[Wondergirl]

Most of them now agree that people are saved by grace through faith in every age. But I'll let that pass :D

Like Caesar reporting on a war and telling the Senate, "I won't mention to you that my soldiers have no sandals".. .

[classyT]

Dave,

Who are these theologians with an AX to grind? Ha ha ha.. lol that is funny.

I am right.. you are wrong.. I'm going to go rustle up some verses for you.

This is something I honestly have never argued before. I thought EVERYBODY understood the age of Grace. You do need my help after all...

[dwashbur]

Dave,

Who are these theologians with an AX to grind? ha ha ha..lol that is funny.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, C. I. Scofield, to name just a few scholars; Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, to name just a few wannabes. They all start with the artificial dispensational schema and then try to cram the Bible into it, no matter how bad the fit.

On the other side you might check out G. E. Ladd, R. C. H. Lenski and a few others, just to get a feel for what excellent alternatives are out there. I'd be willing to bet you've never actually read anything from the "other side" (there are actually 2 or 3) with an open mind, just what the dispensationalists have said about them.

I have no problem with you believing as you do, just don't let your faith crumble when it doesn't happen that way.

[galveston]

I have yet to see anybody consider the kind of literature we're dealing with in both Revelation and Daniel. Both are apocalyptic, which means they're both pretty much symbolic through and through. That's the big problem I have with the whole Left Behind thing: it insists on taking everything literally, when NONE of it was ever meant to be taken that way.

As for the rapture, let's clarify our terms. There are a handful of views on it. The one popularized in the (hideously-written) Left Behind books is the pre-trib rapture. There's also post-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, and symbolic. The pre-trib idea doesn't hold water, especially in the Left Behind way, because Titus 2:13 in the Greek makes it clear that the "blessed hope" and the "glorious appearing" are the same event. The mid-trib and pre-wrath are really just variants of the same idea: I can't be pre but I don't wanna be post. The symbolic view seems to be contradicted by the most famous rapture passage, 1 Thess 4:13ff which does not seem to be symbolism or metaphor. That only leaves one option, and that's where I come down. "Literal interpretation" has done as much to damage the cause of Christianity in the US as anything else, in my somewhat arrogant opinion.

As for the original question, go back to what I said about the literary style of Revelation. I don't see any specific "tribulation" period of 7 years or any other stretch of years. My own view is that all that stuff is symbolic of what's been happening ever since Jesus' ascension, and will continue to happen until he comes back.

Obviously, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).

The Book of Revelation and the prophecies of Daniel (spoken by an angel) are both time- specific.

Daniel tells us that it is the 70th week determined on Israel. That week starts with the signing of the covenant with the "man of sin/Beast/Anti-Christ"

Anyone unfortunate enough to still be here can mark their calendars, because Daniel expresses the events by days.

The reason Jesus said that even He did not know the time of His return is because the Church Age is of no definite time. No one can know UNTIL certain events take place.

If there is no definite week (seven), then the Angels words mean nothing.

Now if you WANT to stay here for the whole show-------.

Did anyone ever get specific to Fred's question?

There will be:
Wars, famine, disease, an astroid hitting the sea, nuclear explosions, great intense Sun storms, demonic creatures unknown to man.

Did I forget anything? You want references? I can give them.

[galveston]

Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, C. I. Scofield, to name just a few scholars; Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, to name just a few wannabes. They all start with the artificial dispensational schema and then try to cram the Bible into it, no matter how bad the fit.

On the other side you might check out G. E. Ladd, R. C. H. Lenski and a few others, just to get a feel for what excellent alternatives are out there. I'd be willing to bet you've never actually read anything from the "other side" (there are actually 2 or 3) with an open mind, just what the dispensationalists have said about them.

I have no problem with you believing as you do, just don't let your faith crumble when it doesn't happen that way.

I'm shocked at you!:D

You didn't mention the Evangelists, Paul, Peter, Jude----.

Don't you consider their writings sufficient to base your belief on?

BTW, I didn't get MY theology from the Left Behind books.

[dwashbur]

I'm shocked at you!:D

You didn't mention the Evangelists, Paul, Peter, Jude----.

Don't you consider their writings sufficient to base your belief on?

Yes, that's why I'm not dispensational and don't buy the pretrib stuff.

BTW, I didn't get MY theology from the Left Behind books.

I don't recall saying you did.

[arcura]

Galviston,
I very much disagree with this statement of yours...
"Anyone unfortunate enough to still be here can mark their calendars, because Daniel expresses the events by days.

The reason Jesus said that even He did not know the time of His return is because the Church Age is of no definite time. No one can know UNTIL certain events take place".
God The Father knows ALL.
Jesus said that only the Father knows.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

God The Father knows ALL.
Jesus said that only the Father knows.

Gal knows that. Gal was referring to people, not the Father.

[donf]

I don't know about the rest of you do, but every morning when I wake I find all sorts of tribulations waiting to greet me.

So why do I wake and face them every day, because gives me the Grace to greet them.

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
Sorry but I did not noticed that.
Fred

[galveston]

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2305723]

Okay, you mention the whole "TO EARTH with his saints" in opposition to the whole rapture thing. The Bible never separates the two; as someone else has pointed out, Jesus' return is always shown as a single event, not a two-part one. There is no evidence at all that his return includes some secret partial return that is then aborted and he goes back to try again. The only passage that seems to refer to such an idea is Titus 2:13, which I have already dealt with. A correct translation is "the blessed hope, that is, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." It describes them as the same event. The whole two-part return is utterly foreign to the Bible.
QUOTE]


Isa 61:1-2
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
(KJV)

Luke 4:18-19
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
(KJV)

Do you see the difference between these two passages?

Jesus stopped in the middle of a verse!

He said he was here to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

He left off "and the day of vengeance of our God" because that is to come later.

Since He separated what was viewed as one statement into two different ministries, or time frames, why do you insist that there is no rapture separated from His return?

The way to interpret Bible verse is to accept words a literal unless it is not possible to do so.
If it is intended as symbolic, the Bible will tell us that somewhere. The Bible is self - interpreting.

[Wondergirl]

Do you see the difference between these two passages? Jesus stopped in the middle of a verse! He said he was here to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. He left off "and the day of vengeance of our God" because that is to come later.

So, let me get this straight. If we think words are missing from the Bible, we can feel free to add what we think belongs there. Wow!

[sabrewolfe]

Hi Fred,
As always, another good topic you have brought up.

The end of times and tribulations. Within this realm we call our reality, we have always, for thousands of years gone through many signs that the end times are among us and the world as we know it is at it's brink of desolation. Meteors, earthquakes, famines, tsunamies, pestilance, wars, floods, diseases, plagues, droughts, extreme climate changes, volcanic eruptions, economic collapses, the rise and fall of empires. Yes, the history of mankind and the world has shown us many different chapters of man's fear of the end.
But has mankind finally seen past regualities and come to his senses of the real signs of tribulations? As again, great question from you Arcura, I can see your in-depthness to that question.
What is the truest, most absolute answer to your question? In one word- DECEPTION.
We are, and have always been in the midst of evils deception. The battle has been going on since the beginning of time itself, since man's calculatable time. Since the beginning of creation.
I could go to and fro from where this deception was slowly bestowed upon us since our beginnings, but I think we only, as Christiana, followers of the Creator, the most evolved, need not go through all it's steps. We can see NOW how it has come to such a giant proportion.
We have come to a time where right and wrong have been confused by being expected to "accept" things that are wrong, because if we do not, we are labeled wrong or politically "incorrect", even predjudice. We are told that homosexuality is acceptable, divorce is always ans option, reciting the pledge of allegiance is "religious" and should not be recited in schools, because it says, "One nation, under God". Technology is consistently pushed and encouraged to separate good old fashioned socialism. Birth control is encouraged more than the bible and abstenance, which has resulted in more teenaged, even pre-teenaged sex than ever before. Television, one of the biggest deceptors of all, the one eyed monster. We are constantly being drilled over and over again to question our own moralities.
In the beginning, God created man and woman. They didn't need or want for anything. They had all and more than mankind has ever had since, even eternal life. They had total perfection, wellness, and happiness, without technology, without government or politics, WITHOUT A PSYCHIATRIST OR MARRIAGE COUNSELOR!
But when they surcame to the great deceiver, they had surcome to it's downfalls as well. The great LIE.

[Wondergirl]

But when they surcame to the great deceiver, thay had surcome to it's downfalls as well. The great LIE.

What are you referring to with "surcome" and "surcame"? Do you mean succomb (yield, give in) and succombed (yielded, gave in)?

[sabrewolfe]

What are you referring to with "surcome" and "surcame"? Do you mean succomb (yield, give in) and succombed (yielded, gave in)?

Yeah.

[dwashbur]

Okay, you mention the whole "TO EARTH with his saints" in opposition to the whole rapture thing. The Bible never separates the two; as someone else has pointed out, Jesus' return is always shown as a single event, not a two-part one. There is no evidence at all that his return includes some secret partial return that is then aborted and he goes back to try again. The only passage that seems to refer to such an idea is Titus 2:13, which I have already dealt with. A correct translation is "the blessed hope, that is, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." It describes them as the same event. The whole two-part return is utterly foreign to the Bible.

Okay, first things first. Since you quoted my comments but didn't try to refute them, I'll assume that you agree with what I said regarding Titus 2:13. That shoots the whole pretrib rapture idea right there, because we, the so-called "church age" are instructed to watch and wait for this event. That would suggest, does it not, that Paul expected us to be able to see it? Again, since you didn't comment, I'll conclude that you agree.

Isa 61:1-2
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
(KJV)

Luke 4:18-19
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
(KJV)

Do you see the difference between these two passages?

Jesus stopped in the middle of a verse!

Actually, he didn't. In his time, and in Isaiah's for that matter, there were no "verses." As I recall, the verse divisions were added to the text somewhere around the 14th century AD.

He said he was here to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

He left off "and the day of vengeance of our God" because that is to come later.

Let's go with your approach just for a moment. Why don't YOU finish the verse? What about "to comfort all who mourn?" Are you saying that because he hasn't returned yet, there's no comfort coming from him for those who mourn now?

And as WG already indicated, you're reading your own ideas into why he stopped where he did. You ASSUME it's because "that is to come later," but you don't really have any evidence to back up that assumption; it's just what you've been taught and it seems to support your notion. He stopped because he chose to. Anything you say beyond that is baseless assumption, nothing more.

Since He separated what was viewed as one statement into two different ministries, or time frames, why do you insist that there is no rapture separated from His return?

He didn't separate anything. You assume he did so you can play this game.

The way to interpret Bible verse is to accept words a literal unless it is not possible to do so.

Thank you for that pretty-much direct quote from the Tsion character in the Left Behind books. And it's nonsense. I don't know where you actually got that, but it's flat wrong. The way to interpret the Bible is to read it on its own terms. That means we read the psalms as poetry, we read Acts as narrative story, we read Revelation as symbolism. That's how the books were intended, and your approach "accept words a [sic] literal unless it is not possible to do so" is not only wrong, it's insulting and disrespectful to the vast and wonderful variety of literary styles that we have in the Bible.

If it is intended as symbolic, the Bible will tell us that somewhere. The Bible is self - interpreting.

Get real.

[galveston]

Okay. Let's deal with symbolism a bit.

Symbolism means something, otherwise, it is meaningless. Let's look first at the symbolism in Daniel, specifically the image that represented the various kingdoms of the world.

Let's skip to the part about the stone striking the idol on the feet and grinding the whole thing to poweder. That portrays the final end of world kingdoms, and the ushering in of the physical Kingdom of God.

Since this has obviously NOT happened yet, it HAS to be future. So we see that the prophecies of Daniel are not finished YET.

Now for Revelaton, let's look at just one symbol (you choose to call it that).


Rev 8:8
8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
(KJV)

If you have a better description of an asteroid or large meteor striking the sea, I would like to hear it.

That hasn't happened in recorded history, so it must be future, right?

Those of you who think you have seen the wrath of God are so wrong.

[dwashbur]

Okay. Let's deal with symbolism a bit.

Symbolism means something, otherwise, it is meaningless. Let's look first at the symbolism in Daniel, specifically the image that represented the various kingdoms of the world.

Let's skip to the part about the stone striking the idol on the feet and grinding the whole thing to poweder. That portrays the final end of world kingdoms, and the ushering in of the physical Kingdom of God.

Since this has obviously NOT happened yet, it HAS to be future. So we see that the prophecies of Daniel are not finished YET.

You've given us assumption upon assumption upon assumption. It portrays four kingdoms, nothing more. We think we can look back and see what they were, but it's by no means certain. In addition, there's no evidence that it's talking about a "physical Kingdom of God"; it's fulfilled by the coming of Jesus and the breaking-in of God's kingdom to earthly history, i.e. us. You're taking a flying leap with your interpretation, and there are plenty of others. Like so many others, you're overlaying your preconceived theology - dispensationalism - onto the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

Now for Revelaton, let's look at just one symbol (you choose to call it that).


Rev 8:8
8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
(KJV)

If you have a better description of an asteroid or large meteor striking the sea, I would like to hear it.

That hasn't happened in recorded history, so it must be future, right?

Those of you who think you have seen the wrath of God are so wrong.

Oh, please. And that's the ONLY thing it could indicate, right? You said you're looking at a symbol, but then you turned right around and took it literally. Is this a joke? If you're going to look at symbols, look at symbols. If you're going to take it literally, feel free to do so. But don't claim one and then do the other. I wish I could believe you're just yanking our chains, but the sad truth is, you really don't have a clue what you just did to the text.

Frankly, I see no reason to continue responding to this kind of doubletalk.

[galveston]

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2309896]You've given us assumption upon assumption upon assumption. It portrays four kingdoms, nothing more. We think we can look back and see what they were, but it's by no means certain. In addition, there's no evidence that it's talking about a "physical Kingdom of God"; it's fulfilled by the coming of Jesus and the breaking-in of God's kingdom to earthly history, i.e. us. You're taking a flying leap with your interpretation, and there are plenty of others. Like so many others, you're overlaying your preconceived theology - dispensationalism - onto the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

Now who is ignoring scripture?
"We think we can look back and see what they were, but it's by no means certain." (Your words)


Dan 2:31-42
31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
(KJV)

The context tells us what the 4 kingdoms were.In this passage Babylon, is identified as the head. In Daniels dream, the other kingdoms are shown in different symbols, but they all mean the same thing; Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

Do you ever read the Old Testament or are you one of those who dismiss it as no longer relevant?

You have lost the debate, so you threaten to take your marbles and go home?

[dwashbur]

[QUOTE=galveston;2310854]

You've given us assumption upon assumption upon assumption. It portrays four kingdoms, nothing more. We think we can look back and see what they were, but it's by no means certain. In addition, there's no evidence that it's talking about a "physical Kingdom of God"; it's fulfilled by the coming of Jesus and the breaking-in of God's kingdom to earthly history, i.e. us. You're taking a flying leap with your interpretation, and there are plenty of others. Like so many others, you're overlaying your preconceived theology - dispensationalism - onto the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

Now who is ignoring scripture?
"We think we can look back and see what they were, but it's by no means certain." (Your words)


Dan 2:31-42
31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
(KJV)

The context tells us what the 4 kingdoms were.In this passage Babylon, is identified as the head. In Daniels dream, the other kingdoms are shown in different symbols, but they all mean the same thing; Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

The context identifies Nebuchadnezzar specifically as the head, not Babylon as an empire, so even there you're wrong. None of the other parts are actually identified, so you're still assuming the rest. Where exactly does it say the others are Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome? (hint: it doesn't. That's the assumption you're making, and it's amazing that you can't see it.)

Do you ever read the Old Testament or are you one of those who dismiss it as no longer relevant?

My Masters degree is in Old Testament. You tell me. It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.

You have lost the debate, so you threaten to take your marbles and go home?