Debate: pre trib-post trib [Archive]

CoreIssue

12-11-2008, 11:26 AM

Sorry...I'm still not seeing it. I see the word "great" in the verse you gave but nothing about 7 years. Help me here instead of always being accusatory. I'm trying to get this straight!

all the best...
Well, KG, that is because you don't ever offer evidence, and when given you jump to some non literal declarations or back someone like Len when he makes unbacked statement. It does not seem like you are really trying to get it straight.

But, with that said, here are your time frames for a 7 year Trib.

Daniel's 70th Week is an exact overlay of Revelation. How one can dismiss it is beyond me.
Daniel 9
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:27&version=31#fen-NIV-22016a)] In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:27&version=31#fen-NIV-22016c)] " [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:27&version=31#fen-NIV-22016d)]
There it states 7 years.

Now, Revelation states two periods of 3.5 years, totaling 7.
Revelation 11
1I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth."Here you see:

The outer court of the Temple will be given to Gentiles for 42, months, which is 3.5 years.
The Two Witnesses will be there for 1,260 days, which is 3.5 Hebrew years. The Jews will have the Temple during this time.

There you have the first 3.5 years of the Trib.

When done, the Two Witnesses are killed, at Mid, by the demon in the False Prophet, who rises from the Pit at Mid.
7Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them.Now, here is the second half of the Trib.
Revelation 12
6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. The 3 Woes are at Mid, which are Satan cast down, the FP demon rising from the Pit and the False Trinity empowered by Satan.

1,260 days is another 3.5 years.
Revelation 13
5The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. 6He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.3.5 years again.

Now look back to Daniel 9:27. A total 7 year period divided into two equal parts with the Temple events at Mid. Treaty broken at Mid. AoD at Mid.

Here is the AoD in Revelation, at Mid.
Revelation 13
13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.At the end of the 70th Week, Daniel says 'he' comes to his end. John says, in Revelation:
Revelation 19
But 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.Again, coming to their end.

Perfect overlay, beginning, Mid and end. Both 7 years long. Both literally agree.

No fancy jumping around, changing word meanings, trying to move Revelation to pre 70 AD, throwing out Ezekiel or other parts of the Bible or any of the other stuff Amils try to do. Just read it literally, all of it, and keep it all, nothing disposable.

No, not cranking up the Amil debate, again. Just contrasting key issues in tandem with your question.

So there is your literal 7 years in both Daniel 9 and Revelation. And the uses of Tribulation for this time period in Matthew, Mark, John and Revelation all apply to the same time period with the same meaning.

And the Rapture, the kept from, promise to the Church is here:
Revelation 3
10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.Hour means a distinct period of time, not a flat one hour.
[B]Strong's Number: 5610 [B]Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=5610&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin w&raapparently a primary word Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5610&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Hora9:675,1355 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech ho'-rah http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5610g) Noun Feminine Definition

a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year

of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter

the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day
a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun)
any definite time, point of time, moment

Trial means trial, testing etc. Which is what the Trib does.
Strong's Number: 3986 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=3986&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin peirasmovßfrom (3985 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3985&version=kjv)) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3986&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Peirasmos6:23,822 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech pi-ras-mos' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3986g) Noun Masculine Definition

an experiment, attempt, trial, proving

trial, proving: the trial made of you by my bodily condition, since condition served as to test the love of the Galatians toward Paul (Gal. 4:

the trial of man's fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy

an enticement to sin, temptation, whether arising from the desires or from the outward circumstances
an internal temptation to sin 1b

of the temptation by which the devil sought to divert Jesus the Messiah from his divine errand

of the condition of things, or a mental state, by which we are enticed to sin, or to a lapse from the faith and holiness
adversity, affliction, trouble: sent by God and serving to test or prove one's character, faith, holiness

temptation (i.e. trial) of God by men

rebellion against God, by which his power and justice are, as it were, put to the proof and challenged to show themselves

Keep from means not there. Protected by removal from the place in question, which is the whole earth.
Strong's Number: 5083 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=5083&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin threvwfrom teros (a watch, perhaps akin to (2334 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2334&version=kjv))) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5083&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Tereo8:140,1174 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech tay-reh'-o http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5083g) Verb Definition

to attend to carefully, take care of

to guard
metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is
to observe
to reserve: to undergo something

Strong's Number: 1537 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=1537&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin ejka primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1537&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Ekliteral or figurative Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech ek http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=1537g) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=1537gb) Preposition Definition

out of, from, by, away from

King James Word Usage - Total: 921 of 366, from 181, out of 162, by 55, on 34, with 25, miscellaneous 98 Keep from

No fancy spinning or any other such thing required. All ties together completely, literally and smoothly, when just read literally.

CoreIssue

12-11-2008, 11:28 AM

InTheWind

12-11-2008, 11:49 AM

Ltanner09

12-11-2008, 02:27 PM

(John 16:33) In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Ac 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

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.

1Th 3:4 For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know.

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.

We're told to expect tribulation. Christians have always experienced tribulation. Many have been slain and tortured for their faith and have never been promised they would escape any sort of tribulation.

Ltanner09

12-11-2008, 02:39 PM

Ltanner09

12-11-2008, 02:55 PM

CoreIssue

12-11-2008, 05:21 PM

Would it help to say that people have been going through Tribulations forever. But the word Tribulation used as one word is speaking about a specific period or time.
Agree.

There has always been tribulation on the earth. This is an issue of magnitude.

No, the Bible does not call it the Trib Period. It says a period of tribulation like the earth has never seen before.

This verse seems to call it the tribulation.

Revelation 7:15
And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.

It says Great Tribulation, one word as I said meaning a spicific time.
Never have resolved that one in my mind. Either way works for me. A period of great tribulation or the Great Tribulation period. :D

CoreIssue

12-11-2008, 05:33 PM

CTZ wrote:

This verse seems to call it the tribulation.

Revelation 7:15
And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.

It says Great Tribulation, one word as I said meaning a spicific time.Re 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Believers went through great tribulation and were slain for their faith, where they were given white robes.
Neither verse states they escaped the great tribulation.
ITW wrote that, not CTZ.

Len, your reading skills again fail. Revelation 3:10 was written to Church. Revelation 6 to Trib saints. Different groups.

Really not interested in debating you this because you are going to claim it was written before 70 AD and this is referring to Church. And your proofs you will claim from within Revelation that apply to all saints of all ages, but you will demand it means Church.

Israel is Israel, not Church. Tribes are Israel, not Church. The Woman is Israel, not Church. The Seals, Trumpets and Bowls depict literal events that have never happened on the earth yet. No AoDs and all the rest have happened yet.

You will spiritualize all into other meanings by citing Church Age verses and insisting they allow you to change the literal words and meanings. I will say you took them out of context, misinterpreted them and you have no right or reason to do so.

So, with that said there is nothing to debate because we have done this before.

Worst of all, you will claim to be reading literally, which, really, is an unbelievable claim by anyone who understands rules of grammar, semantics, word meanings and so forth. But you will say this is the Bible and the normal rules do not appy.

That is the essence of where a long debate would go and end up. So, what is the point, Len?

CoreIssue

12-11-2008, 05:44 PM

I'll have to address Core's lengthy post when I get home from work.

Core's theory is similar to a finished jigsaw puzzle. He's happy that he''s got all of the pieces together that show a frog on a lake. Unfortunately the box cover shows a horse in the barn. I'm guessing that quite a few pieces were forced where they don't belong.
Len, you have all of this transpiring before 70 AD. Anyone who has a scrap of understanding of history knows there is no literal way to line up Revelation with history.

You can claim it, but you cannot prove your claims actually correlate with anything. You have to have proofs, which you do not.

You toss out your spiritualized claims, the Posties do it, then Post-Mills, then Idealists and so forth. Problem is none of you can say why you are right and the others are wrong because all of you equally have no proofs.

That is the problem with your approach. Even your proof claims are based on assumptions and theories without literal proofs.

Yea, you are going to claim mine are foundationless. But, as with what I laid out for KG, every word can be read by rules of grammar using literal word definitions, which I gave for Revelation 3:10, in example.

So, again, nothing to debate because we do not agree on rules of interpretation or grammar.

If you want to debate something, start one in open debate on how to interpret, using NO doctrines as example, just how to read verses and word defintions. That would be the most revealing to others.

InTheWind

12-11-2008, 06:44 PM

CoreIssue

12-11-2008, 07:16 PM

Ltanner09

12-11-2008, 11:54 PM

Really not interested in debating you this because you are going to claim it was written before 70 AD and this is referring to Church. And your proofs you will claim from within Revelation that apply to all saints of all ages, but you will demand it means Church.

The date Rev was written in irrelevant both to this debate and to the topic. You claim SOME believers are subjected to tribulation yet others are allowed to escape it. That theory floats the idea that some Christians are treated better (or worse) than others.

If you choose not to debate this topic, I'm fine with it. If someone wishes to, I'll be here.

You toss out your spiritualized claims, the Posties do it, then Post-Mills, then Idealists and so forth. Problem is none of you can say why you are right and the others are wrong because all of you equally have no proofs.

That is the problem with your approach. Even your proof claims are based on assumptions and theories without literal proofs.

But when I present the literal biblical verses (such as the gospel preached to every creature under heaven) you claim it's not accurate, then try rationalizing it (but don't follow up with any verse to support your view..

When I present the literal biblical verses where all land promised to Israel was fulfilled you claim it's not accurate and dismiss it, through some charts, but not through biblical verses.

When I present the literal biblical verses showing Christ confirmed a covenant with many (and quotes Dan 9:24 in the process) you claim it's not accurate and dismiss it, without any biblical verses showing the very covenant the AC supposedly confirms.

I presented plenty of verses where believers re PROMISED tribulation in the world. In fact we're supposed to glory in tribulation.

No, the Bible does not call it the Trib Period. It says a period of tribulation like the earth has never seen before

OK, let's stick with "LITERAL", a course you keep trying and failing at. It;s like Houdini pressing his luck with magic.

Speaking about the Babylonians destruction of Jerusalem we see the following:

Ezekiel 5:9: Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Indeed I, even I, am against you and will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations.

In Exodus we see:

Ex 11:6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

The same TYPE language is seen in the OT:
Speaking of Hezekiah:

2Ki 18:5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.

Surpassing Jesus? Can't bee LITERAL.

2Ki 23:25 And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.

The above is speaking to Josiah. But what about the previous verse about Hezekiah???.........yet neither surpasses Jesus.

Can't go literal where language is already deemed to be figurative in nature.

No doubt the tribulation spoken of will be great, but no greater than that in Egypt, or what Jerusalem saw at the hands of the Babylonians.

Of course the issue remains........are believers ever promised an escape from "tribulation"?

Core demands using LITERAL, yet makes the following statement:
And the Rapture, the kept from, promise to the Church is here:
[Quote]
Revelation 3
10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.

Core focuses on the word "TRIAL" and tries making that MEAN tribulation.
But even Houdini couldn't do that. Here's what Core offers as "proof"

Strong's Number: 3986 Browse Lexicon Original WordWord Origin peirasmovßfrom (3985) Transliterated WordTDNT Entry Peirasmos6:23,822 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech pi-ras-mos' Noun Masculine Definition

1.
2. an experiment, attempt, trial, proving
1. trial, proving: the trial made of you by my bodily condition, since condition served as to test the love of the Galatians toward Paul (Gal. 4:
3.
1. the trial of man's fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy
1. an enticement to sin, temptation, whether arising from the desires or from the outward circumstances
2. an internal temptation to sin 1b
2. of the temptation by which the devil sought to divert Jesus the Messiah from his divine errand
1. of the condition of things, or a mental state, by which we are enticed to sin, or to a lapse from the faith and holiness
2. adversity, affliction, trouble: sent by God and serving to test or prove one's character, faith, holiness
3. temptation (i.e. trial) of God by men
1. rebellion against God, by which his power and justice are, as it were, put to the proof and challenged to show themselves

But none of the above define the true meaning of tribulation:

thlipsis thlip'-sis

from 2346; pressure (literally or figuratively):--afflicted(-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble.

See Greek 2346

Since believers are told they WILL experience tribulation, Core is trying to prove such statements faulty and using NON RELEVANT definitions in the process.

Notice what Jesus states in John 17:

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

To ensure His word is spread, Jesus prayed that His disciples NOT be taken out of the world, but to be protected from the evil while in it.
Of course THAT protection .didn't include tribulation. In fact nearly all disciples were slain for their faith.

But Jesus' prayer wasn't limited to just the disciples.
His prayer included ALL who would hear His words through the spreading of the gospels.

Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Never once, in scripture, does Jesus ask His believers to be taken out of the world.....in fact He prayed AGAINST it. Believers have been suffering tribulation throughout history.

Believers are SEEN in Revelation suffering tribulation:
Revelation 14
Re 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

The above are believers in tribulation.

Re 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The above are believers in tribulation. Core may make some ridiculous claim like they aren't the church, yet all believers are in the body of Christ, the church.

Even in my beginning pre trib days I didn't buy that one.

We'll wait for Core to produce one verse where believers are promised an escape from "tribulation", not trials.

Don't hold your breath...remember Houdini.

Ltanner09

12-12-2008, 12:22 AM

These verses, in MATT, were the ones that launched me away from pre trib.

Where tares (wicked) were growing among the wheat (righteous) which was planted:

Mt 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

Mt 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him,Wilt thou then that we go and gather theWim up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

The good and the wicked are to grow together until the harvest. There is no separating them beforehand.

When is the harvest? Jesus explains:

Mt 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Well, if the harvest (the one Jesus taught of) is the end of the world, then there IS no separating of the wicked and the good until that point.

But there's more info:

Mt 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Mt 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The taking away is .......of the wicked...... .

Jesus never taught.....not once.....that the righteous would be "raptured" to avoid tribulation, never once did He teach the righteous would be whisked away to avoid their fate at the hands of the wicked.

Jesus taught both would grow together.......until the harvest.....which is at the end of the world, not 7 years before.

Core doesn't want to debate this, so I'll end here.

Obviously if anyone else wishes to chime in I'd be happy to discuss this further (but please use scripture to support your view).

kay-gee

12-12-2008, 12:58 AM

Please dont stop....I'm watching!

all the best...

InTheWind

12-12-2008, 09:12 AM

I`ll add that the ones that excape the trib are those that are born again prior to trib and those saved in the trib are those that came to Christ at that time.

Jesus never taught.....not once.....that the righteous would be "raptured" to avoid tribulation, never once did He teach the righteous would be whisked away to avoid their fate at the hands of the wicked.

Yes He did. ;)

CoreIssue

12-12-2008, 10:58 AM

As always, Len, you go to other areas and try to say because a word was used in a context there it must be the same context as the discussion, which is an absurb conclusion always based on your theology.

Simple example of why your logic is flawed is the word tereo ek argument.

Christ, in John and some other places asked God of the apostles to tereo ek them from evil etc. So, such as your thinking says they are on the earth and kept through an issue, thus in Revelation it means kept through.

Totally bogus statement and conclusion. Fact is, historically, where God kept the Apostles from situtations he didn't leave them in the situation, but physically removed them from the place of concern, as in a city, nation, district etc. They were not there, removed, gone, taken to another city, nation, etc.

In Revelation the place of concern is stated to be the whole earth. WHOLE EARTH where it falls upon ALL on the WHOLE EARTH. And that is the last mention of Church before Christ returns with his Bride at the Second Coming? Why? Because they were gone.

The meaning of tereo ek didn't change. Its application didn't change. In both cases they were removed from the place of concern, one a locality and one the whole earth.

So, the justification that they must remain on the earth is totally false because the contexts are changed.

The scale of the place of concern changed, so the demand of meaning by similarity fails totally. It isn't literal.

Those sealed and protected at Mid are ISRAEL, not CHURCH, so the efforts to equate the two fail and would, in fact, render Revelation 3:10 a lie.

My point is you just keep doing this kind of nonsense and attempt to call it literal.

So, when you speak of Church, keep it to Church. When you speak of Israel, keep it to Israel. But you do not, you try to equate and merge them into the same thing, which is Replacement Theology.

An example of your logic in the real world, Len:
Scenario One: The boys play with a red ball at the park.
Scenario Two: Some kids play with a ball.
Conclusion by your thinking: They must be boys playing with a red ball at the park because Scenario One says that and they are similar situations.

Fact is they were girls playing with a green ball in a back yard.

A word used one place in a context does not always have the same reality when used in a different context.

CoreIssue

12-12-2008, 11:17 AM

KG, do you see what Len is doing? He takes issues that share some words or such and tries to use one to interpret the other even when the situations are TOTALLY different.

He takes things written to the Church and tries to force them onto Israel.

Do you agree Ezekiel should be tossed out because of Len's thinking and conclusions? Or every other OT prophecy about Israel's future?

Every passage Len listed has an application, literally, that will happen, when it is about prophecy.

The tares and wheat does not lead one away from Pre-Trib. It is fully there and applicable. Laid out and explained in the Bible and heavily in Revelation.

The Bible deals with wheat harvests seasons. What Len does not get is wheat is harvested twice a year, not just once. In Israel there are two seasons, not just one. The Rapture is the spring harvest, which is weed free. The Trib is the thrashing floor harvest, which separates the weeds from the wheat.

Problem is Len does not 'get it' and trying to debate it is fruitless, because he has no accepted rules of grammar or interpretation from which we can possibly debate.

The norms of grammar, etc, are neither used or accepted by Amils or those into figurative reading. They violate them all over the place.

How can anyone debate anyone on anything when they demand you have to use their invented standards of grammar, etc, that are not accepted in the linquistic or other schools of language? Cannot be done.

Final example, notice how Len, when it suits his doctrine, jumps from the word used in the text to the root word, which is not used in the text, and defines the word using that definition? Hope you understand you cannot do that grammatically.

So, the word meaning trial means a time of testing, trial etc, employing tribulation when applied to revelation. Fits Revelation perfectly. It purpose is to separate the wheat from the weeds.

Len, this was for KG, not to debate you. Impossible to debate one who refuses to used grammatical rules of language.

Ltanner09

12-12-2008, 02:43 PM

Core, let's put your favorite verse under the microscope. ( I just love forensics).

Re 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Your key word temptation (trial)
from 3985; a putting to proof (by experiment (of good), experience (of evil), solicitation, discipline or provocation); by implication, adversity:--temptation, X try.

Your interpretation is that the church is kept from the hour of "temptation".

I will use ONLY 3985 (temptation) in the following verses:

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation (3985) also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Jas 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations (3985);

3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

1Pe 1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

We're not taken out of the way of temptation, but delivered from it through faith. In fact, we're supposed to count it as joy.

That crackling sound you hear is your theory going up in flames.

CoreIssue

12-12-2008, 03:11 PM

You proved my prior statements about how you read. You read other verses per your doctrine and claim they are dictionary. They are not. They are other verses with their own meanings on other issues.

You want to put Revelation 3:10 under a microscope then stop posting other verses and lets deal with what it says grammatically and contextually.

If you insist on your doctrinal interpretations being grammar and context, then there is nothing to discuss.

Rule of debate, you cannot use your doctrine as proof of your doctrine. Applies in debates in all disciplines.

You were not taught this kind of reading tools in school. They do not apply here either.

Use proper rules of grammar, Len.

You do not because it is impossible to get the meanings you want from what is actually said.

Your choice, ONLY Revelation 3:10 using actual word meanings and grammar or forget it.

I can do it, you cannot.

Ltanner09

12-12-2008, 04:04 PM

You want to put Revelation 3:10 under a microscope then stop posting other verses and lets deal with what it says grammatically and contextually.

Core, I will assume you're just not reading my posts. I used your word "temptation" in Rev 3:10, I also gave biblical verses to what it means.

You wave this verse around and claim it's proof the church is raptured before the tribulation. But, you're using your red ball (temptation) and trying to make people see it's green (tribulation). Even the boys in the park and the girls in the backyard are scratching their collective heads.

And take note, I've posted somewhere in the ballpark (no pun intended) of 20-25 blble verses to support my position. You hang onto one....and manage to misapply it.

Ltanner09

12-12-2008, 04:33 PM

Off to work, Core. Will be back very late or in the morning. If you're looking to cement your position, that the church is removed from the earth to escape tribulation, then it would benefit everyone reading here to post the verses.

You're using Rev 3;10 which doesn't even SPEAK to tribulation, but to temptation. It doesn't even say anyone will be taken out of the world.

You claim "church" isn't used in chapters 5-19, so they must be gone.

But the definition of the body of Christ, those with the faith of Christ, those that die in the Lord and those that have the testimony of Jesus are seen throughout the book.

THEN....and this is the kicker.........you claim *I* don't follow the grammar.

I listed plenty of verses that tell believers they WILL suffer tribulation, they WILL be tempted, they WILL NOT be taken out of the world, they WILL NOT be separated from the tares (until the Lord returns).

Your opinion is I'm wrong. As in the previous debates, you use your opinion for your position and I have inundated you with biblical verses supporting my position.

kay-gee

12-12-2008, 04:55 PM

Hey wait a minute! Question for Core. In the first chapter of Rev we are told that the book itself (the prophecy) is written to "The Churches". If the part you claim deals with Israel only, what on earth is it doing in a Christian treatise? No wonder there is all this confusion. Someone way back there goofed up. It should have been taken out and added to the Hebrew Old Testament right after Malachi. If God is indeed running two concurrent programs, Then the Prophecies concerning future Israel dont belong in a letter circulated among the gentile churches. From the get go they parted ways. And another thing...Why arent the rabbis embracing Revelation with open arms?, when after all, it concerns their future and their hope. I was just mulling this over and it popped kinto my head! Please reply.

all the best...

CoreIssue

12-12-2008, 05:55 PM

Pretend Revelation 3:10 is the only verse available to you. What does it say?

CoreIssue

12-12-2008, 06:23 PM

Hey wait a minute! Question for Core.
OK.
In the first chapter of Rev we are told that the book itself (the prophecy) is written to "The Churches". Correct. Prophecy to the churches about their conditions and also 7 segments of the Church Age with the dominate trait of each.

Now, compare, in order, to Church History, and they match pefectly.

We are in the 6th & 7th churches. Nothing bad in the 6th. They have the Rapture, tereo ek, promise of removal and not being in the Time of Testing, because they have kept God's word and are born-again, so they are already sorted out. There is nothing to test. Nothing good or acceptable in the 7th, they will be 'spit out,' into the Trib. After that the 7 Lampstands of the Church are gone. Not another mention of the Church until the Second Coming. The Church is in the Wedding Supper, where the Bride is in seclusion for 7 days (years) and the Guests are outside the door in a room (OT Israel).

The Trib verses are warnings of what will happen to those who are spit out. They are no longer Church. Now they are under Israel, in the 70th Week.

So, it is still speaking to those who are in churches, but not Church, during the 7 year period.

Read the churches. It speaks to saints and the lost in churches alike. Revelation does deal with them all the way through.

So, Revelation is not written to the Church. It is written to the churches, of which all are not Church. Big difference.
If the part you claim deals with Israel only, what on earth is it doing in a Christian treatise?A warning to those who are false Christians as to what will happen to them if they do not change. And as hope to those who are about the arrival of the promised Rapture/Resurrection.

I never claimed Israel only. You read that in. The whole world is dealt with, but under the New Covenant beginning with the Trib/70th Week of Daniel. Israel is the covenant nation, Church covenant is gone.
No wonder there is all this confusion.Indeed there is confusion if one does not get the context and purpose correct.
Someone way back there goofed up. No one goofed up. The context and meaning is very appropriate.

As Revelation is time lineary in 7 years of events, so is the Bible as a whole. It goes from the Age of Innocence to Conscience to Mosaic to Church to Earthly Rule of Christ to Eternity on the New Earth.
It should have been taken out and added to the Hebrew Old Testament right after Malachi. Nonsense. And Malachi contains Trib verses as well.
If God is indeed running two concurrent programs, He is not. You just cannot get over only one covenant is in effect at a time. Right now is Church, not Israel.
Then the Prophecies concerning future Israel dont belong in a letter circulated among the gentile churches. Why? By that thinking Church should not even look at the OT, since it wasn't Church.
From the get go they parted ways.No. Israel failed in its duties to God and the Gentiles. Big difference, one that will not be repeated in the MK.
And another thing...Why arent the rabbis embracing Revelation with open arms?, when after all, it concerns their future and their hope. I was just mulling this over and it popped kinto my head! Please reply.

all the best...Because the Jews that saw the coming of Messiah before the coming of Messiah as King became Christians. And there were priests, rabbis and Sanhedrin in that group.

Those that did not only wanted a conquering King who would give Israel rule over the earth. That group was mainly the Pharisees and Scribes, one of which was totally legalistic and one didn't believe in life after death. Both of which saw Gentiles as vermin, basically. So they were not Godly in the OT terms, little alone NT.

You have to understand the Bible's overall flow and purpose, the flow and purpose of Revelation and where it all ends up at.

Think about it. Christ says at the White Throne the damned will be without excuse. How can that be said unless every alternative is tested and shown to be a failure? They were by Innocence, Conscience, Law, Grace and a hybred form of Law and Grace. Man failed in every one.

As well being eternal spirit being living with God and mortal flesh beings apart from God failed, since both had rebellion. Plus, I believe, but will not go into here, eternal flesh beings that once existed.

No one will have excuse because God covered all the bases to show with freewill every scenario will have failures.

Does that help?

kay-gee

12-12-2008, 09:51 PM

CoreIssue

12-12-2008, 10:36 PM

Hate to be a pain, but isnt translating 7 churches into 7 "church ages" spiritualizing a bit? Particularly when they were literally named and addressed to the cities in which they were located. (Modern day Asia Minor). Are there any other verses to support these being ages as opposed to first century congregations?

all the best...
Good question.

Yes, it literally applied to those 7 churches. Now, ask why they were picked to be used in a prophetic book? Just pointing to 7 then churches is, prophetically speaking, pretty pointless, isn't it?

The OT, etc, is loaded with passages that had a literal 'then' meeting coupled to a prophetic underlying meaning.

There were 7 days of creation, 7 days in a week, the Hebrew Week was 7 years, 7 spirits of God, 7 angels of the church, 7 lamps on the OT and Church covenant candlestands and so forth. So 7 has a signficant meaning in the Bible.

The historical 6th church didn't actually have all saints in it anymore the 7th had only lost in it. So, it is pointing to more than just the churches. As well as other clues embedded in all of the churches that went beyond the churches named.

Then, after the churches are named the 7 lamps/angels of the church remain and they move on to functions within the Trib period, but the covenant lampstands are now gone.

OK, so what does it mean? 7 consecutive churches followed by 3 sets of 7 events each in consecutive order, one after the other.

So, try the 7 as Ages and you see the traits name for each church correlate one for one with the history of the Church Age.

Currently we live in a time where there is a distinct division between the minority Christians who are true to what the literal Bible says and the majority liberal churches that are trying to rewrite everything in ways to get rid of what is true. Which is the time of the 6th and 7th churches as described.

Bible says they will stop looking for Christ's return, will have itching ears for pleasing messages versus truth and so forth.

Notice the first 5 churches have good and bad within each. But the 6th and 7th divides the good and bad into separate churches. For which you know there has never been a time where every church member of the churches have been good or bad. So why the dividing on the last two?

To show who will be Raptured and who will be cast into the Trib.

Historically the local church was not kept from anything by removal. Nor was the other local church spit out by God. So it refers to more than just ancient local churches.

See the pattern I am talking about? How it cannot be referring only to ancient local churches? Why these particular churches were chosen when there were more than just 7 churches at that time?

Where were such as Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth and the others? Not mentioned for a reason.

It is not a contradiction to recognize God wrote the Bible on multiple levels. Still literal but written in a manner where the deeper meanings require understanding layer by layer in a literal way.

Until one studies enough to be able to see this in a literal way there is no way to just explain it.

But, think about this, God said there was a special blessing for those who study the prophecies of Revelation. If just historical churches and Revelation just referring to ancient events, then there is no blessing because those issues are no longer prophecy, but accomplished history.

Matthew 24 is also a flow of history from Christ to the Rapture, Trib and Second Coming.

As is the 70th Week of Daniel. And the Temple of Ezekiel, prophecies of Zechariah and more.

But under Amil they cease to be prophecy by being no longer relevant and irrelevant, to be disregarded.

Just food for thought, KG. I can read it all literally and fit it together. No sweat. And can walk through such as Rev 3:10, word by word, literally. Len cannot. Nor can you and have it as ancient history.

Ltanner09

12-13-2008, 02:50 AM

Well, Core has 2 replies with a total of zero biblical verses to support his ideas.

Just food for thought, KG. I can read it all literally and fit it together. No sweat. And can walk through such as Rev 3:10, word by word, literally. Len cannot. Nor can you and have it as ancient history.

Core, I HAVE dealt with REV 3:10 literally....it doesn't contain the escape from tribulation you see. In fact it doesn't speak TO tribulation.

Pretend Revelation 3:10 is the only verse available to you. What does it say?

No need to pretend on this thread, it's the only verse you're using. The debate is about tribulation (pre trib or post) and all you point to is a verse about temptation.

Let's put our cards on the table, Core.

In post #10 I listed nine biblical verses showing believers should expect tribulation. (You haven't refuted any of them). I could very likely list many more.

As in past debates, I will ask you for ONE biblical verse which supports your position.

One which states believers will NOT be subjected to tribulation, without any opinion needed to understand the verse.

Mine (in relevant part) were...from post #10:

(John 16:33) In the world ye shall have tribulation:

(Acts 14:22) that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

(Romans 5:3)we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

(Romans 8:35)Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress

(Ro 12:12) Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation;

(2Co 1:4) Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble

(2 CO 7:4) I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation.

(1Th 3:4) For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation;

(Re 1:9) I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation

That's how simple it is to prove a point, using scripture.

Not one letter from the above is an opinion of mine. Now, let's see how simply you can rebut without the standard complicated dance moves.

kay-gee

12-13-2008, 08:41 AM

Just one thing quickly Core...As a teacher of the Bible, are you saying that we should not use scripture to help interpret scripture?
Also you say we should not use our doctrine when in debate about doctrine. For instance, if I'm in a discussion with an atheist, I should not use Bible quotes in defending my position? Hmmm
I got to work on that one a while.

all the best...

CoreIssue

12-13-2008, 11:58 AM

CoreIssue

12-13-2008, 12:19 PM

Just one thing quickly Core...As a teacher of the Bible, are you saying that we should not use scripture to help interpret scripture?
I have never said that nor ever will.

Here is how you are SUPPOSE to do it, not Len's way: Read the verses and passages being studied literally, meaning you go through and read per rules of grammar and word definition to establish what is being said. It is a total violation of grammar to say you have to read X through Y to understand what is said. And you use the words meanings, not their root or some invented meaning.
Do this for every verse and passage in the Bible. Establish their independent meanings FIRST.
Then, when you think one is related to another, see if the context is the same, etc.
If related, you can add the meanings together for a bigger picture.

But you NEVER try to put the passages and such together and try to read them as one single passage. That will give an erroneous meaning every time.
You NEVER try to use the contextual meaning of one to define the contextual meaning of another.
Example of what to do:

Everyone experiences tribulation per NT, etc.
Revelation says this will be a time of tribulation as never seen before.
Purpose of Trib is testing the whole world and all living one it. To see who is with God and who is with Satan.
Church will be tereo ek from the testing.
Conclusion, preserving independent meanings: While everyone experiences trib in their lives the Trib will be a time of greater trib than ever known before for the puposes of testing everyone on the whole earth to force all to choose God or Satan.

What not to do is force NT verses onto the Revelation meanings and say everyone experiences trib, so nothing new here.

Also you say we should not use our doctrine when in debate about doctrine. For instance, if I'm in a discussion with an atheist, I should not use Bible quotes in defending my position? Hmmm
I never do because it is fruitless to quote what they reject as proof for your case.

I go to scientific questions, evidence and such to show evolution does not work, challenge ultimate beginnings using scientific law and show science has shown some events within the Bible as unnatural events and like that.

In a formal debate your arguments get thrown out the second you try to use your conclusions as proof of your claims.
I got to work on that one a while.
Can be fun, but can be done.

Ltanner09

12-13-2008, 02:03 PM

Len, claim you are literal all day and it does not make you literal.

Also, I can posts many examples and more of people experiencing tribulation throughout the Bible. Revelation is about a time of testing using tribulation, not tribulation in people's lives as has happened historically. Tereo ek is absence from the place in question. That is what the words mean.

But no, you focus on tribulation. Your error, not mine.

Is that the long version to "no, I don't have any verses showing the church promised an escape from tribulation"?

Nothing in that verse remotely suggests anyone being taken out of the world to avoid anytihing.

This is now the 4th debate where your opinion is prevalent and bible verse are few.

You take one verse, misread it, then you build a doctrine around it. You do the exact thing with Daniel's 70 weeks. You misinterpret one verse (Dan 9:27) and build a doctrine around it.

Until you can either refute the verses *I* posted, or until you can provide any verses supporting your view I guess we're done here too.

CoreIssue

12-13-2008, 02:45 PM

Len, I have refuted you. Both grammatically and contextually.

Post all the unrelated verses you want, they are not proof of anything you claim. Post root word definitions all you want, they are not the words used.

Your total inability to deal with verses and word definitions per the verses and passages being discussed is self defeating for your doctrine.

Use all the arguments you want, but if someone says the ball is blue, all the other statements, from other issues ,you want to declare, do not change the ball from blue to red, in example.

Go back and read your old school books on rules of grammar. You would flunk reading comprehension by your rules.

Ltanner09

12-13-2008, 03:36 PM

CoreIssue

12-13-2008, 04:12 PM

Len, many came on with their beliefs in place, not here to get them from me.

No, I don't think anyone is wondering where my verses are since you seem to be the only one who has not seen them. I believe they are not posting because they believe I have made the arguments that refute you, so they have no need to question either of us.

I encourage them to post some comment on these issues to put it to bed. Or maybe I will post a poll and ask them.

CoreIssue

12-13-2008, 04:50 PM

Poll found here (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4676).

InTheWind

12-13-2008, 06:14 PM

I'm always amazed by the lack of participation on this board. Maybe people can't offer their arguments because they're not grounded enough to form one, I dunno.

I`m one of the two witnesses. :D

CoreIssue

12-13-2008, 08:27 PM

I'm always amazed by the lack of participation on this board. Maybe people can't offer their arguments because they're not grounded enough to form one, I dunno. I`m one of the two witnesses. :D
:swoon::roflmbo:

Willy

12-14-2008, 03:35 AM

Core, this is your board and your group of believers who are depending on you to teach them.

I'm supposing some of them are wondering why you're arguing from silence instead of presenting bible verses to support your position. I know I would be.

If the best you can do is claim the verses *I* present are irrelevant and *I* ignore grammar, yet present nothing on your behalf (except your errant opinions) I would be seriously questioning what I'm doing here......since,, as a member, I'm here to learn something, anything.

I'm always amazed by the lack of participation on this board. Maybe people can't offer their arguments because they're not grounded enough to form one, I dunno.

I figured I'd try debating on this board one more time and resigned myself to the fact it would only be you and I debating. We've had four or five debates and your biblical references to all of them have been minimal, at best.

It's not a debate when one side is presenting bible verses to support their position and the other side is presenting their opinions, sans bible verses.

Simple question .... What do you do with the Nation of Israel? ... You know, the descendants of Jacob after the flesh that are currently walking around on a little patch of land in the middle east, surrounded on all sides by people who would like to see them destroyed.

Initially, I thought you presented your points rather well and took into consideration your change from pre-mill to ... post-mill. You were able to see the spiritual make-up of the "Church" pretty much the same way I see it. ...For Gentile or Jew. However, I think you have over-compensated to the point where you have no room for "in the flesh" Israel.

You even seem a little paranoid that they might be re-established in God's favor in a way that would usurp your perceived Gentile dominant position.

You brought out the point that it was the Lord Jesus who was able to accomplish what Israel could not, therefore claiming that He was Israel. ... but you missed the whole point of the Israeli exercise.
Perhaps God chose the wrong people. Maybe He should have chosen the people that live in the Bahamas. I'm sure they would have happily accepted Jesus as their Messiah on the first go around. Unfortunately they would have died in their sins along with the rest of the planet because no perfect offering for sin would have been offered.

If the Church is raptured out of here before I finish typing this ... .... ... ... O.K. we are still here ... I have little doubt that you would be included or if the Church lingers until the harvest is complete that would not change, so it seems we are related.

Now, on another post there is a young man asking advice on how not to spend his eternal existence separated from God. He has asked some very good questions that all here might help him with. So.....?:popcorn2:

kay-gee

12-14-2008, 09:25 AM

Willy, I am kind of missing your logic. Could you please clarify your position a bit on Israel.

all the best...

Ltanner09

12-14-2008, 10:20 AM

Willy wrote:
You even seem a little paranoid that they might be re-established in God's favor in a way that would usurp your perceived Gentile dominant position.

Only those in Christ are in God's favor, not someone from a specific earthly nation.
Christ tore down the wall between Jew and Gentile:

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

But this was already covered on another thread.

What do you do with the Nation of Israel? ... You know, the descendants of Jacob after the flesh that are currently walking around on a little patch of land in the middle east, surrounded on all sides by people who would like to see them destroyed.

Those in the nation of Israel have the same opportunity to come to Christ as those in any other country.

CoreIssue

12-14-2008, 12:15 PM

Len, one question that you didn't answer in the debate.

No verses required, etc. Just your thoughts.

Is a covenant, such as to Israel or Church, the source of salvation or something else?

Please, just restrict yourself to a simple stated answer to that question.

My answer is a covenant is not the source of salvation, it serves another purpose.

Ltanner09

12-14-2008, 01:25 PM

CoreIssue

12-14-2008, 02:49 PM

Please, just restrict yourself to a simple stated answer to that question.

My answer is a covenant is not the source of salvation, it serves another purpose. Core, you know and I know the source of salvation isn't a covenant.
Jesus confirmed a covenant with His blood, but the source of salvation is Christ, not a covenant.

I'm sure you're going to eventually tie that question in with this thread.
Not my intention. Just clarifying a point for all to see.

But I want a bit more clarity to what you said. Your answer was semantically stated, thus left the point of my question unanswered.

Blood has been part of salvation by repentance in grace through faith from Adam on. The meaning and source of the blood has become clearer in each step, and was made reality in Christ. It moved from promise to reality and will remain reality for all eternity.

So, the blood of Christ has been in every covenant, while not being the covenant, by promise or fact. If another covenant were to come, then it would also be part of that covenant as well, no matter how God ties it into the covenant. Yes or no?

Sorry, should have asked this initially as well. Being 'in Christ' is not Church only, it means all saints of all Ages, regardless of covenant, thus conformed to Christ. Yes or no?

So, while salvation is in the blood, it is not given by any covenant, as in Israel, Church, etc. Yes or no?

My purpose is to demonstrate covenants save no one. About salvation, yes, but giving salvation, limiting its availability to any person or group or changing how you get it, at any time in history, no.

Ltanner09

12-14-2008, 08:42 PM

kay-gee

12-14-2008, 09:09 PM

CoreIssue

12-14-2008, 09:32 PM

Core, your question is truly confusing. If you don't believe me, try taking a poll on it.

My original question was for you to produce a verse where the church is promised an escape from tribulation. So far you haven't done anything with it, except for avoiding both the issue and topic of the thread
I did that in a reply to KG. And to you prior.

So, you are not asking for the verses again, you are asking for one that conforms to your doctrine and non-grammatical reading that you will accept.

Now, my question was not confusing at all.

You said no covenant is salvation, but at the same time said A, meaning ONE covenant, was confirmed by blood, which means the others are not.

So, I will try to simplify the questions.

Has, or has not the blood of Christ, even if vaguely, been preached or shown since Adam, apart from and within the Mosaic and Church Covenants?
Under the Mosaic Covenant, could anyone be saved apart from the Mosaic Covenant?
If you said no to the Mosaic question, does that mean only Israel could be saved at that time?
During the Church Age, could, say an Indian, in North America, be saved apart from hearing the name of Christ because no one was preaching Christ to the Indians? Or in Africa, China or anywhere else the Gospel was not preached?
Is only the Church 'in Christ?' Not the saints from the Mosaic Covenant or before, when there was no covenant to a group?
IF another covenant were to follow the Church Age, would the blood be in it, even if they had to wait to death to gain it?

I am not arguing Rapture or other doctrines here. I am trying to nail down what the relationship of salvation and covenant is to you. As in covenant saves no one nor is the only way to God.

CoreIssue

12-14-2008, 09:47 PM

It's true Core...I read the post 3 times and I am not sure exactly sure what you are saying or asking. Is there someone nearby you could get to translate these into simpler terminology for us?

Try something like this....in your terms Salvation=?....Covenant=?

all the best...
KG, I tried that with Len before, and he dodged or gave a semantical answer to work around the question, since I am sure he knows the point I am driving at and does not want to actually answer it directly, since it refutes his doctrinal position.

The problem with Amil and other doctrines is that it has a form of double think in it. As in dividing the issues of salvation into two trains of thought and not realize they are contradictory. Which causes a struggle with the thinking and questions I am pushing.

Len has said salvation is not via covenants, but then turns around and says 'in Christ' means Church only, which puts access to Christ by being Church only. It cannot deal with the fact OT saints, from Adam to the Cross, are 'in Christ' without being 'in the Church.'

Romans 8 says differently:
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%208&version=31#fen-NIV-28130j)] who[k (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%208&version=31#fen-NIV-28130k)] have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Love of God, not covenant, is what gets all saints conformed to, meaning 'in Christ.'

And the OT saints were not born-again when they repented, they had to wait.

Nothing in the Bible requires being born-again at repentance to be 'in Christ.' There is no such thing as a time frame requirement.

Enoch, in example, was a saint when there was no covenant body on the earth. And he is one of the Two Witnesses.

TWO covenant bodies in the Body of Christ, KG, not one. Church and Israel, but both 'in Christ.'

So much for Len constantly using 'in Christ' as exclusive turf of the Church. And his pushing the idea that a return to a new form of Mosaic Covenant would be a step backwards spiritually.

kay-gee

12-15-2008, 12:51 AM

As Moses and all those folks lived centuries before the Pentecost at which the Church came into being, It would seem reasonable that they were not in the church. The church is the new covenant which God made with man.
John 3:16 says....God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son, that whosever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
We all know the verse and I think our interprtation of it is universal. How are men saved? Through Christ right? Acts 2:47...The Lord was adding to their number daily those who were being saved. So being saved and church are in separable.

Peter says in Acts 2:39 that it is the promise that extends to the last person the Lord shall call. Clearly we are living in the last promise that God will make to man...and it deals with Salvation. Simple

all the best...

Ltanner09

12-15-2008, 01:58 AM

I wrote:

Originally Posted by Ltanner09 View Post
Core, your question is truly confusing. If you don't believe me, try taking a poll on it.

My original question was for you to produce a verse where the church is promised an escape from tribulation. So far you haven't done anything with it, except for avoiding both the issue and topic of the thread

Core replied:

I did that in a reply to KG. And to you prior.

The last bible reference you used for anything was in post #32 ..and you claimed Matt 24 was referring to the 2nd coming. I've already showed you your error on that interpretation.

You haven't used any bible references, other than Rev 3:10, to support anything you're claiming. Your claim that REV 3:10 deals, in any way...shape or form....with tribulation, has been proven wrong.

So, you are not asking for the verses again, you are asking for one that conforms to your doctrine and non-grammatical reading that you will accept.

If you make a claim I expect you to support it through scripture, not through theories.

Now, my question was not confusing at all.

You said no covenant is salvation, but at the same time said A, meaning ONE covenant, was confirmed by blood, which means the others are not.

Core, I know you didn't want biblical references here, but since I base my beliefs on them I will produce those that are relevant to answer your question:

Blood seals a covenant:

Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Core wrote:
So, I will try to simplify the questions.

* Has, or has not the blood of Christ, even if vaguely, been preached or shown since Adam, apart from and within the Mosaic and Church Covenants?

Absolutely has.

* Under the Mosaic Covenant, could anyone be saved apart from the Mosaic Covenant?

Keeping the requirements of the Mosaic Law did not bring salvation to
Old Testament saints from Moses to Christ. The Scriptures clearly state,
“No one is justified before God by the law” (Gal. 3:11),
and the Law could not “impart life” (v. 21).
The purpose of the law was that it revealed sin (Rom. 7:7)

* If you said no to the Mosaic question, does that mean only Israel could be saved at that time?

Rahab was not from Israel.

* During the Church Age, could, say an Indian, in North America, be saved apart from hearing the name of Christ because no one was preaching Christ to the Indians? Or in Africa, China or anywhere else the Gospel was not preached?

The bible says the gospels were preached to EVERY CREATURE UNDER HEAVEN:

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Of course that's biblical and literal...as far as I'm concerned.
You question the logic of the verse, which means you don't take it literally.

* Is only the Church 'in Christ?' Not the saints from the Mosaic Covenant or before, when there was no covenant to a group?

OT and NT saints are in Christ:

Ac 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

IF another covenant were to follow the Church Age, would the blood be in it, even if they had to wait to death to gain it?

Your hypothetical question makes no sense.
Christ confirmed the new covenant through His blood.

I am not arguing Rapture or other doctrines here. I am trying to nail down what the relationship of salvation and covenant is to you. As in covenant saves no one nor is the only way to God.

Bottom line is faith, Core. Without faith one cannot enter into the New Covenant, which Christ mediated for us.

Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Now maybe I can get an answer to my ONE question.

Will you PLEASE produce your proof, the PROOF of your claim (through biblical verses) that the Church is promised an escape from tribulation?????

kay-gee

12-15-2008, 09:35 AM

CoreIssue

12-15-2008, 10:27 AM

Core....please dont mis-understand me. The OT saints are saved. The blood of Christ flows back to them as well. I was saying that they are not church members in the sense that we are today, as the Church of today came into being at Pentecost. All people who respond to God in faith, in their respective eras, are saved by Christ. That promise was made to Adam and Eve. (Gen 3:15)

all the best...
Only part any bit troubling is saying church members as we are today.

There is no Church of today and Church of then.

The reason that bothers me is many doctrines say all of all Ages are now Church. Which is false.

CoreIssue

12-15-2008, 11:10 AM

Len, you keep abusing this passage.

Collossians 1
3We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints— 5the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel 6that has come to you.This sets the meaning of Gospel as the death, burial and resurrection of Christ in full meaning.
All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth.This sets the contextual usage and meaning of world as known world which has heard the Apostles and such preach. The Roman World.
7You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col%201;&version=31;#fen-NIV-29457c)] behalf, 8and who also told us of your love in the Spirit. This affirms spread by human preaching.
9For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. 10And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully 12giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col%201;&version=31;#fen-NIV-29462d)] to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. 13For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14in whom we have redemption,[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col%201;&version=31;#fen-NIV-29464e)] the forgiveness of sins.
The Supremacy of Christ

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col%201;&version=31;#fen-NIV-29471f)] your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Again, this sets the meaning of Gospel as the death, burial and resurrection as preached to the known world.

Trying to balloon this into the whole world is false. The context of area spoken of and message delivered is well stated and defined.

You, on the other hand cannot and have not offered anything to prove this Gospel was preached over the whole world. You just declare it happened, per your reading of the words from a verse parsed out of context.
Matthew 24
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. But this is different.

The Apostles and such had not been killed yet. And many did live past 70 AD. So much for that applying.

Many turning away first demands many coming to Christ. Before 70 AD was the very beginnings of the Church, far from having 'many' in any worldly context. Nor had 'many' fallen away.

And Gospel of the Kingdom, which had not been preached outside the Roman world, would be preached to the whole world, which meaning, as I posted before, meant total world, not the Roman world.

Not opening up the debate again, just posting for others that how you keep declaring a false meaning does not work when one reads in context and by grammar.

Collossians specifies the world known to them, the Roman World. Matthew specifies the whole earth, not a limited area.

Collissians specifies human preachers spreading the message. Matthew specifies a far future time when the message would be preached everywhere.

Now, if your theory was correct, the Gospel would have been preached by angels and you better believe it would be a well known event with the Gospel a known record all over the earth.

But it isn't. Simple as that. The Gospel was a totally new message as human preachers spread all over the earth. No pockets of Christians found anywhere believing in the the name of Christ, etc. No written or oral history about the event.

So, you theory does not hold water. Just saying the Bible says it was thus it was does not fly when the Bible does not say it was nor is then a shred of historical evidence to support it was.

Dismiss logic and evidence if you wish, Len. Your prerogative.

The Gospel was not finally preached all over the world until the mid 20th century. Simple as that.

Not cranking up the debate again. Just getting tired of your false claims I have offered no evidence of anything, Biblical or otherwise.

It is a common tactic of those into unsound doctrine to declare someone has not posted verses or anything else to prove the case. What is really being said is others have posted nothing acceptable to them.

Like saying Revelation 3:10 is not proof because it is one lone verse. Well, I laid out a lot more than one lone verse. But that one lone verse is very clear and powerful in what it says.

So, Len. Not getting back into it with you. This was for the reading of KG and other readers. Just getting annoyed with your repeated false accusations and statements.

Later. :tiphat:

Ltanner09

12-15-2008, 02:16 PM

Ltanner09

12-15-2008, 02:46 PM

KG wrote

Core....please dont mis-understand me. The OT saints are saved. The blood of Christ flows back to them as well. I was saying that they are not church members in the sense that we are today, as the Church of today came into being at Pentecost. All people who respond to God in faith, in their respective eras, are saved by Christ. That promise was made to Adam and Eve. (Gen 3:15)

KG, the meaning of NT church is the same as OT congregation. There is only one people of God, it is the church (OT/NT)

Genesis 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.

Numbers 14:5 Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.

\
Deuteronomy 31:30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.

1 Samuel 17:47 And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord's, and he will give you into our hands.

Job 30:28 I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation.

Psalms 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Psalms 149:1 Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.

Jeremiah 50:9 For, lo, I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country: and they shall set themselves in array against her; from thence she shall be taken: their arrows shall be as of a mighty expert man; none shall return in vain.

Remember, ekklesia is the same word that is translated as "church" in the New Testament. It is this same word that is used to translate the Hebrew word qahal,

What we see is the same title given to believers from Genesis to Revelation. Above is only a small selection of passages from the Greek Old Testament known as the Septuagint. The Greek word is used many times over and often in direct relation to Israel. From beginning to end there is only one called-out assembly, they are known commonly as the church and to God as Israel.

Galatians 6:14-16

14. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
15. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

So what does all this mean? It's simple, there is only one body of believers (Romans 12:4). There is a single redemption for Christians, for Jews, and for all on the face of this earth, and His name is Jesus Christ. There is no room for division and there is no distinction by God among His people. God is not partial with men.

Acts 10:34-36

34. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

The parallels between I Peter and the Old Testament books of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Hosea are another example of God showing no differentiation in His Word between Old and New Testament saints. By addressing the scattered congregation with the same titles as used in the OT Peter demonstrates that they share the same blessings and designations as the multitude on Mount Sinai.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Exodus 19:5-6

5. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Peter then draws a comparison with those who have been scattered (1 Peter 1:1) and the births of Lo Ruhamah (no mercy) and Lo Ammi (not my people) as found in Hosea. With this comparison Peter illustrates that even though they are strangers and are scattered, they are still a chosen and holy people.

1 Peter 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Hosea 1:6-10

6. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8. Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9. Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

So we see here that Peter has a clear understanding of the relationship between followers of Christ and God's people in the Old testament, they are one and the same.

CoreIssue

12-15-2008, 02:48 PM

Core, other than rambling you didn't even answer the simplest question I could have put forward.
This thread deals with pre trib/post trib...it was SUPPOSED to be a debate on that issue.

You presented REV 3:10 and claimed it taught the church would be taken out of the world to escape tribulation.
Not only does this verse not address TRIBULATION, it says nothing about anyone being taken out of the world. It was the ONLY verse you offered.

I presented 8-9 verses where the church is promised tribulation.
I asked for your list of verses which would show otherwise. You pointed to REV 3:10.....again.

You started your rambling with questions about the definition of covenant.
I answered your questions and ended with repeating mine.

You again pointed to REV 3:10 and included a page of non-sequiturs which didn't address the issue of this debate.

This is now our 5th or 6th debate where you walked away without doing much to sustain your position. But, hey, the polls say you're doin' a great job.
Len, as I said, your verses are not about the Trib. Nor do you read literally. So they are of no value on why and what the Trib is about. Get over it. THAT is the refutation to your verses.

So, as I also said before, we do not even have a common platform from wich to discuss anything, Len. You do not obey rules of grammar, I do. You parse passages and only address the aspects you can spin, I do not.

It is like arguing the color of a wall. You say it is red, I say blue. No way to resolve the issue until we agree to use the the universally accepted color chart and names from which to examine and determine who is correct.

That is why I told you to start a thread on how one should read by what rules. And of course that is a thread you will avoid like a plague because you know you do not use the normal rules of grammar or word meanings. You see the Bible as falling under a different set of rules, rules to which you and your thinking claim to be the arbitrars.

Either start that thread or concede we do not agree on grammar and word definition rules.

Ltanner09

12-15-2008, 03:12 PM

Len, as I said, your verses are not about the Trib. Nor do you read literally. So they are of no value on why and what the Trib is about. Get over it. THAT is the refutation to your verses.

Core, scripture interprets scripture. If, as you claim, my verses don't address "tribulation", then you have the opportunity (through scripture) to rebut my claim.

You claimed REV 3:10 DID address tribulation and I proved you wrong (through both scripture and word definition).

Let me refresh some of your claims on this thread:

Post #7:
Core wrote:

So there is your literal 7 years in both Daniel 9 and Revelation. And the uses of Tribulation for this time period in Matthew, Mark, John and Revelation all apply to the same time period with the same meaning.

And the Rapture, the kept from, promise to the Church is here:
Quote:
Revelation 3
10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.

You claim the above speaks to the church being taken out of the world to escape TRIBULATION.

Then you followed with:

Trial means trial, testing etc. Which is what the Trib does.
Keep from means not there. Protected by removal from the place in question, which is the whole earth

No tribulation or removal from the earth mentioned in that verse. That's how you read and now you want a debate on GRAMMAR?

I proved you wrong and asked you for scriptures that state what you actually claimed they do.
I listed verses in post #10 that you didn't refute. You claim I misinterpret them, but offer nothing by way of rebuttal.

I'm here to debate the bible. If you want to debate grammar, then I suggest you look elsewhere. I can both support my position and discount yours through scripture.

CoreIssue

12-15-2008, 03:23 PM

KG wrote

Core....please dont mis-understand me. The OT saints are saved. The blood of Christ flows back to them as well. I was saying that they are not church members in the sense that we are today, as the Church of today came into being at Pentecost. All people who respond to God in faith, in their respective eras, are saved by Christ. That promise was made to Adam and Eve. (Gen 3:15)KG, the meaning of NT church is the same as OT congregation. There is only one people of God, it is the church (OT/NT)

Genesis 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.

Numbers 14:5 Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.

\
Deuteronomy 31:30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.

1 Samuel 17:47 And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord's, and he will give you into our hands.

Job 30:28 I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation.

Psalms 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Psalms 149:1 Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.

Jeremiah 50:9 For, lo, I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country: and they shall set themselves in array against her; from thence she shall be taken: their arrows shall be as of a mighty expert man; none shall return in vain.

Remember, ekklesia is the same word that is translated as "church" in the New Testament. It is this same word that is used to translate the Hebrew word qahal,

What we see is the same title given to believers from Genesis to Revelation. Above is only a small selection of passages from the Greek Old Testament known as the Septuagint. The Greek word is used many times over and often in direct relation to Israel. From beginning to end there is only one called-out assembly, they are known commonly as the church and to God as Israel.

Galatians 6:14-16

14. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
15. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

So what does all this mean? It's simple, there is only one body of believers (Romans 12:4). There is a single redemption for Christians, for Jews, and for all on the face of this earth, and His name is Jesus Christ. There is no room for division and there is no distinction by God among His people. God is not partial with men.

Acts 10:34-36

34. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

The parallels between I Peter and the Old Testament books of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Hosea are another example of God showing no differentiation in His Word between Old and New Testament saints. By addressing the scattered congregation with the same titles as used in the OT Peter demonstrates that they share the same blessings and designations as the multitude on Mount Sinai.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Exodus 19:5-6

5. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Peter then draws a comparison with those who have been scattered (1 Peter 1:1) and the births of Lo Ruhamah (no mercy) and Lo Ammi (not my people) as found in Hosea. With this comparison Peter illustrates that even though they are strangers and are scattered, they are still a chosen and holy people.

1 Peter 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Hosea 1:6-10

6. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8. Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9. Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

So we see here that Peter has a clear understanding of the relationship between followers of Christ and God's people in the Old testament, they are one and the same.
And there we have it. Replacement Theology. Israel is Church and Church is Israel.

But a false statement.

In the NT within the Body of Christ Church and Israel are distinct entities, not the same.

Sure, both are congregations, but that does not make both the same congregation.
Ephesians 3
6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
Two heirs, One Body of Christ.

Gentiles are one body of humanity. Israel is a second.

The 24 Eternally before God are Israel, Wife of God. The Bride Church.

No. There are Eternal differences, again fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant.

CoreIssue

12-15-2008, 04:03 PM

Len, also really tired of you redefining Rev 3:10 into what it didn't say.
10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, That makes them Church, not just church.
I will also keep you from Keep from means protection by removal from the place of concern.
Strong's Number: 5083 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=5083&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin threvwfrom teros (a watch, perhaps akin to (2334 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2334&version=kjv))) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5083&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Tereo8:140,1174 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech tay-reh'-o http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5083g) Verb Definition

to attend to carefully, take care of

to guard
metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is
to observe
to reserve: to undergo something

All the translations say 'keep.' So, unless you are suddenly the better Greek linquist, it means keep.
Strong's Number: 1537 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=1537&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin ejka primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1537&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Ekliteral or figurative Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech ek http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=1537g) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=1537gb) Preposition Definition

out of, from, by, away from

King James Word Usage - Total: 921 of 366, from 181, out of 162, by 55, on 34, with 25, miscellaneous 98All mean not there. Not in and through. Out of the place of origin/concern.

You cannot spin it into any definition meaning protected through.

Keep from means to preserve by removal from the place of concern.
the hourStrong's Number: 5610 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=5610&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin w&raapparently a primary word Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5610&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Hora9:675,1355 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech ho'-rah http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5610g) Noun Feminine Definition

a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year

of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter

the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day
a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun)
any definite time, point of time, moment

A defined period and point in time. Not the whole of time. So it is a distinct period of time within the Church Age, not all of the Church Age.
of trialNot tribulation, but testing by God using tribulation as the means of tribuation.

This is not the same word with the same meaning as your verses. So is not the same issue. It is a distinct issue, by God, for a purpose.

70 AD tested nothing. It destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem and ended Israel as a nation for 1900 years.

It was NOT upon the Church either, but upon the Judiastic Jews. The Church had fled already.
that is going to come upon the whole world Not a segment or part, but the whole.
to testBy God, not as with your verses by enemies of God against God.
Strong's Number: 3985 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=3985&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin peiravzwfrom (3984 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3984&version=kjv)) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3985&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Peirazo6:23,822 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech pi-rad'-zo http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3985g) Verb Definition

to try whether a thing can be done

to attempt, endeavour

to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself

in a good sense
in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin

to solicit to sin, to tempt 1c

of the temptations of the devil
after the OT usage

of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

those who live on the earth.Whole earth, not a segments or locales, which your verses on temptation are dealing with.

Very big difference, which the very words used make very clear.

So, you are wrong when you equate the issues of tribulation here with those in your verses. The very words used are even different.

Here is the word used for tribulation in your claimed proof verses that it is the same issue.
Strong's Number: 2347 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=2347&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin qli'yißfrom (2346 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2346&version=kjv)) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2347&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Thlipsis3:139,334 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech thlip'-sis http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=2347g) Noun Feminine Definition

a pressing, pressing together, pressure
metaph. oppression, affliction, tribulation, distress, straits

King James Word Usage - Total: 45 tribulation 21, affliction 17, trouble 3, anguish 1, persecution 1, burdened 1, to be afflicted + (1519 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1519&version=kjv))&version=kjv 1No mention of testing, testing by God or any such thing, just tribulation.

Why would God test his own? They are already born-again and have Eternal Security. There is nothing to test or separate. Nothing.

But when the Rapture occurs, there are initially no saints on the earth. So the whole world there to be tested as to who goes with Satan and who goes with God. Wheat from chaff.

Two wheat crops a year, Len. First is weed free, no thrashing required, called spring wheat, harvested before the weeds grow. Second is summer wheat, full of weeds and has to be thrashed.

Israel ahs two growing seasons, not one, as well, thus the former and latter rains, as well.

You don't use the right word meanings you don't read by context and rules of grammar. You cannot just walk through the verse, as I did, and find your doctrine in it.

I simply laid it out by word meanings and grammar. What it was saying is self evident.

Ltanner09

12-15-2008, 04:09 PM

And there we have it. Replacement Theology. Israel is Church and Church is Israel.

Well, at least your misapplications aren't limited to REV 3:10.

And, by the way, we appreciate all of those recent biblical verses you used to support yet another theory which runs on empty.

There's always been ONE people of God, not 2. Israel was chosen as God's people in the OT, but all believers were not of Israel (Rahab as one example).

Core, at a loss to explain his doctrine (any of them lately) has to depend on an inaccurate definition "Replacement Theology" to try explaining MY belief.

But it's simply not true. Israel has never been replaced. Israel is the people of God....and is why Jacob's name was changed TO Israel. All in Christ ARE Israel.

So, with that understanding, how is Core's claim that I believe Israel "HAS BEEN REPLACED" anything close to the truth?? It isn't.
Just another example of Core dodging biblical verses and presenting his inaccurate theories.

Maybe we can tackle this topic next.

CoreIssue

12-15-2008, 04:12 PM

And there we have it. Replacement Theology. Israel is Church and Church is Israel.Well, at least your misapplications aren't limited to REV 3:10.

And, by the way, we appreciate all of those recent biblical verses you used to support yet another theory which runs on empty.

There's always been ONE people of God, not 2. Israel was chosen as God's people in the OT, but all believers were not of Israel (Rahab as one example).

Core, at a loss to explain his doctrine (any of them lately) has to depend on an inaccurate definition "Replacement Theology" to try explaining MY belief.

But it's simply not true. Israel has never been replaced. Israel is the people of God....and is why Jacob's name was changed TO Israel. All in Christ ARE Israel.

So, with that understanding, how is Core's claim that I believe Israel "HAS BEEN REPLACED" anything close to the truth?? It isn't.
Just another example of Core dodging biblical verses and presenting his inaccurate theories.

Maybe we can tackle this topic next.
You still do not get it how there can be one Body of Christ composed of two covenant peoples sharing one Christ.

Don't miss my post on Rev 3:10

InTheWind

12-15-2008, 04:39 PM

And, by the way, we appreciate all of those recent biblical verses you used to support yet another theory which runs on empty

Who`s this we you talk about, do you have others with you that believe what you do? Funny that your the only one debating your view. :scratch:

kay-gee

12-15-2008, 07:07 PM

Core, sometimes I think you may make a bit too large issue out of grammar and semantics. God gave us the Bible in such a way that even the simple people can understand it. (Matthew 11:25)
Aren't you wringing Rev 3:10 just a little hard to get the rapture out of it?
Suppose I had a plan to keep a baby from danger so I install a gate at the top of the stairs. I do not have to remove the baby from the house. If I were to write that down in a letter, and you read it , even years, later, I am sure you would know exactly what was meant.
I wish we could get past bickering over language and grammer and really get into Gods word and solve these doctrinal divisions. I am confident that Ltanner did not get to where he is today in his handling of the word of truth, by being lousy at spelling and grammar and phonetics.
Anyone can mis-read or mis-apply a scripture now and then but not verse upon verse upon verse that speak to a specific doctrine. Even mathematically the odds wouldnt support being wrong that many times.
Just humour Ltanner for a while, and bring forward the scriptures he asks for. I know they exist cause noone could be so adamant about premillenialism if they did not! I am not a bit closer to understanding this doctrine than I was a year ago.

all the best...

kay-gee

12-15-2008, 07:18 PM

Ltanner....thank-you for the verses. I agree with the verses that we are indeed of one fellowship. The called out of God.
When I speak of the post Pentecost church. There was no change in the fellowship, however there were some in the tenants and ordinances. To name a few. End of animal sacrifice. End of Sabbath observance. !st Century church began assembling on the first day of the week. End of circumcision and replacing with water baptism. End of passover and beginning of the Lords Supper.
I belong to the Church that was begun at Pentecost and was of Gods design from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

all the best...

CoreIssue

12-15-2008, 08:43 PM

Core, sometimes I think you may make a bit too large issue out of grammar and semantics. God gave us the Bible in such a way that even the simple people can understand it. (Matthew 11:25)
Yes. By normal rules of grammar, etc. What you learned in high school. Which involve using dictionaries, etc, as well.

When Len says Bible interpreting Bible, he does not mean adding meanings together for a greater picture, via grammar etc. He means per a set of rules that are not the norms of grammar based. No one learned his method in high school.
Aren't you wringing Rev 3:10 just a little hard to get the rapture out of it?
Since when did using proper word definition violate meanings?

I posted all of that to show Len was not using what the words mean when reading the verse. There is no other way to show what a word means other than to post the actual meanings.

Len said it meant every day tribulation as used in his 9 verses. What other way did I have to show it did not than to post the definitions?

You did see testing by tribulation and just tribulation are not the same thing?

And that tereo ek means protected by removal from the place at issue?

And that the place of issue is the whole earth?

And those tested are all of Man on the whole earth?

What else can you get out of that than Rapture? I could go to Matthew, and other places as well that declares Rapture, but restrained myself to here to illustrate the verse say removed from the earth.
Suppose I had a plan to keep a baby from danger so I install a gate at the top of the stairs. I do not have to remove the baby from the house.
What has that got to do with the context of the verse? Did you read the meaning?

It says removal from the whole earth, not the stairs within a house. So your example is totally non applicable and is an effort to keep the issues on the earth.

Why are you changing the contextual meaning from out of to within?
If I were to write that down in a letter, and you read it , even years, later, I am sure you would know exactly what was meant.
But your context is wrong. You have protected on the earth as context of your example because you don't want the Rapture or return of Israel.
I wish we could get past bickering over language and grammer and really get into Gods word and solve these doctrinal divisions.
You cannot do so without using grammar, meanings and such to read by. There is no other way to get to the real meaning of what is said.

Like telling someone to get their answers from a book when they never learned to read.
I am confident that Ltanner did not get to where he is today in his handling of the word of truth, by being lousy at spelling and grammar and phonetics.
Then you are wrong. I remember when he was Pre-Trib. He began moving away because he didn't like what was said. Began experimenting with theories and other views of how to read the Bible.

Len did not come to this doctrine on his own. He got it by studying Amil and other doctrines to find a doctine he found acceptable to him.

His arguments are not from his studies. They are from teachers of other doctrines.
Anyone can mis-read or mis-apply a scripture now and then but not verse upon verse upon verse that speak to a specific doctrine.
Complete wrong, KG. When you learn your meanings from false doctrinal teachers you are not getting it from the Bible, but them. The world is loaded with such thinking.
Even mathematically the odds wouldnt support being wrong that many times.
Absolutely wrong. In a statistical model, using the if/then test, when your if side is wrong, then all the then statements are also wrong.

You are basing your assumptions on Len finding this thinking on his own and throroughly studing it out to find the truth, not the doctrine being studied.

As in using the root word to define a word instead of the word itself. That is a tool to change the meaning of the actual word to satisfy your doctrine.

Or throwing away Ezekiel's Temple. You really accepting throwing away chunks of the Bible?

Or comparing unrelated contexts to say one defines the other? That is what Len calls scripture interpretting scripture.
Just humour Ltanner for a while, and bring forward the scriptures he asks for. I know they exist cause noone could be so adamant about premillenialism if they did not! I am not a bit closer to understanding this doctrine than I was a year ago.

all the best...
It will not satisfy Len. Believe me.

And I have answered his challenges, but he redefines everything.

Ltanner09

12-15-2008, 11:51 PM

Since when did using proper word definition violate meanings?

I posted all of that to show Len was not using what the words mean when reading the verse. There is no other way to show what a word means other than to post the actual meanings.

Len said it meant every day tribulation as used in his 9 verses. What other way did I have to show it did not than to post the definitions?

You did see testing by tribulation and just tribulation are not the same thing?

I'll try to make this easy to read.

Core posted REV 3:10 as proof the church would not experience tribulation.
I claimed REV 3:10 DID NOT speak to the church being taken out of the world to escape tribulation.

With me so far, Core?
I posted 8-9 verse showing the church WOULD experience tribulation.

Core claimed I posted verses speaking to TRIBULATION....not TESTING, which is shown in REV 3:10.

I posted (in post #18 of this thread, in regards to REV 3:10
Core focuses on the word "TRIAL" and tries making that MEAN tribulation.
But even Houdini couldn't do that. Here's what Core offers as "proof"

I then presented Strong's definition to TRIAL, the very word Core was using to demand TRIBULATION.
I continued to tell Core he was using a faulty definition to support his theory.

Post #22: from Core:

As always, Len, you go to other areas and try to say because a word was used in a context there it must be the same context as the discussion, which is an absurb conclusion always based on your theology.

Simple example of why your logic is flawed is the word tereo ek argument.

Oops, Core lost the ball in the sun. I was proving the church was promised tribulation, through my verses.
Core, somehow thought I was showing TRIAL (In REV 3) meant TRIBULATION.

Post #23 from Core:
KG, do you see what Len is doing? He takes issues that share some words or such and tries to use one to interpret the other even when the situations are TOTALLY different.

Core left the flip sunglasses in the dugout.
I was showing tribulation was promised to the church, Core is saying the church would be kept from TRIAL.

But TRIAL isn't even part of the issue, tribulation is.

Grammar 101: Core presents REV 3:10 and says the church is kept from TRIALS.
Again, it's off topic.
I presented verses (on topic) showing the church is NOT KEPT from tribulation.

In post #26 I reminded Core he was confused:
Core, I will assume you're just not reading my posts. I used your word "temptation" in Rev 3:10, I also gave biblical verses to what it means.

You wave this verse around and claim it's proof the church is raptured before the tribulation. But, you're using your red ball (temptation) and trying to make people see it's green (tribulation)

I even pointed this out AGAIN in post #27:
You're using Rev 3;10 which doesn't even SPEAK to tribulation, but to temptation. It doesn't even say anyone will be taken out of the world.

Post #32 by Core, who's looking for his GPS to get back on track:

Jjust food for thought, KG. I can read it all literally and fit it together. No sweat. And can walk through such as Rev 3:10, word by word, literally. Len cannot. Nor can you and have it as ancient history.

Core's still holding on to one word TRIAL and insists it's TRIBULATION.

Post #33, I wrote:
Core, I HAVE dealt with REV 3:10 literally....it doesn't contain the escape from tribulation you see. In fact it doesn't speak TO tribulation.

Post #35, Core incredibly posts the following:
Also, I can posts many examples and more of people experiencing tribulation throughout the Bible. Revelation is about a time of testing using tribulation,

Now Core adds to REV 3:10 and claims BOTH testing (trial) and tribulation are mentioned. But they're not.

Post #50, I'm still trying to get Core back on track:
My original question was for you to produce a verse where the church is promised an escape from tribulation. So far you haven't done anything with it, except for avoiding both the issue and topic of the thread

POst #55, I'm still hopeful I can get a reply:
You haven't used any bible references, other than Rev 3:10, to support anything you're claiming. Your claim that REV 3:10 deals, in any way...shape or form....with tribulation, has been proven wrong.

Post #58, Core has this to say:
It is a common tactic of those into unsound doctrine to declare someone has not posted verses or anything else to prove the case. What is really being said is others have posted nothing acceptable to them.

Like saying Revelation 3:10 is not proof because it is one lone verse. Well, I laid out a lot more than one lone verse. But that one lone verse is very clear and powerful in what it says.

But....Core DIDN'T list anything to support REV 3:10.....but claim THAT verse is very clear. Clear to WHAT?

It doesn't confirm his claim, that the church is taken out of the world to escape tribulation.
Doesn't mention tribulation.

Post #59, for the umpteenth time I remind Core:
You presented REV 3:10 and claimed it taught the church would be taken out of the world to escape tribulation.
Not only does this verse not address TRIBULATION, it says nothing about anyone being taken out of the world. It was the ONLY verse you
offered.

Then we get to Post #61. I'm tired of posting verses showing church DOES experience TRIBULATION and still waiting for Core to show ONE verse where the church escapes tribulation.

He states:
Len, as I said, your verses are not about the Trib. Nor do you read literally. So they are of no value on why and what the Trib is about. Get over it. THAT is the refutation to your verses.

But my verses ARE about the trib. YOUR verses are NOT. YOUR verses are about a time of trial that the church will be kept from, but THAT isn't tribulation.

In between this insanity, of trying to get you to support your position, you create polls, you divert the discussion to covenants, you attack my doctrine. you do everything but stick to the point.

If your doctrine is a solid as you claim, then simply prove it, biblically.

I'll get to the remainder of your post in a bit, but remember...I've answered every question you've posed to me. even though every question has been off topic.

Ltanner09

12-16-2008, 12:17 AM

Core wrote to KG:

When Len says Bible interpreting Bible, he does not mean adding meanings together for a greater picture, via grammar etc. He means per a set of rules that are not the norms of grammar based. No one learned his method in high school.

No one needs college degrees, expertise in grammar, or an IQ over 160 to understand scripture. They were written so children could understand them.

KG wrote:
Aren't you wringing Rev 3:10 just a little hard to get the rapture out of it?
Since when did using proper word definition violate meanings?

Core replied:
I posted all of that to show Len was not using what the words mean when reading the verse. There is no other way to show what a word means other than to post the actual meanings.

See? Core is still stuck on TRIALS in REV 3:10, but that verse DOESN'T say the church escapes TRIBULATION.

Len said it meant every day tribulation as used in his 9 verses. What other way did I have to show it did not than to post the definitions?

You did see testing by tribulation and just tribulation are not the same thing?

Where does REV 3:10 state "testing by tribulation"?

And that tereo ek means protected by removal from the place at issue?

"Kept from" doesn't mean taken out of the world. AND, I presented verses that destroy that theory from John 17.

the place of issue is the whole earth?
And those tested are all of Man on the whole earth?

What else can you get out of that than Rapture? I could go to Matthew, and other places as well that declares Rapture, but restrained myself to here to illustrate the verse say removed from the earth.

Core, you don't want to go down that road. I've already proven the disciples weren't asking about the 2nd coming as they were never told Christ was leaving the earth.

In reply to KG's analogy, Core writes:

It says removal from the whole earth, not the stairs within a house. So your example is totally non applicable and is an effort to keep the issues on the earth.

But, it DOESN'T say removal from the whole earth. I can be kept out of New York City without leaving earth.

Core offers his faulty opinions on my studies

Len did not come to this doctrine on his own. He got it by studying Amil and other doctrines to find a doctine he found acceptable to him.

His arguments are not from his studies. They are from teachers of other doctrines.

I bailed on pre trib-pre mill because they weren't supported by scripture.
I absolutely studied extensively, comparing the pre trib/pre mill view with the entire bible. Guess what, pre trib and pre mill aren't taught.

Core offers the following to KG:

When you learn your meanings from false doctrinal teachers you are not getting it from the Bible, but them. The world is loaded with such thinking.

But if you carefully compare any teaching with the bible, you can discern what is truth and what is a lie.

KG writes:

Just humour Ltanner for a while, and bring forward the scriptures he asks for. I know they exist cause noone could be so adamant about premillenialism if they did not! I am not a bit closer to understanding this doctrine than I was a year ago.

A reasonable request. All I've asked for is biblical proof that the church is promised an escape from tribulation. Seems like I've been asking for a long time.

Core replies:
It will not satisfy Len. Believe me.
And I have answered his challenges, but he redefines everything.

All I have done, over the past several debates is present biblical verses to support my beliefs and used those verses to dismiss your theories.

It's the same method I used to dismiss pre trib and pre mill.
It's all about the evidence.

__________________

Ltanner09

12-16-2008, 12:21 AM

KG, I've never asked, but are you pre mill (with questions) or on the pre mill/amill fence....or not satisfied with either?

Feel free to email me with any comments or questions.

Ltanner09

12-16-2008, 12:35 AM

KG wrote (probably the best post I've seen in a long time)

I wish we could get past bickering over language and grammer and really get into Gods word and solve these doctrinal divisions. I am confident that Ltanner did not get to where he is today in his handling of the word of truth, by being lousy at spelling and grammar and phonetics.
Anyone can mis-read or mis-apply a scripture now and then but not verse upon verse upon verse that speak to a specific doctrine. Even mathematically the odds wouldnt support being wrong that many times.

I've said this before, but sometimes it's more important for some to defend their doctrine instead of considering it's wrong.

If it stands up to the writings in the bible, there's little to fear. If it depends on opinions of man to survive, yet doesn't withstand the pressure applied by the biblical verses, it fails.

Anyone can misapply a verse, we're human.
But when two verses speak to the same thought (much like having two witnesses to substantiate an occurance) the confusion should disappear.

One example (and there are many) is the teaching that an antichrist will confirm a covenant with many.
Is that what the bible teaches?
If so, there should be an accompanying verse, such as the details of such a covenant or another verse stating something to the effect " a man of sin will confirm a covenant".

But there are none. I know because I studied hard (as pre mill) to find it.

But THERE IS a covenant covered extensively in the New Testament. It is a covenant with many. It was confirmed in Christ. It uses Daniels own quote "covenant with many".
And therein lies the proof of the prophecy what DAN 9:27 speaks of.

Not a fabled covenant with antichrist, where the bible is silent on the issue.

But a covenant, inclusive with all of the details on Daniel 9:24, clearly explained in the gospels and NT writings. A child could read and understand it.

CoreIssue

12-16-2008, 12:45 AM

Len, this is futility. You disregard word meaning because you do not believe in dictionaries. No, you believe that your interpretations allow you assign any meanings you want from anywhere you please.

You truly do not have a clue that grammar and real definitions apply to the Bible.

So, this thread is locked for you. If KG or someone asks a question here that justifies allowing you to post an answer, not just a justification to keep posting beliefs, I will unlock it for you.

I will also stay off the thread under the same rules.

Enough is enough. When you dismiss Greek meanings for words, that is beyond absurd. Refusing to accept flat out literal statements from a verse, that is beyond absurd.

No one can debate with anyone who invents their own rules and tries to force them on others.

kay-gee

12-21-2008, 02:35 AM

Core. I have looked at Rev 3:10 this week. I have studied it exhaustively. I have read it literally and non literally and every single way that it can be read and in 4 translations. I am not seeing the "rapture" there. One trans says testing. two say trial and one says temptation. Tribulation not once. A trial is a different thing. In a courtroom you have a trial. Testing is like trial. Temptation carries a slightly different connotation. Tempting is like being lured into something. All trans say keep but doesnt imply removing. True Christians will be spared the ultimate judgement of God. No doubt about it but the faithful is repeatedly promised tribulation. I'm struggling here. You got any back-up? I hope this is not one of those Joseph Smith type things where you can see the golden tablets if you just really really really have lots of faith. If that's the case, I'm sunk....I just don't have the faith to see what you are seeing in Rev 3:10.

all the best...

CoreIssue

12-21-2008, 02:18 PM

KG. Rapture is a theological term derived from the promise to remove living and dead saints to Christ via 'the snatching away.' Rapture is easier to say.

It literally mean taking by force. Not asking. Just doing it.

You find it in Matthew 24, where some are taken in the blink of an eye, others left. And other places where it literally say snatched away.

Now, you are wrong when you say it does not even imply removing. It isn't just 'keep.' The full adverbial phrase is 'keep from.'

From means 'out of, from'. Both terms mean removed from the place of concern/issue. Not there.

Tereo ek, 'keep from,' is anb adverbial phrase. It means preserved/protected from by removal. It does not mean protected in the place of concern. It means you are not even there, period.
Strong's Number: 1537 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=1537&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin ejka primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1537&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Ekliteral or figurative Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech ek Preposition Definition

out of, from, by, away from

It means that in the Greek and the English.

No mystical revelation here. It is plainly said in the Bible.

The place of the testing is the WHOLE EARTH and all who live on the WHOLE EARTH. You cannot be on the earth and out of the place of testing. Impossible by definition.

You are saying on the earth and protected IN the testing. That defies what is said.

There is no way around the word meaning. It means you will not be.

Yes, all saints will have tribulation. The word for temptation/testing/trial, here, means testing by tribulation. Not JUST tribulation.

The meaning of the 'hour of testing' most assuredly contains tribulation.
adversity, affliction, trouble: sent by God and serving to test or prove one's character, faith, holiness
It is the means God uses to test. By tribulation he tempts Man to make a decision of choosing him or Satan. Those who choose Satan get the Mark and later perish. Those who choose God risk martyrdom. Quite a definitive choice. But most will choose the hope of life with the Mark.

The Seals, Trumpets and Bowels are most assuredly tribubation. Trib as has never been seen before on the earth. 2/3 of Mankind dies.

So yes, Man is tempted to make a choice via the tribulation God sends upon the earth. It is not a one or other word usage. It is both. Testing via temptation due to tribulation.

The other verses in the NT do not use the word that means testing by tribulation. Most assuredly not testing by God. The word in the other verses just means tribulation with no purpose for it attached by word meaning.

The whole book of Revelation is prophecy. Rev 3:10 is also the 6th church of the Church Age. Keep reading and you see, next, the Church Lampstands are now gone, only the lamps/angels remain. Next you see the First Seal with the 24 Elders of the OT present in resurrected, glorified and rewarded bodies. That means the Rapture/Resurrection has occurred. So there, again, is the Rapture you are looking for.

One more kick in.

Matthew 24 deals with the Church Age and Israel. Verse 3 asks 3 questions that are answered there after.

Through verse 14 is a panorama of what must happen in history before the Rapture, Trib and Second Coming.

Verse 15 is Mid 70th Week of Daniel and Mid Trib of Revelation.

Verses 27-31 is the Second Coming. You see the gathering of Israel in verse 31.

That answers what are when will these things happen and what will be the sign of his coming (Second Coming since he was already here in his First). It focuses on Israel.

Verses 32 on deal with the question on the End of the Age. That is dealt with separately because the Church Age is the Age that will be ending, not Israel.

It ends when Israel returns. So it deals with the return of Israel as a sign of the end of the age, verses 32-35.

Then it says no one but the Father knows when the Age will end. But it will be like the days of Noah when it happens, as in it will not be expected by the world. Verses 37-39.

Then the Age Ends with the Rapture. Living saints will just disappear. Poof!

Three question asked and three answers given.

Finally, here is the where the word Rapture is derived from to label the event.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 (New International Version)

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.

Strong's Number: 726 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=726&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin aJrpavzwfrom a derivative of (138 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=138&version=kjv)) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=726&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Harpazo1:472,80 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech har-pad'-zo Verb Definition

to seize, carry off by force
to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly
to snatch out or away

King James Word Usage - Total: 13 catch up 4, take by force 3, catch away 2, pluck 2, catch 1, pull 1
So, why would the Church even need to be tested to begin with? No reason.

And in Thessalonians it says the AC cannot be revealed until the Restrainer (Holy Spirit) is taken out of the way. He goes we go.

Nothing allows for anything but the Rapture.

InTheWind

12-21-2008, 02:51 PM

Most excellent. :yowza:

Willy

12-21-2008, 06:14 PM

2Th 2:1-17
Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers,
not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?
And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope,
encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.As Core says ... the Holy Spirit goes ... the Church goes.

From the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden, it is God who has been seeking lost man .... not man seeking God. There will be a time ... soon ... when this old world will get it's wish. They will get a chance to do it their way ... without interference ... without the restraining power of God holding back pure evil. ...As bad as it seems now, it is almost beyond comprehension what will occur without God's Spirit striving with man.

John 16 : 7-14
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:
in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me;
in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer;
and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.