Amil Response - Rise in Anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric? [Archive]

View Full Version : Amil Response - Rise in Anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture rhetoric?

eahaddix

05-13-2006, 09:54 PM

THIS THREAD IS A SPLIT FROM THE ORIGINAL THREAD HERE (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2238)

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?

amilltruth

03-29-2007, 06:13 PM

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.

actuall core ALL AMILLENNIALIST are post trib that is nothing new you came up with.

amilltruth

03-29-2007, 06:18 PM

An added note here is proper. I believe.

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

THAT IS JUST AN OUTRIGHT LIE!!!!!!!!!

amillennialist DO BELIEVE IN A RAPTURE, at the coming of the Lord, how can you be so knowledgeable and yet flat out lie like this,

i used to watch you post on rapture ready years ago, and you pulled the same tricks over there

AMILLENNIALISTS DO BELIEVE IN A RAPTURE!!!!!!!!!!

amilltruth

03-29-2007, 06:22 PM

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;)).

SO ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE WAY YOU INTERPRET THE BIBLE IS USING RHETERIC, INTERESTING!!!!

amilltruth

03-29-2007, 10:18 PM

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

MAYBE SOME DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEMS WITH PREMILLENNIALISM ARE IN ORDER:

CoreIssue

03-29-2007, 10:48 PM

CoreIssue

03-29-2007, 10:58 PM

CoreIssue

03-29-2007, 11:02 PM

amilltruth

03-30-2007, 12:16 AM

actuall core ALL AMILLENNIALIST are post trib that is nothing new you came up with.
Don't go there.

First of all, Amil rejects a Rapture.

Second, they reject a 7 year Trib.

Third, the reject a Millennial Kingdom on the earth.

Post-Mill believes in a trib after a none literal MK. Not Amill.

Yea, I am aware there is a group trying to attach Amill to Post-Trib.

Post-Trib, by definition, means those who believe in a Rapture after the 7 year Trib which begins a literal 1,000 year MK on this earth.

Post-Mill believe in a Rapture after a non-literal MK.

Amill rejects a Rapture, period, and believe we are in the MK now.

Please get your theological terms straight. It helps a ton in a conversation.

So, you sound Post-Mill in what you have said, so far.

1. ALL ammils believe at the coming of the Lord we will be caught up to meet him in the air, i challenge you to find one that doesnt believe this!!!!

2. Yes we reject a 7 yr trib the 70th week has been fulfilled, right after the 69th week!

3. I am not postmill

4. no one is trying to attach amill to post trib, ALL amills believe there is ONE future return of the Lord and when that happens we will be raptured. (Honestly isnt that how 1 Thes 4 portrays it?)

5. I know what post trib means

6. I know what post-mill believes

7. Your repeated statements that amills do not believe in a catching up of the saints just shows how little you truly know about teh amill postion.

8. Millennial Kingdom is not a term found in the bible, the KINGDOM is and yes we are in that kingdom ( Col 1:13), although there is a future consumation of this kingdom at the second coming of Christ.

do you deny we are in the kingdom now?

amilltruth

03-30-2007, 12:51 AM

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

MAYBE SOME DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEMS WITH PREMILLENNIALISM ARE IN ORDER:
Please stop using all caps. That is shouting and very impolite.

Discussion is good.

Problem with your theology is that you have nothing literal to offer from the Bible. It is all figurative claims.

John 5:24-28

"Verily, Verily i say unto you,he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; BUT IS PASSED FROM DEATH INTO LIFE (resurrected). Verily, Verily I say unto you, THE HOUR is coming , AND NOW IS, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear SHALL LIVE (resurrected).. Marvel NOT at this; for the HOUR is coming in the which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth....""

I take that literally, DO YOU?

John just described 2 resurrections just like he did in Revelation!

amilltruth

03-30-2007, 12:54 AM

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness (salvation), and HATH (present tense) translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son"
Col. 1:13

I take that literally, DO YOU?

Edge

03-30-2007, 10:25 AM

amilltruth

03-30-2007, 01:39 PM

Hi there Amilltruth,

Thanks for your posts.

I am looking most seriously into this, and I can't find an earthly millennium anywhere in scripture. There seems to be one kingdom, and Christ reigning right now in the believers.

How many kingdoms are there? Only one as far as I can see...:scratch:

Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Thank you Jesus!

hi there edge,
i too struggled with this issue too, do not believe what you hear on here about amillennialism, they are just doing there best to discredit it anyway they can, go to http://p072.ezboard.com/bendtimeforum

and it will help you with all your answers

when i started seeing how many contradictions Premillennialism had to it there is just noway it is biblical (i.e. a return to animal sacrifices to make atonement for our sins)

also this is the article God used to sway me over the edge (hehe) when i was borderline, not knowing which way to go
http://members.aol.com/twarren13/amillennial.html

absolutly the greatest article on amillennialism I have ever read, and you get a true definiton of what it is, not the flat out lies that have been put forth by those here.

Edge

03-30-2007, 02:30 PM

Thanks Amilltruth,

I am beginning to realise that I've been brainwashed by a load of nonsense.

Since picking up the Bible and studying it for myself, I see that the rapture must come at Christ's return, and there isn't going to be some ridiculous earthly reign.

Thanks for the links, I shall go and have a look. Here's one for you, which is about literalism...most enlightening...

http://www.thewordcc.net/id208.html

God bless you...:nod:

CoreIssue

03-30-2007, 05:18 PM

1. ALL ammils believe at the coming of the Lord we will be caught up to meet him in the air, i challenge you to find one that doesnt believe this!!!!
Catholics. Millions of them.

2. Yes we reject a 7 yr trib the 70th week has been fulfilled, right after the 69th week!

Learn grammar and word meaning. It says Christ died AFTER the 69th Week and the 70th follows, which is the Book of Revelation and never happened yet.

Any student of history knows that.

But of course, when you are non-literal, you can make it say whatever you want.
3. I am not postmill
If you believe in a Rapture, you are not Amill.
4. no one is trying to attach amill to post trib, ALL amills believe there is ONE future return of the Lord and when that happens we will be raptured. (Honestly isnt that how 1 Thes 4 portrays it?)
Yep, they believe in the Second Coming. But NO Rapture attached. You need to do some study.

The leading Amil Theologians are fervent in denying a Rapture.
5. I know what post trib means
Not the theological definition. That is obvious.

It does not simply mean after the Trib. It also is a Pre-Mill theological term, not a Post-Mill or Amill one.

Any true student of theology knows that.
6. I know what post-mill believes
Obviously not.

If you think Post-Mill only encompasses one defined group, you are wrong. There are numerous variants within it.
7. Your repeated statements that amills do not believe in a catching up of the saints just shows how little you truly know about teh amill postion.
As with the Catholics, they do not believe the saints will leave the earth.

Gathered to Christ, yes, but they never leave the earth, which is what the Rapture is about.

Some try to circumvent this issue by says, "Oh, yea, we will go up into the clouds and come right back down for eternity.

But the bigger issue is that Amills are into Replacement Theology. They deny Israel will be restored and insist the Church assumed the Abrahamic Covenant by the failure of Israel.

That complete takes any literalness away from any of the prophecies about Israel.

No way around that.
8. Millennial Kingdom is not a term found in the bible, the KINGDOM is and yes we are in that kingdom ( Col 1:13), although there is a future consumation of this kingdom at the second coming of Christ.
Because a theological shorthand is used does not mean the teachings are not there.

Revelation says after the Second Coming Christ rules for 1,000 years, on this earth, from Jerusalem.

do you deny we are in the kingdom now?
Semantical games there.

We are in the kingdom of Christ but we are not in the Millennial Kingdom.

I repeat, there is no way you can get around the fact nothing in the 70th Week of Daniel has occurred yet, Revelation has not been fulfilled and Israel has not been restored.

Literal issues that Amils can never get around.

CoreIssue

03-30-2007, 05:21 PM

CoreIssue

03-30-2007, 05:23 PM

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness (salvation), and HATH (present tense) translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son"
Col. 1:13

I take that literally, DO YOU?
Nothing to do with resurrection.

Being born-again.

CoreIssue

03-30-2007, 05:30 PM

CoreIssue

03-30-2007, 05:33 PM

when i started seeing how many contradictions Premillennialism had to it there is just noway it is biblical (i.e. a return to animal sacrifices to make atonement for our sins)

Ignorance of what is said is not a reason for denying the Bible.

It says it will happen and all your efforts to talk around it will not change any of it.

Amil is Replacement Theology. A biggie you cannot escape.

Complete non-literal.

The Abrahamic Covenant is eternal, unlike the Mosaic. It will be fulfilled via Israel.

CoreIssue

03-30-2007, 07:40 PM

Here is the issue that no Amil has ever answered. Avoidance is the reaction everytime I have asked.

Question (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3136)

Please answer there. It is a good issue deserving its own thread.

Edge

03-31-2007, 06:35 AM

CoreIssue

03-31-2007, 10:43 AM

Hi CoreIssue,

In the OT there are descriptions of life in the MK. Includes people living for centuries, no more death in birth and going to Jerusalem to the Temple of Ezekiel, which has yet to be built.

Some reading.

link (http://www.gotquestions.org/millennium.html)

Thanks for the link...

I do not see that there will be another temple built. I would have to ask why God would want a temple made by human hands again? Surely you are not suggesting that animal sacrifices are needed again?

It seems so simple and clear to me, that we are now the temple, and Jesus is the cornerstone.

It was the Temple issue that ultimately pushed Stephen's hearers to the point of murdering the first martyr of the Faith. Enduring Stephen's entire discourse, which was built around the theme of God's dwelling place among His people Israel, it was his final quote from Isaiah which they could not bear as the prophetic rebuke hit home.

"Thus says the Lord, 'heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? For My hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being,' declares the Lord." (Isaiah 66:1-2)
Sorry, but what you think is not agreeing with the Bible. It says that Temple will be built.

You are failing to recognize there are Eternal, Heavenly and Earthly issues.

Think about the OT. There was a Heavenly Temple and an Earthly one, at the same time.

There is still a Heavenly Temple while no stone Earthly Temple.

Ezekiel states there will be a future Earthly one again. In Jerusalem.

Prophecy tells us the nations that will go against Israel, in the future Trib, will be required to go to Jerusalem, every years, in the future restored Israel.

Simple fact and you are trying to ignore that reality.

As I said before, Amil does not read the Bible literally. It spiritualizes it.

Please go to the link challenge I posted and explain the Isaiah 65 passages. Again, another MK prophecy Amils cannot deal with.

Nothing in the 70th Week of Daniels has happened yet. And there is indeed a Temple. Nothing in Revelation has happened yet. And there is indeed a Temple. None of the OT prophecies concerning future Israel, and the Second Coming, have happened yet. Again, there is a Temple.

I have debated Amils a lot. And what I like to call, Post-Trib Amils, who are trying to redefine Amil and Post-Trib theologies by merging them. They cannot, since these are theological terms referring to well befined sets of thinking.

They are actually pushing a new Post-Mill Rapture theology variant.

Says something when they cannot even get basic definitions correct.

Edge

03-31-2007, 11:57 AM

[quote=Edge;19186]Hi CoreIssue,

Sorry, but what you think is not agreeing with the Bible. It says that Temple will be built.

You are failing to recognize there are Eternal, Heavenly and Earthly issues.

Think about the OT. There was a Heavenly Temple and an Earthly one, at the same time.

There is still a Heavenly Temple while no stone Earthly Temple.

Ezekiel states there will be a future Earthly one again. In Jerusalem.

Prophecy tells us the nations that will go against Israel, in the future Trib, will be required to go to Jerusalem, every years, in the future restored Israel.

So what did Jesus mean when He said;

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Cor 3:16-17)

Are you suggesting that there are two temples? Jesus said not to look around outwardly for a temple or some future kingdom, but to look within ourselves;

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Simple fact and you are trying to ignore that reality.

If I am wrong, then time will tell, but if you are wrong, then you are denying the finished work of the cross and the eternal nature of the kingdom of God within believers right now.

My Bible tells me that Christ is reigning on David's throne right now, and that the victory of the cross is mine through faith in Christ today. To suggest that Christ is not reigning on the throne of the Davidic covenant is to say that His work is unfinished.

Are you suggesting that the following has not found fulfillment through Christ our Lord?

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever. (Samuel 7:12-16)

Have you ever wondered why there was so much preaching on the kingdom? It was so in the Old as well as in the New Testament. It was preached before the cross as well as after. It was first preached by John the Baptist, then Christ, and then by the apostles. It was preached in all four gospels, and Jesus proclaimed the new birth was necessary before anyone could see or enter into it. God's people still enter into it today the same way. It was preached in the book of Acts. It is no where given that the kingdom of the gospels was to be an earthly kingdom. It is of note that in the beginning there was to be no earthly king. When Samuel's sons, who were priests also, became overtly wayward, the people desired a king to judge them as other nations (1 Sam 8:5). Samuel was grieved, but the Lord told him to grant their desire because they had not rejected him, but had rejected the Lord, that he, "should not reign over them" 1 Sam 8:7).

As I said before, Amil does not read the Bible literally. It spiritualizes it.

Well I take the following scriptures to mean what they say literally;

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Jhn 4:24)

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Cr 2:14)

It has always been the same, in fact our Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and the unregenerate mind remains in darkness until the spirit of God brings spiritual wisdom. This is precisely why Jesus spoke in parables regarding the kingdom of God.

The New Testament Scriptures have made it plain to all Christians that the Kingdom foretold by the prophets of Israel and announced by Christ and His servants, is of a Spiritual character not 'eating and drinking,' as the earthly minded Jews supposed (and still do), 'but righteousness, and peace and joy, in the Holy Ghost' (Rom 14:17)".

The Pharisees were seeking an earthly kingdom, and ask Jesus, [I]"..when the kingdom of God should come.". His answer was:

"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20)

Paul said in 1 Cor 15:24;
"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."

This verse tells us:

1) The present kingdom will be delivered up to the Father, which completes the suretiship of Jesus, and

2) the King has been putting down all rule, authority and power in this day. It is not the end of the kingdom, for it is to be forever and ever.

Paul, when describing our salvation, said this, "(The Father)..hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." Col 1:13.
Note; the translation was in the past tense (Aorist), and it is Christ's kingdom, who fulfills the Davidic Covenant for which we shall see the scripture telling us later. Paul speaks of our present calling unto (or, into) his kingdom.. (1 Thess 2:12), and Hebrews tells us we are "receiving (present tense participle) a kingdom.." (Heb 12:28).

Peter speaks of the 'everlasting kingdom' (2 Pet 1:11). John in the Revelation tells of having present "tribulation .. in the kingdom." (Rev 1:9). John heard the song of Moses sung in heaven which said Jesus was "King of saints (better copies have 'nations')". (Rev 15:3).

Some have declared the Davidic Covenant was only fulfilled in Solomon. Others have said David will be resurrected and will actually sit on the throne, but it was said of Jesus, ".. the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.." Luke 1:32-33.

Please go to the link challenge I posted and explain the Isaiah 65 passages. Again, another MK prophecy Amils cannot deal with.

Everything in it's good time. I am debating in this (and one other) thread at the moment, and don't have time to engage a third...:):

Nothing in the 70th Week of Daniels has happened yet. And there is indeed a Temple. Nothing in Revelation has happened yet. And there is indeed a Temple. None of the OT prophecies concerning future Israel, and the Second Coming, have happened yet. Again, there is a Temple.

Are you suggesting that there is a special dispensation of grace for national Jews?

What about the scriptures that state;

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

In Romans Chapter 11, it is clear that Paul is addressing Israelites, but who are Israel today? And who are the children of promise? Who are Abraham's seed?

At the time Paul was writing there was a remnant of national Israelites who were not yet believers, thus they were still counted as enemies of those Israelites who had been converted to Christ. This is why Paul refers to himself prior to his conversion:

Acts 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Acts 26:11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul, himself an Israelite, makes the distinction between his national status and his spiritual one. Clearly, his status as a Jew has nothing to do with his status as part of the true church of God. However, because he was one of the elect national Israelites, God saw fit to convert him.

I have debated Amils a lot. And what I like to call, Post-Trib Amils, who are trying to redefine Amil and Post-Trib theologies by merging them. They cannot, since these are theological terms referring to well befined sets of thinking.

Just labels my friend. The Bible is clear enough about who Jesus is, and what He taught.
I have never heard of a reformed amillennialist who is post millennial. This would be an oxymoron, as the term 'amillennial' simply means 'no millennium'. Most reformed amillennialists would prefer the term 'realised millennialism' as the actual term 'amillennial' doesn't accurately reflect the view. True amillennialists believe that we are currently in the millennium, and I must say, it seems like a fair appraisal of things to me. Certainly, dispensationalism seems rather simplistic and childish. Chiliasts (historic premills) even despise the thought of being associated with modern dispensational premills...

However I think you'll find that it is preterism that endorses postmillennial thought.

(sorry, I am digressing from the point):):

They are actually pushing a new Post-Mill Rapture theology variant.

Indeed? Who are? And what variant is that?

Says something when they cannot even get basic definitions correct.

Such as?

CoreIssue

03-31-2007, 01:39 PM

So what did Jesus mean when He said;

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Cor 3:16-17)

He meant we are the earthly temples of God, during the Church Age, in which the Holy Spirit dwells.

The OT saints did not gain the Holy Spirit until Christ resurrected.

We gain the Holy Spirit while still in the flesh because there is no stone Temple, which is reserved for the Jews and their covenant.

But when the 70th Week begins, and the Rapture occurs, Israel is restored and once again no one gains the indwelling of the Holy Spirit while in this earthly flesh. Thus the Temple, New Law, Priesthood and such is restored, exactly as prophecied.

You cannot apply Church Age verses to either the OT, the 70th Week or the MK on these issues.

Israel does not become Church. Church does not become Israel.

You see the 24 Elders before the Father in Revelation. The OT declares Israel the Wife of God, not of Christ. Church is the Bride of Christ.

You see TWO, not ONE, heirs in the body of Christ, Israel and Church.

In the New Covenant of Hebrew, which you see is STILL written in future tense, it is the Houses of Israel and Judah, which will be restored in the 70th Week.

You see the Two Witnesses in the Temple during the first half of the 70th Week. They are two men, Enoch and Elijah.

Amil totally fails because they cannot cope with the literal verses saying Israel will be restored.

You cannot simply substitute Church for Israel as the want to do.
Are you suggesting that there are two temples? Jesus said not to look around outwardly for a temple or some future kingdom, but to look within ourselves;
And at the same time Christ said this he also called the stone Temple the House of God.

Further, the indwelling did not become a reality until Christ resurrected. NO one was indwelt prior to the resurrection.

Even further, at this very moment, the Heavenly Temple of God is still in existence in Heaven.

So yes, Temple refers to more than one place and issue. And all are relevant to the Plan of God.

The indwelling during the Church Age did not eliminate the Heavenly Temple. It temporarily took the place of the Stone One.

In enternity, all are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, be they Church, Israel or those who were in neither covenant.

Church is a covenant, not the whole body of Christ. Only a part of it.
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
And that is true in the Church Age without question.

But it is also true it exists in Heaven in the saints, OT and otherwise, with the Lord now.

Simple fact and you are trying to ignore that reality.
If I am wrong, then time will tell, but if you are wrong, then you are denying the finished work of the cross and the eternal nature of the kingdom of God within believers right now.

No. I am not. You are not understanding that while Christ finished the redemptive work, the work as a whole is not complete.

There are still people to be saved and enter the kingdom. That is not finished. Only the work Christ had to to do for it to happen is complete.

Further, the First Resurrection, rewading and glorification of the saints is 100% future, still.

The work on the cross is complete. But the total Plan of God is not, yet.

My Bible tells me that Christ is reigning on David's throne right now, and that the victory of the cross is mine through faith in Christ today. To suggest that Christ is not reigning on the throne of the Davidic covenant is to say that His work is unfinished.

Which has nothing to do with restoring Israel in the 70th Week and the MK.

Again, you confuse spiritual and Heavenly issues with earthly ones.

Before the OT Temple was built there was a Heavenly One. It still exists in Heaven today. It will still exist during 70th Week and MK, when the earthly one exists again, as described by Ezekiel.

Or are you calling Ezekiel, Daniel and John wrong?
Nothing any of those men referred to, concerning the Temple, has happened yet. Nothing.

Are you suggesting that the following has not found fulfillment through Christ our Lord?

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever. (Samuel 7:12-16)

Why are you mixing issues?

The Land Issue to Abraham has never been fulfilled. It MUST be fulfilled through his physical descendents.

Why do you disregard the prophecies about the MK, Temple and such, which have never been fulfilled yet.

Please go here (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3136) and deal with this. You cannot, nor can you shopping cart the Bible and only use what fits your thinking. You have to harmonize the whole.

Amil is among the most spiritualized and figurative thinking out there.

Problem is, it is all based on assumptions, totally lacking literal evidence. And every attempt at trying to use of literal verse as evidence can be eliminted using proper rules of grammar and language.

Have you ever wondered why there was so much preaching on the kingdom? It was so in the Old as well as in the New Testament. It was preached before the cross as well as after. It was first preached by John the Baptist, then Christ, and then by the apostles. It was preached in all four gospels, and Jesus proclaimed the new birth was necessary before anyone could see or enter into it. God's people still enter into it today the same way. It was preached in the book of Acts. It is no where given that the kingdom of the gospels was to be an earthly kingdom. It is of note that in the beginning there was to be no earthly king. When Samuel's sons, who were priests also, became overtly wayward, the people desired a king to judge them as other nations (1 Sam 8:5). Samuel was grieved, but the Lord told him to grant their desire because they had not rejected him, but had rejected the Lord, that he, "should not reign over them" 1 Sam 8:7).

But you have your thinking on the kingdoms wrong. Which gives you unsound doctrine.

To focus on one set of verses and not considering the whole allows bad logic and thinking.

Amil doesn't like the idea of Israel being restored. This thinking came out of Catholicism.

It taints how you see the whole.

Think about it. Once you see Israel will be restored, your whole train of thought on Kingdom has to change, doesn't it.

You are filling in the gaps with false concepts to turn Church into Israel. Which impacts how one sees the Kingdom issues.

As I said before, Amil does not read the Bible literally. It spiritualizes it.

Well I take the following scriptures to mean what they say literally;

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Jhn 4:24)

Yep. But Christ the Man is a human, isn't he. His flesh is not God.

Our salvation comes through a human death, not the death of God.

It allows us into the contact with God.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Cr 2:14)

And yet Christ led us to this spiritual reality via a flesh life.

You are trying to justify taking literal words and spiritualizing them away from their earthly meanings. And that fails.

You have to assume spiritualized meanings, which mean you have to decide when and how they apply, thus being totally unable to defend the declarations.

Christ didn't die spiritually. He died physically.

As the OT Temple was physical, so will the the MK one.

It has always been the same, in fact our Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and the unregenerate mind remains in darkness until the spirit of God brings spiritual wisdom. This is precisely why Jesus spoke in parables regarding the kingdom of God.

Yet Jesus, the man, did not exist before the incarnation.

The Second Person of the Trinity took on humanity, then. Not a second before.

We come to God via a flesh human being, Jesus. Whose divine spirit allowed his humanity to succeed.

Do not spiritualize the flesh of Christ and his sacrifice.

The New Testament Scriptures have made it plain to all Christians that the Kingdom foretold by the prophets of Israel and announced by Christ and His servants, is of a Spiritual character not 'eating and drinking,' as the earthly minded Jews supposed (and still do), 'but righteousness, and peace and joy, in the Holy Ghost' (Rom 14:17)".

Wrong.

It is also physical, as seen in Eternity in the New Jerusalem on the New Earth.

But while on the earth we ONLY have the spiritual side, via the New Birth, and will not fully gain it all or be fully Christ like until glorification.

The Pharisees were seeking an earthly kingdom, and ask Jesus, [I]"..when the kingdom of God should come.". His answer was:

"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20)

Yep. The Pharisees were totally materialistic.

Amils also fail in only seeing the spiritual.

Indeed, the initial coming of the Kingdom is purely spiritual. But it will one day be complete and be both spiritual and physical.

Christ does not turn over the Kingdom to the Father until Eternity. You forget that.

Paul said in 1 Cor 15:24;
"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."

This verse tells us:

1) The present kingdom will be delivered up to the Father, which completes the suretiship of Jesus, and

2) the King has been putting down all rule, authority and power in this day. It is not the end of the kingdom, for it is to be forever and ever.

Which will not happen in completion until Eternity.

Paul, when describing our salvation, said this, "(The Father)..hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." Col 1:13.
Note; the translation was in the past tense (Aorist), and it is Christ's kingdom, who fulfills the Davidic Covenant for which we shall see the scripture telling us later. Paul speaks of our present calling unto (or, into) his kingdom.. (1 Thess 2:12), and Hebrews tells us we are "receiving (present tense participle) a kingdom.." (Heb 12:28).

Justify calling the Kingdom of Christ the same as the Davidic Covenant.

My Bible tells me his ministry and kingship over all comes from Melchezidek.

The Davidic Covenant make him king of the Jews. Combined with Mechezidek he is High Priest and King of all.

You assume, via Replacement Theology, his total kingship is because of David.

Peter speaks of the 'everlasting kingdom' (2 Pet 1:11). John in the Revelation tells of having present "tribulation .. in the kingdom." (Rev 1:9). John heard the song of Moses sung in heaven which said Jesus was "King of saints (better copies have 'nations')". (Rev 15:3).

I don't see Davidic in there. You assume.

Some have declared the Davidic Covenant was only fulfilled in Solomon. Others have said David will be resurrected and will actually sit on the throne, but it was said of Jesus, ".. the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.." Luke 1:32-33.

I don't agree with either of those positions.

Please go to the link challenge I posted and explain the Isaiah 65 passages. Again, another MK prophecy Amils cannot deal with.

Everything in it's good time. I am debating in this (and one other) thread at the moment, and don't have time to engage a third...:):

Yep. And you are shopping carting your verses to the total neglect of those you cannot deal with.

The whole point of that link is that you cannot answer it. Thus we could save a lot of time with your arguments, here, since they are shopping cart. Just expanding to what you cannot deal with ends your arguments here, since they no longer work.

That is the problem with bad doctrine. The supporters avoid what will not fit like a plague.

We can argue these points all day. But until you go beyond trying to spin selected verses, it is fruitless. You are just espousing opinions based on assumptions, as with your Davidic declarations.

Nothing in the 70th Week of Daniels has happened yet. And there is indeed a Temple. Nothing in Revelation has happened yet. And there is indeed a Temple. None of the OT prophecies concerning future Israel, and the Second Coming, have happened yet. Again, there is a Temple.

Are you suggesting that there is a special dispensation of grace for national Jews?

No. Get off the Amil propoganda.

Covenants are not salvation, they are how God chooses to dispense his revelation and works on the earth.

Salvation has always been by grace through faith and repentence. From Adam until the end of time.

Revelation grows. Covenants change. Salvation never changes.

What about the scriptures that state;

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Now read it in context. Which you didn't, here.

In Romans Chapter 11, it is clear that Paul is addressing Israelites, but who are Israel today? And who are the children of promise? Who are Abraham's seed?

And there you go trying to spiritualize.

Paul always recognized Israel and Gentiles were distinct, even when together in the Church Age. He never called Gentiles Israel nor Israel Gentiles.

At the time Paul was writing there was a remnant of national Israelites who were not yet believers, thus they were still counted as enemies of those Israelites who had been converted to Christ. This is why Paul refers to himself prior to his conversion:

Acts 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Acts 26:11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

Which does nothing to make Church = Israel.

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul, himself an Israelite, makes the distinction between his national status and his spiritual one. Clearly, his status as a Jew has nothing to do with his status as part of the true church of God. However, because he was one of the elect national Israelites, God saw fit to convert him.

He fully recogizes and say Israel is still a chosen people, for a future time.

I have debated Amils a lot. And what I like to call, Post-Trib Amils, who are trying to redefine Amil and Post-Trib theologies by merging them. They cannot, since these are theological terms referring to well befined sets of thinking.

Just labels my friend. The Bible is clear enough about who Jesus is, and what He taught.
I have never heard of a reformed amillennialist who is post millennial. This would be an oxymoron, as the term 'amillennial' simply means 'no millennium'. Most reformed amillennialists would prefer the term 'realised millennialism' as the actual term 'amillennial' doesn't accurately reflect the view. True amillennialists believe that we are currently in the millennium, and I must say, it seems like a fair appraisal of things to me. Certainly, dispensationalism seems rather simplistic and childish. Chiliasts (historic premills) even despise the thought of being associated with modern dispensational premills...

Without such labels commications become impossible.

Words have meanings. We need them to talk.

However I think you'll find that it is preterism that endorses postmillennial thought.

I don't think so.

In Pretermism it is all done.

Unless you are thinking of Partial Preterism. Or Historicists.
(sorry, I am digressing from the point):):
No problem.

They are actually pushing a new Post-Mill Rapture theology variant.

Indeed? Who are? And what variant is that?

Such as amilltruth.

The variant would be calling it amil, to escape the issues associated with Post-Mills, who are heavily Restorationists, Re-Constructionists, Kingdom Theologists and such.

Says something when they cannot even get basic definitions correct.

Such as?

The meaning of Amillennialism.

amilltruth

03-31-2007, 05:44 PM

EDGE,

just keep searching brother, coreissue does not know a thing of what ammills teach, my advice is to go to another board or look into it yourself, coreissue believes HE AND HE ALONE has the answers to every question on eschatology, but his attitude shows very much about him, go to the message board i sent you to, AND CORE ISSUE I DARE YOU, IN FACT I CHALLENGE YOU TO GO TO THAT BOARD AND SEE HOW LONG YOU LAST OVER THERE!

http://p072.ezboard.com/bendtimeforum

i knew you couldnt find an author who did not believe in a catching up of the saints at the second coming who was amill, and have to just make a broad sweep,

BUT HEY, YOUR A SMART MAN RIGHT? COME ON OVER AND LETS SEE HOW SMART YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE!!

CoreIssue

03-31-2007, 07:19 PM

You continually prove you don't know what you are talking about.

And yep, Edge, if you only want to deal with the hand picked verses Amils use, go there. But you will realize they take such a narrow slice of the Bible and abuse grammar, context and literal readings.

i knew you couldnt find an author who did not believe in a catching up of the saints at the second coming who was amill, and have to just make a broad sweep,

Again you got it wrong and fail in your efforts.
Today, millions of Christians accept this end-times theology, assuming - as Currie did - that the Bible clearly teaches it. Many plan their whole lives around it. But, after studying Scripture for decades, Currie has come to see that if you accept the Bible, you have to reject the rapture.

Full Article (http://www.tiberriver.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/home.viewItem/SKU/2996/index.htm)

The Word of God instructs us to believe in Him and to believe his prophets. So lets look at what the prophets are saying. (A quick comment on the Rapture. Those who teach on Rapture are not prophets. Those who are prophets do not teach Rapture. So the Church is going to be here for the duration. Jesus said 'Occupy till I come.')

Full Article (http://www.etpv.org/bills_page/judgment.html)

Moyers is not without reinforcements. A liberal theologian and active participant in the National Council of Churches, Barbara R. Rossing of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, published a book titled "The Rapture Exposed." In it she attacks a large segment of the Christian community after attributing to me erroneous motives and beliefs on the basis of a fragment of a sentence taken out of context. Rossing contends that Christians who believe in the Rapture...

Full Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001333.html)

Edge

04-01-2007, 08:09 AM

Hi there Amill truth,

I think you are right. I came here looking for answers, but the attitude is awful. I don't feel that this is a very mature place to debate such matters as I'm studying. I went to the boards you suggested, and they are very warm and polite brethren over there, and they use scripture rather than just attitude to debate...plus, as you say, these people seem to know their Bibles.

There is another premill forum I've been visiting, and even though I don't really understand everything, they are patient and loving people. Arrogance has never impressed me as a way to share God's truth...shame.

CoreIssue,

I am very disappointed that you should address me in the manner you have. You set yourself up on your forum as some kind of authority, but you do not have a very generous spirit in your posts. You lack the humility and patience needed for a teacher of God's word, and I suspect you are either pressed for time, can't be bothered, or you've been soundly thrashed in previous debates...who knows?

I would urge you however, to get the victory over the reasons for your defensive aggression.

Take this mild reproof from a brother in Christ, and not as someone with a different eschatalogical view...

Blessings all.:):

Sid

04-01-2007, 09:30 AM

Edge and Amilltruth:

Your reception here is a clear example of sowing and reaping.

InTheWind

04-01-2007, 09:48 AM

Exactly Sid, :nod: that`s why all the WOF`ers are flocking them in they tell them what they want too hear. :(

CoreIssue

04-01-2007, 10:35 AM

Edge,

While no offense was ever intended, it was obvious you never real dug into the replies to you and were already accept Amillennialism.

Amilltruth came on attacking from the first post. Where is your criticism of that?

Hmmm. Something amiss when you find my posts immature but say amilltruth has it right?

Then you attack CTZ as a whole and give your blessings to all the Amill sites?

Sorry, but we have seen many come on doing the same thing. They always came on with an agenda of undermining CTZ and promoting their doctrines.

I see no replies from you concerning Isaiah. But I do see the standard verse posts from Amil apologists from you. Again demonstrating you came here from the Amil camp.

The Amilltruth shows up, immediately attacking with accusations of lying and having no love of the truth, and there is instant praise by you and condemnation of me?

And now, when the verses and links are posted per Amilltruths demands and refutation of his claims, you again attack here as not providing verses but Amill sites as doing so?

You would have a claim if you actually responded to such as Isaiah, explaining it, but you don't.

And now the exit stradegy. When unable to deal with verses and facts, throw bombs and condemnations then leave. Very old trick that we have grown accustom to.

Now, with that said, if you are seeking the truth, respond to the verses. Respond to the links proving Amilltruth's claims, on such as no backing for my claims real Amills reject a Rapture, false.

So far, Amilltruth has preached, thrown out a handful of hand picked verses, whose meanings were spun and falsely defined.

Misdefining resurrection as including born-again is simple bad definition and grammar application. Especially when Paul states Christ is the first and only resurrected from the dead and that our resurrection is future.

John, in Revelation, chapter 20 and on quite clearly states that Satan is cast into the Pit for 1,000 years AT the Second Coming for Christ. Then AFTER the 1,000 is released for a short time, where he again marches on Jerusalem, but this time the earth is destroyed and a New Heavens and New Earth are created.

By the way, in Amil theology, this earth is never destroyed, the living saints never leave it at the Second Coming and only the evil are destroyed and the earth is remodeled so to speak.

So, if you want to discuss, reply to Isaiah. You will find that in being unable to harmonize it with Amil, you will have to re-examine Amill.

As for being an authority, no, I am not.

But with over 40 years of actual Bible study, I am aware of more facts and points than Amilltruth is.

Reading the Bible figuratively allows one to make it say anything the want. Look at our forums where special ones have been created for those who came on and made such claims.

They look at the same verses and come to different conclusion. None of which any of them can prove, because they have no literal foundation or they do what amilltruth did, as in misdefining words and ignoring verses to the contrary (Shopping Cart Theology).

You are welcome to discuss, but you must be willing to examine what undermines your claims. So far, you have not been willing to do so.

Edge

04-01-2007, 12:07 PM

Edge,

While no offense was ever intended, it was obvious you never real dug into the replies to you and were already accept Amillennialism.

As I've said from the beginning, I am searching. You needn't assume anything about what I accept and what I don't.

Amilltruth came on attacking from the first post. Where is your criticism of that?

I do not see that he was attacking anyone.

Hmmm. Something amiss when you find my posts immature but say amilltruth has it right?

Something amiss? Implications...

Then you attack CTZ as a whole and give your blessings to all the Amill sites?

Not to your site as a whole, as I've only encountered those on these two threads. I know that there are some good and humble Christian members here.

Sorry, but we have seen many come on doing the same thing. They always came on with an agenda of undermining CTZ and promoting their doctrines.

I did not come here with any agenda.

I see no replies from you concerning Isaiah. But I do see the standard verse posts from Amil apologists from you. Again demonstrating you came here from the Amil camp.

A bold accusation. I do visit many different forums, and I find that with all of them, there are immature/mature attitudes. There are some very abraisive amills, who frankly need to repent from their Godless manner, just as there are decent ones. An eschatalogical view does not give anyone a right to be rude, judgmental and presumptuous. We are supposed to be brothers in Christ, not putting up massive walls of division.

The Amilltruth shows up, immediately attacking with accusations of lying and having no love of the truth, and there is instant praise by you and condemnation of me?

Who has condemned you? I merely point out a few character flaws...I have them too, it is no great thing to acknowledge them, repent and move on.

And now, when the verses and links are posted per Amilltruths demands and refutation of his claims, you again attack here as not providing verses but Amill sites as doing so?

I attack no-one. Look at your replies, where is the debate? Where are the scriptures?
You merely post a link to another thread, and when I tell you that I do not have time to engage a third thread, you accuse me of all sorts...not good at all.

You would have a claim if you actually responded to such as Isaiah, explaining it, but you don't.

I challenge you to go back over the two threads I post in, and see how many questions I have asked you which have been ignored. Thankfully, these questions were answered on two other sites, giving me insight into the different beliefs. If I had been relying on you for the answers, I would not have got them. Everytime you've palmed me off.

It is a little sad, that in this thread, you are so busy casting stones and patting each other on the back, that you cannot take time to deal with the questions from anybody who disagrees with you.

And now the exit stradegy. When unable to deal with verses and facts, throw bombs and condemnations then leave. Very old trick that we have grown accustom to.

I have not thrown any bombs, I am telling it like I see it. If I leave here, it is not for the reasons you are trying to pin on me, it is because my time would be better spent in actual fruitful debate.

Now, with that said, if you are seeking the truth, respond to the verses. Respond to the links proving Amilltruth's claims, on such as no backing for my claims real Amills reject a Rapture, false.

I already responded. I have come to this site, and responded to two threads already. I have asked questions about the nature of the millennium which have not been answered, I have explained how I see the kingdom of God, and I have explained that after being taught a rapture, I am now realising that the Bible doesn't teach it in the way that dispensationalism teaches it. All this, I have been learning over the past few months. I am genuinely looking for truth, and of all the forums who have debated their views, I have not encountered one so hostile toward me (as I am clearly leaning toward amillennialism) accusing me of all sorts of things...being here to undermine etc. I am offended. This is not glorifying to our Lord. It is most unpleasant indeed.

Misdefining resurrection as including born-again is simple bad definition and grammar application. Especially when Paul states Christ is the first and only resurrected from the dead and that our resurrection is future.

Well, this certainly bears much study.

John, in Revelation, chapter 20 and on quite clearly states that Satan is cast into the Pit for 1,000 years AT the Second Coming for Christ. Then AFTER the 1,000 is released for a short time, where he again marches on Jerusalem, but this time the earth is destroyed and a New Heavens and New Earth are created.

Revelation 20 doesn't mention the second coming.

By the way, in Amil theology, this earth is never destroyed, the living saints never leave it at the Second Coming and only the evil are destroyed and the earth is remodeled so to speak.

Well then, that proves that I am not from the amill camp then, since I think that is nonsense.

So, if you want to discuss, reply to Isaiah. You will find that in being unable to harmonize it with Amil, you will have to re-examine Amill.

I am already exmining amill. You seem to have me pegged wrong my friend.

As for being an authority, no, I am not.

But with over 40 years of actual Bible study, I am aware of more facts and points than Amilltruth is.

This is precisely why as an ambassador for our Lord, you need to be showing Godly example of correction in humility. I am a relatively new Christian compared to you, your responsibility is a serious one.

Reading the Bible figuratively allows one to make it say anything the want. Look at our forums where special ones have been created for those who came on and made such claims.

I agree that we need to be careful.

They look at the same verses and come to different conclusion. None of which any of them can prove, because they have no literal foundation or they do what amilltruth did, as in misdefining words and ignoring verses to the contrary (Shopping Cart Theology).

Yes, but in truth, which of any of us can prove anything? It seems to me that we need individual discernment and faith. How can I prove that God exists to an unbeliever? That is God's job.

You are welcome to discuss, but you must be willing to examine what undermines your claims. So far, you have not been willing to do so.

Go back and read my posts brother.

As for that other thread, you have my word that I will go there and get involved when I have time. But what you are not realising, is that I cannot necessarily refute your arguments (whatever they might be), and I didn't come here to pick a fight. I am here discussing the nature of the kingdom of God, which seems important to me, and you're trying to make me debate you on a seperate tenet of doctrine in another thread.

Since I have already told you I don't have the answers, why not exercise a little patience, instead of wrongly ascribing motives to me, falsely accusing me of hidden agendas, and diverting me elsewhere?

I shall return to see if you are prepared to answer my questions, before attempting the other thread, as time is precious to me.

Thanks CoreIssue.

CoreIssue

04-01-2007, 01:35 PM

[quote=CoreIssue;19209]Edge,

While no offense was ever intended, it was obvious you never real dug into the replies to you and were already accept Amillennialism.

As I've said from the beginning, I am searching. You needn't assume anything about what I accept and what I don't.

Sorry, but your replies speak for themselves. Whether you recogize it or not, your statements have been very strong Amil leaning from the beginning.

Amilltruth came on attacking from the first post. Where is your criticism of that?

I do not see that he was attacking anyone.

Here is what he said at his first posting.
THAT IS JUST AN OUTRIGHT LIE!!!!!!!!!
Calling one a deliberate liar is not a personal attack? Since when?

Hmmm. Something amiss when you find my posts immature but say amilltruth has it right?

Something amiss? Implications...

Just using his first postings.

Calling me an outright liar is mature?

Then you attack CTZ as a whole and give your blessings to all the Amill sites?

Not to your site as a whole, as I've only encountered those on these two threads. I know that there are some good and humble Christian members here.

Your own words disagree with you. Don't pretend you did not state CTZ and the Amil sites as a whole.
think you are right. I came here looking for answers, but the attitude is awful. I don't feel that this is a very mature place to debate such matters as I'm studying. I went to the boards you suggested, and they are very warm and polite brethren over there, and they use scripture rather than just attitude to debate...plus, as you say, these people seem to know their Bibles.

There is another premill forum I've been visiting, and even though I don't really understand everything, they are patient and loving people. Arrogance has never impressed me as a way to share God's truth...shame.

Sorry, but we have seen many come on doing the same thing. They always came on with an agenda of undermining CTZ and promoting their doctrines.

I did not come here with any agenda.

Well, apperances say otherwise, whether meant or not.

I see no replies from you concerning Isaiah. But I do see the standard verse posts from Amil apologists from you. Again demonstrating you came here from the Amil camp.

A bold accusation. I do visit many different forums, and I find that with all of them, there are immature/mature attitudes. There are some very abraisive amills, who frankly need to repent from their Godless manner, just as there are decent ones. An eschatalogical view does not give anyone a right to be rude, judgmental and presumptuous. We are supposed to be brothers in Christ, not putting up massive walls of division.

I refer you back to the quote, above, by you.

Correction is not division. Sorry you took efforts at correcting your thinking as devisive.

PC is not a concept you find in the Bible. Love, mercy, understanding and such, yes. But backing away from correction is not.

The Amilltruth shows up, immediately attacking with accusations of lying and having no love of the truth, and there is instant praise by you and condemnation of me?

Who has condemned you? I merely point out a few character flaws...I have them too, it is no great thing to acknowledge them, repent and move on.

Hmmm. It is a character flaw to have studied for years and to actually use that knowledge?

If pointing out that you are not looking at verses pointed out to you literally or refusing to deal with ones that completing refute what you are saying is a a character flaw, I stand guilty.

You NEVER dealt with Isaiah or the unavoidable fact it does not allow your other assumptions and statements to stand.

That is your problem, not mine.

And now, when the verses and links are posted per Amilltruths demands and refutation of his claims, you again attack here as not providing verses but Amill sites as doing so?

I attack no-one. Look at your replies, where is the debate? Where are the scriptures?
You merely post a link to another thread, and when I tell you that I do not have time to engage a third thread, you accuse me of all sorts...not good at all.

Isaiah to start with, in that link. A whole chapter. THAT is verses.

Where is your reply?!

Don't accuse me of not posting verses when you didn't even bother to look in the link.

No, you want to confine the issues to one singular point, which is classical of followers of bad doctrine.

The whole POINT of that link was to get you to see an underlying flaw in your assumptions on the issues of kingdom, rapture and all else.

Once you see that underlying flaw you will see your thinking on kingdoms and such is flawed as well.

I was demonstrating your foundation upon which your thinking on those issues was flawed. Refute the foundation and the doctrinal structures built upon it fall.

You would have a claim if you actually responded to such as Isaiah, explaining it, but you don't.

I challenge you to go back over the two threads I post in, and see how many questions I have asked you which have been ignored. Thankfully, these questions were answered on two other sites, giving me insight into the different beliefs. If I had been relying on you for the answers, I would not have got them. Everytime you've palmed me off.

I GAVE you an answer. But you wanted it in your terms, not in better terms that better addressed ALL the issues at one time.

Your doctrines on those other things fall if your base concepts of the MK fall.

But you refuse to even see where I was pointing to.

It is a little sad, that in this thread, you are so busy casting stones and patting each other on the back, that you cannot take time to deal with the questions from anybody who disagrees with you.

I created a thread to answer you. You refused to go there.

That is your error.

And now the exit stradegy. When unable to deal with verses and facts, throw bombs and condemnations then leave. Very old trick that we have grown accustom to.

I have not thrown any bombs, I am telling it like I see it. If I leave here, it is not for the reasons you are trying to pin on me, it is because my time would be better spent in actual fruitful debate.

Fruitful debate does not mean seeking those out that make you comfortable.

It means finding those who make you uncomfortable.

Look at my sig line. Stop looking for a self portrait.

Now, with that said, if you are seeking the truth, respond to the verses. Respond to the links proving Amilltruth's claims, on such as no backing for my claims real Amills reject a Rapture, false.

I already responded. I have come to this site, and responded to two threads already. I have asked questions about the nature of the millennium which have not been answered, I have explained how I see the kingdom of God, and I have explained that after being taught a rapture, I am now realising that the Bible doesn't teach it in the way that dispensationalism teaches it. All this, I have been learning over the past few months. I am genuinely looking for truth, and of all the forums who have debated their views, I have not encountered one so hostile toward me (as I am clearly leaning toward amillennialism) accusing me of all sorts of things...being here to undermine etc. I am offended. This is not glorifying to our Lord. It is most unpleasant indeed.

And you error if you think you can lump all Dispensationalists into one bag. You cannot.

No one can find Amil in the Bible literally, as you would find out if you had bothered to go the link and read the Isaiah passages.

As for offending, I refer you again, to what you said about CTZ and myself. That was offensive.

Misdefining resurrection as including born-again is simple bad definition and grammar application. Especially when Paul states Christ is the first and only resurrected from the dead and that our resurrection is future.

Well, this certainly bears much study.

Yes, it does. And it is Biblical.

First, resurrection was NEVER used in cases such as Lazarus. Raised was used, in the context of resusitation. We have a thread on that issue, where the word meanings are laid out in detail.

Second, Christ is the only resurrected to date.

1 Corinthians 15:51-53
51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Will be. Future tense. And will be glorified.

Only Christ is presently resurrected and glorified.

Now, the above verse says we resurrected and glorified. This verse speaks to our present flesh condition.

I Corinthians 15:50
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
This is not a contradiction.

Note that no reference to a glorfied body says it has blood.

So, a glorified body can enter Heaven, but a flesh and blood one cannot.

Christ shed his blood. It is spent. We resurrect like him.

Philippians 3:20-21
20But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

John 5:28-29
28"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

Finally, only Christ has been resurrected so far. Note the clear statement the resurrection fo the saints is future, just as it is stated to be future in the prior posted verses.

I Corinthians 15:20-24
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

Now, you decide who has it right on resurrection. The Amils or us here.

John, in Revelation, chapter 20 and on quite clearly states that Satan is cast into the Pit for 1,000 years AT the Second Coming for Christ. Then AFTER the 1,000 is released for a short time, where he again marches on Jerusalem, but this time the earth is destroyed and a New Heavens and New Earth are created.

Revelation 20 doesn't mention the second coming.

My error. Revelation 20 shows Satan chained for the 1,000 years AFTER the Second Coming.

Which refutes Amil.

Here is the Second Coming
Revelation 19
The Rider on the White Horse

11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2019;&version=31;#fen-NIV-31017a)] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

17And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great." 19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

By the way, in Amil theology, this earth is never destroyed, the living saints never leave it at the Second Coming and only the evil are destroyed and the earth is remodeled so to speak.

Well then, that proves that I am not from the amill camp then, since I think that is nonsense.

Agree, in the light of

Revelation 20
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.

And

2 Peter 3
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30517a)]

So, if you want to discuss, reply to Isaiah. You will find that in being unable to harmonize it with Amil, you will have to re-examine Amill.

I am already exmining amill. You seem to have me pegged wrong my friend.

I sincerely hope to be in error, there.

As for being an authority, no, I am not.

But with over 40 years of actual Bible study, I am aware of more facts and points than Amilltruth is.
This is precisely why as an ambassador for our Lord, you need to be showing Godly example of correction in humility. I am a relatively new Christian compared to you, your responsibility is a serious one.

Agree.

But a side lesson here.

Sometime read how Paul addressed Christians in various books of the NT. And prophets people in the OT as well. Read for tone, not words.

Where tenderness and patience was needed, it was given. Where a stick was needed, it was swung.

A gentle touch can break an egg. Takes a bit more for a coconut. ;)

Our PC world has forgotten sometime you have to stir the pot and get it to boil to properly prepare the meal. Raw on top and burnt on the bottom is no good to anyone.

The intervention of amilltruth was drawing you off in the wrong direction, a direction you were heading in and we were trying to talk you away from.

With amilltruth's efforts to stop you from posting here and your comments, it was obvious his hard core approach was having more impact than ours, so I shifted gears.

Hopefully we can now get back onto a straight forward verse, comment and response approach.

I welcome that.

Reading the Bible figuratively allows one to make it say anything the want. Look at our forums where special ones have been created for those who came on and made such claims.

I agree that we need to be careful.

Exellent!

I recommend looking in the Side Menu and using the Interlinear a lot to study word meaning. I also recomment using the NASB over the KJV.

I know it irritates a lot of people to say, but the archaic language and mutliple translation errors do not help in Bible study.

They look at the same verses and come to different conclusion. None of which any of them can prove, because they have no literal foundation or they do what amilltruth did, as in misdefining words and ignoring verses to the contrary (Shopping Cart Theology).

Yes, but in truth, which of any of us can prove anything? It seems to me that we need individual discernment and faith. How can I prove that God exists to an unbeliever? That is God's job.

First, God used human beings using human grammar, word meanings and such to write the Bible. There is no such thing as a Holy Bible Dictionary.

Second, the Bible indeed has layers of meaning that require discernment. But one should never abandon literal, grammar and word definitions. Never.

You will find you discover more by being unmovable in that rule.

And Third, you are obliged to try to prove God to people.

And you can use science, history and such to do so. Find from Egypt, Jericho, Jerusalem, writing of Jews, Syrians, Romans and such are powerful tools to provide enough facts for a person to justify the jump of faith to God.

Christianity is a know religion, not a blind one.

You are welcome to discuss, but you must be willing to examine what undermines your claims. So far, you have not been willing to do so.

Go back and read my posts brother.

As for that other thread, you have my word that I will go there and get involved when I have time.

Thank you.

But what you are not realising, is that I cannot necessarily refute your arguments (whatever they might be), and I didn't come here to pick a fight. I am here discussing the nature of the kingdom of God, which seems important to me, and you're trying to make me debate you on a seperate tenet of doctrine in another thread.
I am realizing you are new to study and you have gone after a subject you are not really prepared to understand yet.

Get the basics down, first.

And that is a reason I did the Isaiah stuff. It demonstrates that Israel will be restored. That is a Kingdom. That the Body of Christ is a Kingdom. That Kingdom of God is not identical to the Kingdom of Christ, which is a part of the Kingdom of God That the Christ currently sits on the Throne of God and owns the Throne of David, which are two separate Thrones. That Gentiles and Israel are unique to each other in many ways, but both joined, via Christ, in the Body of Christ.

You are biting into an area of study that few can deal with since it requires understanding so many basics, first.

Just seeing that Israel will be restored as a covenant nation and that Church is distinct, will go far in aiding your understand.

Getting away from the notion that Church has become Israel is critical to kingdom understanding. You cannot possibly grasp kingdom if you think Church has become Israel.

There were at least 5 covenants concening Abraham and Israel, in the OT. The Abrahamic Land Covenant was not with Israel, but Abraham, alone, and will be fulfilled through physical Israel.

But there is also the covenant of many nations being blessed via Abraham. That includes Gentiles but has nothing to do with being Israel.

There is the Davidic Covenant, which was made to David, not Abraham.

And so on.

Since I have already told you I don't have the answers, why not exercise a little patience, instead of wrongly ascribing motives to me, falsely accusing me of hidden agendas, and diverting me elsewhere?

I shall return to see if you are prepared to answer my questions, before attempting the other thread, as time is precious to me.

Thanks CoreIssue.

Let us try to move forward.

But understand that to deal with the kingdom(s) issues you have to have foundational knowledge in place, first.

amilltruth

04-02-2007, 04:22 PM

coreissue, when i said you was lying i still stand by this,

NO AMILLENIALIST, will refute a catching up of the saints, now refuting a PRETRIB RAPTURE now thats totally different!!!!!

ALL AMILLENIALIST refute a pretrib rapture!!!

you are smart enough to understand this, but then proceed to be very sly in how you present things to slant your way.

EDGE, brother keep looking and digging!!!

http://members.aol.com/twarren13/amillennial.html

coreissue, you are impossible to debate with, maybe others will go to other places that givves a TRUE representation of what amillennalism teaches..

CoreIssue

04-02-2007, 07:18 PM

amilltruth

04-03-2007, 12:12 PM

amilltruth,

I notice your volume is loud and long, but you are short on answers.

I gave links to amils who reject a Rapture. I guess you didn't read them.

Until you actually deal with the verses and links posted to refute you, in reply to your claims, we are not discussing, you are simply preaching and trying to draw edge away from here.

Why are you afraid to let him go where he wants, amil sites included?

Unbeleivable!

Amills DO REJECT, can you read this, DO REJECTS a PRETRIB rapture, but you will find NO amillennialist who rejects a catching up of the saints at the second coming, the ONLY ones who believe that are Full Preterest, which you know to be true!

I am not trying to draw anyone away from here, everyones adults and can go where they please, I was just showing Edge that there is more places to go to truly learn from, where you are not consantly talked down to or at!

Who says I am afraid to let anyone go wherever they want to? Its that kind of statement that proves everything I have ever thought about you, from watching you try and debate at RR, and noone could tolerate your attitude there and they are Pretrib Premill just like you, so you had to come make your own site, more power to ya, where you can boss everyone around because we are on "YOUR TERRITORY"

again, Coreissue, your true lack of the fruits of the spirit towards ANYONE who even hints at disagreeing with you, speaks louder than any post you have ever posted.

and i challenge you still, WHY DONT YOU GET OUT OF YOUR LITTLE NEST HERE AND COME ON OVER TO HERE AND LETS SEE HOW LONG YOU CAN MAKE IT THERE?

http://p072.ezboard.com/bendtimeforum

although something tells me you wont, like always when faced with someone who can TRULY DEBATE WITH SCRITURAL EVIDENCE to back up EVERYTHING they teach, you dont want any part of it! you will be happy to stay and tell everyone who has a different opinion as you how unbiblical and how much they need to start truly studying the bible so we can be as smart as you>

Brother, I would rather be simple minded in Christ and have a humble, caring spirit about me, than to have ALL the knowledge of the Bible as you act like you have,

and regarding not answering anything you post, why bother, you will either IGNORE IT, or just claim how wrong we all are.

Edge is correct, you cannot answer any direct question put to you, without some kind of slam added to it.

CoreIssue

04-03-2007, 10:07 PM

That was a lot of cliches and rhetoric, amilltruth.

Fact is I have been on boards such as yours. And they do just what you are doing, preaching, rhetoric and personal attacks.

They will not respond to verses refuting them, just preach at anyone who disagrees. And often ban them.

Want to prove me wrong? Go back to the Challenge threads and answer the challenges. Explain how those issues, in Isaiah, could possible happen in Eternity.

You cannot.

Amil boards do not have truth, they have numbers they use to drown out any opposition.

Notice you have not been ganged up on here? Pretty much just me?

And yet, you still want to get the conversation away from here, rather than to just post your answers to those challenges.

amilltruth

04-03-2007, 11:41 PM

CoreIssue you still going to stick to this statement that got me to post on here to begin with?

"the most held view out there is ammill WHICH SAYS THERE IS NO RAPTURE AT ALL'"?

now brother either you are ignorant of what amill believes or you are out to spread lies, which one is it?

NOTICE YOU DIDNT SAY "PRETRIB" RAPTURE.

CoreIssue

04-04-2007, 12:13 AM

I am not ignorant of any such thing.

Amil is the most widely held end time view.

Of the Rapture views, Pre-Trib is the most widely held, now, with Post-Trib the second.

Argue with your self on that one. It is fruitless point to bog down on.

amilltruth

04-04-2007, 12:18 AM

that is NOT WHAT YOU SAID,

you said AMILLENNIALISM does not believe in a rapture!!!!

again, you still going to stick to this!!!!!!

CoreIssue

04-04-2007, 12:20 AM

that is NOT WHAT YOU SAID,

you said AMILLENNIALISM does not believe in a rapture!!!!

again, you still going to stick to this!!!!!!
And it does not.

I gave links showing that as a fact.

Tell you what, when you actually saying something of meaning, I will reply. But if you are just going to keep talking like this, it is an argument, not a discussion.

amilltruth

04-04-2007, 12:38 AM

Well then lets go this route then,

was you talking about a rapture period? ( a catching up of the saints)
or a Pretrib rapture?

should be easy enough for you.

amilltruth

04-04-2007, 12:39 AM

and core, I have never known you to discuss anything, just beat people over the heads telling them how wrong and unbiblical they are.

this is another post though, I dont want you to get confused and forget you have a question still to deal with.

Ltanner09

04-04-2007, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by amilltruth
that is NOT WHAT YOU SAID,

you said AMILLENNIALISM does not believe in a rapture!!!!

again, you still going to stick to this!!!!!!

Core replied:

And it does not.

I gave links showing that as a fact.

Core, Core....now you know amill believes in a post trib rapture. Oh, you may have links to some who don't, but it is a majority (amill) view who sees the rapture post trib.

I've seen some very in depth posts by Edge, providing scripture to support the position he/she holds.

Problem is, when amill reads a verse in a spiritual/figurative sense pre mill makes the accusation of not taking the verses literally.

Yet, when pre mill uses verses in a figurative sense it's the supposed proper interpretation of scripture.

As for your comment earlier about "exit strategy", you need to understand how frustrating it is for a poster, who doesn't hold the popular beliefs here, to try debating here long term.

I don't see you debating your beliefs on an amill board, though I believe you've been invited there. It's easy to debate in a forum where everyone agrees with you, but venturing onto another board where your view is the minority held, can be quite taxing....especially when you're the lone poster.

I tried debating here over a year ago and your members weren't interested in any of it until you and CTZ got involved. Felt like changing my handle to Gen Custer.

There are loads of problems with pre mill, from attributing the covenant in DAN 9 to an antichrist to rejection of the current reign of Christ, culminating with a return to animal sacrifices for "sin offering" in a rebuilt temple.....with Christ condoning it!!

Unbelievable, but people stay here because it's what they want to hear, with the caveat of being whisked away to safety to avoid a trib that Jesus proimised they would experience.

Mt 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Ro 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

Ro 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Ro 12:12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer.

2Co 1:4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

2Co 7:4 Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation.

Re 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Joh 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Pre trib is continually faced with these verses. Taking them literally detroys their doctrine. So, what do they do??, they change tribulation" to "God's wrath" and pick out verses where believers aren't subjected to God's wrath.

Thankfully, when pre trib after 28 years I saw the glaring errors and accepted the fact that there is no magical escape from tribulation. Those believers overseas, being slain, tortured and raped on a daily basis would certainly disagree with the pre trib doctrine. They are the Bride just as believers here are.
So the popular teaching that "Jesus would never let His Bride get beaten" is sorely in error.

Finally, as others have brought to your attention, Israel has not been "replaced", so the teaching here that amill teaches replacement theology is blantantly false.

Christ tore down the wall of separation and included Gentiles into the Israel of God.
All in Christ are Israel;

Mt 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

Mt 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Which is a fullfillment of:

Ho 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

amilltruth

04-04-2007, 12:38 PM

excellent Post Tanner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CoreIssue

04-04-2007, 02:58 PM

Enough rhetoric. Go address Isaiah, Zech and such, where posted.

Get to some actual meat and stop trying to devour hot air.

You want to take selected verses and stick you meanings onto them. Such can be argued around in circles.

BUT, going to passages that do not allow for your spinning refutes your doctrine.

Deal with those verses, not the ones you want to spin and spin. The proofs lie outside of them for how they apply.

amilltruth

04-04-2007, 10:45 PM

Enough rhetoric. Go address Isaiah

we have core, you fail to see it, Isa 65 is placed in the NHNE you just dont believe what the bible says it seems,

again maybe you will answer here, you wont over on the other thread,

HOW MANY NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTHS ARE THERE?

CoreIssue

04-04-2007, 11:12 PM

amilltruth

04-05-2007, 01:36 AM

You have not covered them.

Pulling out the phrase New Earth and New Heaven and ignoring the rest of the verses is not an answer.

Plus, I posted the word definitions to prove your insistance this is talking about eternity is wrong.

You have not addressed the differences in word meanings. You have not addressed how there can be birth, death, and so on in eternity.

It says there WILL be those things, not that there will not be those things.

The only place I "pulled" it from was the Bible,

"For behold I create NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EARTH..." Isa 65:17

I could care less about your word definitions, I will go with God's defintions, he called it the new heaven and new earth and then in Rev told us when it would come, YOU ARE THE ONE NOT BELIEVING WHAT THE BIBLE IS SAYING HERE CORE, NOT US!!

once more lets see if you can do it this time!!!!!

we live on the earth now, how many NEW EARTHS after this one are there core ?

one or two?

Sid

04-24-2007, 10:46 PM

Thankfully, when pre trib after 28 years I saw the glaring errors and accepted the fact that there is no magical escape from tribulation. Those believers overseas, being slain, tortured and raped on a daily basis would certainly disagree with the pre trib doctrine. They are the Bride just as believers here are.

So the popular teaching that "Jesus would never let His Bride get beaten" is sorely in error.

What you have here is a problem understanding normal, every day tribulation from the Great Tribulation:

These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

John 16:33 (New American Standard Bible) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=16&verse=33&version=49&context=verse)

For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

Matthew 24:21 (New American Standard Bible) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=21&version=49&context=verse)

Confusing these concepts yields some really sorry end times theology.