nor female reproductive parts, crave sexual activity with human males or females?
Satan wanted a dominion over something, it simply pissed him off that man could have a dominion and he got squat.
Angels and human males! How sick is that? If angels are not given in marriage then that would end the issue of whether or not they can even have children. Are there 'girl angels'? Who knows, a woman from mankind is still called a son of God once in the Holy Spirit. Were there any, no man would find 'her' unattractive. Same for the daughters of Eve, they may have been more than willing to have their children, being that Angels have been known to take the form of a man that would seem to solve the how of it.
Hi Core,
Since this is sortof my thread I am going to take you back to the trinity for (hopefully just a post or two). When Jesus says He is going to prepare a place in his Father's house (in these titles I have a bit of difficulty deciding what should have a capital letter so I just go for who is greater) is this like your son bringing somebody to your house?
CTZonEdit
11-16-2006, 11:12 AM
Would you rather God had spent more time and words on this so you could understand it better?
You didn't mention another group, false Christians;
Lu:6:46:
And why call ye me,
Lord,
Lord,
and do not the things which I say?
There was no need to mention them in my reply since they still have nothing to do with your liberal beliefs in fornicating angelic beings.
M't:25:41:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
Depart from me,
ye cursed,
into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels:
M't:25:42:
For I was an hungred,
and ye gave me no meat:
I was thirsty,
and ye gave me no drink:
M't:25:43:
I was a stranger,
and ye took me not in:
naked,
and ye clothed me not:
sick,
and in prison,
and ye visited me not.
M't:25:44:
Then shall they also answer him,
saying,
Lord,
when saw we thee an hungred,
or athirst,
or a stranger,
or naked,
or sick,
or in prison,
and did not minister unto thee?
M't:25:45:
Then shall he answer them,
saying,
Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these,
ye did it not to me.
M't:25:46:
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:
but the righteous into life eternal.
This cutting and pasting of irrelevant passages needs to stop.
What does this passage have to do with Jude or your belief in angelic fornicators?
The difference between men that sin and Angels that sin is that man can be forgiven, Angels who sin (I doubt you can define what sins Angels can commit) have no possibility of being forgiven.
Which why they are bound until they can get a proper judgement.
Sin is rebellion. They followed Satan instead of God. Angelic sin defined for you.
If God was gracious enough to explain why Sodom was destroyed He would also explain why some Angels will also suffer the same fate.
Explain how you get to link those to incidents again since as you claim angelic sin cant be defined? Your guesses and assumptions are failing you.
A) The context of Jude refutes you.
B) The nature of angels refutes you.
C) The fact that all fallen angels were chained in darkness refutes you.
Since you will also be alive and knowing good and evil you really should pay attention to this information, of course this is not the only time it will be given to you, just in case you do not understand it at the present time. RE:21 is quite clear on this matter.
Still not proving anything about angelic fornicators or that the fallen are not bound until the judgement.
Just imagine, a book with just one chapter that talks about fallen angels just before a much larger book that deals with fallen angels, what's up with that?
Any book that has the word angel in it is about angels? And I though reading comprehension took into account understanding context and such, silly me.
That would be with women. After all they do want children. Go ahead, let your lack of comprehension blind you to it, hopefully you will not be so blind about unholy watchers should they come back within your lifetime.
They do? Where you there? If they crave flesh and are into sexual immorality as your imagination claims then why restrict them to females. If they are supernatural in nature why would they not crave supernatural sex with any and everything with such abilities?
Why would a company of beings created neither male nor female desire to procreate?
Where would this desire come from since their natural state is spirit and of the supernatural? Again your imagination running wild.
Same place it say any in the thousand years will not have children, if they are not given in masrriage they 'better not' have children, not only will they be punished so will their children, and now you know the rest of the story.
I know of no such declarations where God mandates it is a literal sin to have a child.
More stretching of bible to mirror you imagination.
Angels are incapable of making or having babies, period. You have given no logical reason as to why a spiritual supernatural being would crave imperfect human flesh. If anything it would be completely disgusting and foreign to them.
The sin of the Angels came first as to going after flesh, that man will suffer what they did for not respecting what God originally intended explains why angels suffer what they will.
Huh? Expain how angels fornicated first? There was no human for them to crave during their rebellion. And angels were created neither male or female. They are now in and always have been since rebelling in chains in darkness which was before the creation of this Earth or humans.
That they are not flesh means any reproduction would be different from the way God made man, six fingers and six toes would be just one example that comes to mind.
What is your obsession with 6 toes? Other than being a genetic anomoly where do you get off claiming that angels fornicated and their offspring were giant beasts? Oh yea the same place all these other claims come from, your imagination.
A very good example of your imagination at work. Since some did fall apparently they exceeded their bounds of perfection. Looking after a creation is beyond their abilities. That is why man and not angels were given a dominion. That is also what most likely made Satan snap. Dominion given to 'something' that doesn't even know that ther is 'good and evil'.
Exceeded bounds of perfection? What in the world are you claiming now. There are no degrees of perfection. Either perfect or not. One cannot exceed perfection.
They fell because they had a choice. Follow God or Satan, they made a simple decision. Exceeded their perfection...please.
This being beyond their ability is nonsense. They lost it because the chose to rebel not because it was beyond them. Choose God or Satan. Simple as that. Then they suffered the consequense which was being bound in chains in darkness.
You completely misunderstand the concept of good and evil. As you misunderstand and take out of context a majority of your biblical beliefs.
Now who is being daft? Both were created in perfection. There was one single sin comitted by man, the apple was not the last in a long string of sins. Satan comitted two sins in the Garden, he lied and he murdered through a lie.
Sigh. Lucifer was created in perfection. Adam was created after Gen 1:2 where the world was imperfect and God remade it to accomplish His perfect will.
You fail to grasp the concept of perfection. Please show me Gods standard of a perfect creation in the bible as it pertains to the heavens and earth.
Satan wanted a dominion over something, it simply pissed him off that man could have a dominion and he got squat.
So God gave Satan dominion because he was a cry baby? Sigh.
Angels and human males! How sick is that?
Again they are supernatural beings with sex drives as you claim, by default they would have supernatural sex drives and such. So there would be homosexual angels as well as heterosexual ones following your logic.
If angels are not given in marriage then that would end the issue of whether or not they can even have children.
The bible says they are neither male nor female and no marriage between them so end of story. If you know that then what are we discussing here?
Are there 'girl angels'?
No!
Who knows
God does and he says clearly they are not male or female.
, a woman from mankind is still called a son of God once in the Holy Spirit.
Which is a term applied to one who is in relationship with or follows God contextually. Unless you are Christ then it literally means Son. But since context is meaningless to your interpretations its no wonder you believe this nonsense.
Were there any, no man would find 'her' unattractive. Same for the daughters of Eve, they may have been more than willing to have their children, being that Angels have been known to take the form of a man that would seem to solve the how of it.
The logic here still makes no sense. There is no biblical justificition for what you have told us to reject what Jude clearly states in its own context.
Taking the form does not mean it turned into. If you take on the form of a rock, you do not turn into a rock, you simply look like a rock to those around you.
What you have done is given to power of creation to angels as well. Another biblical violation since God is the only one who created. An angel cannot create it self anew and turn itself into a human being. It cannot change its God-created nature as a supernatural spirit being into a mortal flesh being. You really need to think before you jump into such nonsense.
And we havent even addressed the illogical concept of angel/human offspring. Which also destroys you logic.
If they are half human and half angel then how are they saved? They cant be under the supernatural law and under the human Law. They would need a whole nother savior since Christs blood does not cover angelic sins, and the punishment for angels is already in effect (remember those silly chains and darkness and such?).
Your thinking completely violates the bible the further and further you try and explain the flawed belief that angels can procreate.
CoreIssue
11-16-2006, 11:32 AM
Hi Core,
Since this is sortof my thread I am going to take you back to the trinity for (hopefully just a post or two). When Jesus says He is going to prepare a place in his Father's house (in these titles I have a bit of difficulty deciding what should have a capital letter so I just go for who is greater) is this like your son bringing somebody to your house?
No.
I wish you would read the Jewish Wedding Custom.
When a man got engaged he returned to his father's house and from their built his own house.
When the father determined it and the groom were ready, he sent him for his bride. Only the Father Knew the timing of that decision.
The bride and her company knew he would return for her. Just not when.
And he returned as a thief in the night, to take her to his father's house, not his own, for the wedding ceremony. She was hidden for 7 days in the wedding chamber, where only the groom entered and left.
She come forth after the 7 days adorned as wife and was announced to the world as wife.
There was no need to mention them in my reply since they still have nothing to do with your liberal beliefs in fornicating angelic beings.
Alright then, let me see if I can redirect you for a few moments because that is becoming one of your most favorite expression in this part of the thread.
I assume you would agree that this is referencing Satan in the verse below;
Joh:8:44:
Ye are of your father the devil,
and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning,
and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie,
he speaketh of his own:
for he is a liar,
and the father of it.
Now you say he did these thing even before the incident in the Garden. Since Adam and Eve were the very first two people he must have comitted these two sins in Heaven. Granted he could have lied to other Angels, but since Angels are immortal he could not murder them. They are all very much alive when they go into the eternal Lake. Now you also believe that both Satan and the fallen angels were sent to Earth as their punishment. You have not, obviously, asked yourself (which is the only way you could come up with this theory since there is not one single verse to support it) why would God send a liar and murderer to a Garden where there are some that are even innocent of the knowledge that their is such a thing as a lie.
No my imaginative, or unimaginative, friend, the beginning spoken about in the above verse is given in the very first verse of the Holy Bible. Earth is said to exist. Satan didn't lie and murder plants, nor water, nor fish, nor beasts of the fields, nor creepy crawly things. The lie was to Eve, the very first lie making him the father of all lies. It is through that lie that he was able to commit murder, not just of man but all life that has had their breath of life return to Heaven. If Satan had told any lies before God would have used different words here;
Ge:3:14:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent,
Because thou hast done this,
thou art cursed above all cattle,
and above every beast of the field;
upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Satan was not a liar until that point in time. Had he been a liar before it would not bring a punishment, he would have already been experiencing a punishment. Since this was Satan's fall no other angels could have fallen before then, part of their fall was because they followed Satan.
You really should use some Scripture to form your theories.
This cutting and pasting of irrelevant passages needs to stop.
What does this passage have to do with Jude or your belief in angelic fornicators?
Well you left one group out.
Nothing other than they will be with satan in the Lake.
Which why they are bound until they can get a proper judgement.
Sin is rebellion. They followed Satan instead of God. Angelic sin defined for you.
This is angelic sin;
2Pe:2:11:
Whereas angels,
which are greater in power and might,
bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
2Pe:2:12:
But these,
as natural brute beasts,
made to be taken and destroyed,
speak evil of the things that they understand not;
and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
2Pe:2:13:
And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness,
as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time.
Spots they are and blemishes,
sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
2Pe:2:14:
Having eyes full of adultery,
and that cannot cease from sin;
beguiling unstable souls:
an heart they have exercised with covetous practices;
cursed children:
Holy smoke, look at that, fallen angels have eaten with man. Must have been before they were in chains in the pit. I'll let you have your imagination back now whild you deal with the word adultery.
Explain how you get to link those to incidents again since as you claim angelic sin cant be defined? Your guesses and assumptions are failing you.
A) The context of Jude refutes you.
B) The nature of angels refutes you.
C) The fact that all fallen angels were chained in darkness refutes you.
See the verses from 2nd Peter above, the ones you didn't include for some reason, actually the words are the reason aren't they. Don't you just love the way God provides a second reference to all He says, just to make sure you don't mistake His reference the first time.
Still not proving anything about angelic fornicators or that the fallen are not bound until the judgement. When something is unbound that would mean they were bound before being unbound. Include the word angel and you might want to think of angels that are currently bound as being unbound when it says the bound are unbound.
Any book that has the word angel in it is about angels? And I though reading comprehension took into account understanding context and such, silly me.
I didn't suggest you spend a huge amount of time outside the Bible looking up definations that are in Scripture.
They do? Where you there? If they crave flesh and are into sexual immorality as your imagination claims then why restrict them to females. If they are supernatural in nature why would they not crave supernatural sex with any and everything with such abilities?
Females can have children, even back then, since you like to use your imagination you can imagine the giants (offspring of angels and the daughters of men) having their own children.
Why would a company of beings created neither male nor female desire to procreate?
Where would this desire come from since their natural state is spirit and of the supernatural? Again your imagination running wild.
That is given, they found the daughters of men attractive.
I know of no such declarations where God mandates it is a literal sin to have a child.
More stretching of bible to mirror you imagination.
Having a child outside of wedlock is a sin, you know that right?
Angels are incapable of making or having babies, period. You have given no logical reason as to why a spiritual supernatural being would crave imperfect human flesh. If anything it would be completely disgusting and foreign to them.
So now you even know how an Angel thinks.
Huh? Expain how angels fornicated first? There was no human for them to crave during their rebellion. And angels were created neither male or female. They are now in and always have been since rebelling in chains in darkness which was before the creation of this Earth or humans.
Now you claim to have knowledge about time that was before the times Scripture goes back too. Impressive, not hardly.
What is your obsession with 6 toes? Other than being a genetic anomoly where do you get off claiming that angels fornicated and their offspring were giant beasts? Oh yea the same place all these other claims come from, your imagination.
I didn't say beast, giant men think just the one mentioned had 6 of each, more likely they all had 6 of each. Of course there are still Christians (sons of God) having children with non-christian and they still have children with 6 of each. Sorry, a correction is needed, there are no documents that exist that provide than any child from that sort-of marriage has produced any child other than in the likeness of either adam and Eve.
The rest of your post is just babble
CTZonEdit
11-20-2006, 10:25 AM
The logic here still makes no sense. There is no biblical justificition for what you have told us to reject what Jude clearly states in its own context.
Taking the form does not mean it turned into. If you take on the form of a rock, you do not turn into a rock, you simply look like a rock to those around you.
What you have done is given to power of creation to angels as well. Another biblical violation since God is the only one who created. An angel cannot create it self anew and turn itself into a human being. It cannot change its God-created nature as a supernatural spirit being into a mortal flesh being. You really need to think before you jump into such nonsense.
And we havent even addressed the illogical concept of angel/human offspring. Which also destroys you logic.
If they are half human and half angel then how are they saved? They cant be under the supernatural law and under the human Law. They would need a whole nother savior since Christs blood does not cover angelic sins, and the punishment for angels is already in effect (remember those silly chains and darkness and such?).
Your thinking completely violates the bible the further and further you try and explain the flawed belief that angels can procreate.
Me babbling? I see.
No its you avoiding the real issues at play over your obsurde doctrine that angels somehow procreated.
CoreIssue
11-20-2006, 11:07 AM
I didn't say beast, giant men think just the one mentioned had 6 of each, more likely they all had 6 of each. Of course there are still Christians (sons of God) having children with non-christian and they still have children with 6 of each. Sorry, a correction is needed, there are no documents that exist that provide than any child from that sort-of marriage has produced any child other than in the likeness of either adam and Eve.
The rest of your post is just babble
Again you are wrong, MHz. See for yourself, 6 fingers and 6 toes (http://www.sikvid.com/vids/1928.html).
So much for your statement.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.