The tribulations are coming some day.
What do you think could happen that would cause the entire world to live in hard times and fear.
Could it be world wide drought?
A very wide spread world war?
Or something such as a comet striking the moon and sending millions of pieces flying in eccentric orbits to deteriorate and fall to earth like rain over many years?
Think of the problems and fear something like that would cause.
What do you think??
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

We've been living in the tribulations for over 2,000 years.

Wondergirl ,
Yes, to some extent I agree, but I was speaking about the 7 years of tribulations near the end of this age.
Thanks for your input.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl ,
Yes, to some extent I agree, but I was speaking about the 7 years of tribulations near the end of this age.
Maybe we're there already in those final seven years -- tsunamis, earthquakes, ethnic cleansing, wars and skirmishes, mudslides, avalanches, floods, forest fires, climate changes, disappearing animal habitats, endangered and disappearing animals and insects... shall I go on?

Wondergirl,
What you have described has been going on for thousands of years.
But the bible talks about what looks like stars falling from the skies near the end.
We have had meteor showers for thousands of years but nothing like a constant rain of meteors and meteorites like what I speculated.
That would cause many more earthquakes and even start heavy volcanic activity, also many many giant ocean waves and forest fires.
The devastation would be scattered all over the planet.
People who survived would be living in constant fear.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That would cause many more earthquakes and even start heavy volcanic activity, also many many giant ocean waves and forest fires.
The devastation would be scattered all over the planet.
People who survived would be living in constant fear.

We have all that now and more -- and more often -- with more and more fear. We may be in the last seven years, Fred.

Wondergirl,
What you have described has been going on for thousands of years.
But the bible talks about what looks like stars falling from the skies near the end.
We have had meteor showers for thousands of years but nothing like a constant rain of meteors and meteorites like what I speculated.
That would cause many more earthquakes and even start heavy volcanic activity, also many many giant ocean waves and forest fires.
The devastation would be scattered all over the planet.
People who survived would be living in constant fear.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Just wanted to ask,
About the stars falling and meteors, would not that end every living thing?
Does that also last for seven years?Or is that right at the end of the tribulation?



.

firmbeliever,
Not as I described.
The stuff knocked off the moon would be in millions of pieces mostly grains of sand to bowling ball size which would eventually his earths atmosphere and burn up before hitting the earth.
Other pieces the size of houses would cause damage.
All the pieces in eccentric orbit would eventually fall to earth and to the moon over time, perhaps years.
Actually it all depends on the size of the comet or asteroid that hits the moon.
If it was several miles big that would cause even more damage to this planet.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

arcura

But RC never teaches that. I thought according to them The Book of Revelation is metaphorical and the tribulation is already over. Because according to the Bible a Rapture first happens and that marks the beginning of the seven year tribulation. But the Rapture according to you is a hoax. So why isn't the rest a hoax?

Wondergirl

The Rapture is not a hoax it has strong scriptural base. I was asking arcura why he believes only a part of the scripture and leaves out the rest.

Wondergirl

The Rapture...has strong scriptural base.
Part of one verse?

inhisservice,
Believe as you wish.
But this question is about the tribulations at the end of the age.
What do you think they will be like?
Peace and kindness,'
Fred

firmbeliever,
Not as I described.
The stuff knocked off of the moon would be in millions of pieces mostly grains of sand to bowling ball size which would eventually his earths atmosphere and burn up before hitting the earth.
Other pieces the size of houses would cause damage.
All the pieces in eccentric orbit would eventually fall to earth and to the moon over time, perhaps years.
Actually it all depends on the size of the comet or asteroid that hits the moon.
If it was several miles big that would cause even more damage to this planet.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,
Could you please explain to the rest of that are not as enlightened as you claim to be where you get this theory?

The tribulations are coming some day.
What do you think could happen that would cause the entire world to live in hard times and fear.
Could it be world wide drought?
A very wide spread world war?
Or something such as a comet striking the moon and sending millions of pieces flying in eccentric orbits to deteriorate and fall to earth like rain over many years?
Think of the problems and fear something like that would cause.
What do you think?????
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

Are you writing science fiction Fred or trying to paraphase Revelation.

The Book of Revelation is very clear regarding the Tribulations. War, Famine, Pestilence, Earthquakes, catastrophies originating on Earth and in the heavens. I could carry your scenario into asteroid or comet strike 8.9, 8.10 more than once, mass extinction 16.3, coronal mass ejection 16.8, extreme weather events 16.18 and ultimate judgement. These events are so powerful much of the Earth is destroyed

450donn,
Please read the question.
I referred to a possible comet or asteroid stick on the moon sending millions of moon particles into eccentric orbit that would decay and relentlessly strike the earth over years.

Paraclete you got the picture fairly well. I was speculating that an asteroid or comet strike on the moon could cause much of what Revelations tell us.
What do you think could trigger the tribulations?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn,
Please read the question.
I referred to a possible comet or asteroid stick on the moon sending millions of moon particles into eccentric orbit that would decay and relentlessly strike the earth over years.

Paraclete you got the picture fairly well. I was speculating that an asteroid or comet strike on the moon could cause much of what Revelations tell us.
What do you think could trigger the tribulations?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Read the Book of Revelation Fred these things are the judgement of God. It begins when his patience runs out. It takes something really outstanding to darken the sun, Fred. An asteroid strike on Earth could do it

paraclete,
Thanks but I have read Revelations.
Yes your suggestion could do it.
I'm wondering about other things that might trigger the tribs.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, if you are going to use the Bible, please use it correctly, It is Revelation not revelationS. Or the REVELATION OF JOHN.
It is the tribulation not tribulationS
If you had actually read and studied the Revelation of John and the book of Daniel you would know more than the words. Before a person can speak on a subject this profound with any sort of authority it takes a lot of time understanding what it being said. This cannot be accomplished by sitting under the teachings of only one person or religious organization. You will get a jaded prospective and never see what is being taught. Especially if that teaching is coming from only the head of that religious organization.

450donn,
Your ussumptions are way off base and...
You ar nit picking about word use.
I chose the word tribulations I used for a reason.
For I think the tribulation time will have several effects or disasters.
I case you can not see I think for myself .
Peace and kindness,
Fred

OK Fred, I give up what Assumptions are way off base. That you have no understanding of the last days or that you have never read or studied the Revelation of John? If you had actually read and studied the prophesy in Daniel about the last days and studied the book of Revelation with an open mind instead of the closed mind you are stuck with you might understand that we have not yet entered the tribulation period. The restraining force that is holding back Satan and the false profit is the Church of Jesus Christ here on earth. When the trumpet sounds and Jesus calls his people out of this world, that will signal the start of the Tribulation. This is not a second coming as you so mistakenly try to assert. Then and only then Satan will loosed to run wild for a period of 7 years. The first half will be relatively peaceful. It is not until he breaks the treaty with Israel at the 3-1/2 year mark that things really get bad. This is when the plagues will be unleashed upon the earth. Culminating in the battle of Armageddon. After that, with Jesus sitting on his throne in Jerusalem, all people both the living and dead will be reseructed and judged according to their deeds. Those who's names are found in the book will be judged worthy and will be with MY Lord for all times. The rest will be sent to hell, Hades, purgatory what ever you choose to call it. It will be the lake of fire to be tormented for all eternity. Satan will then be bound for a thousand years. After that time he will be loosed upon the earth for a period. At the end of that time he will then be defeated and cast along with the false Prophet into the lake of fire. Believe it, don't believe it, I really don't care. That is what the bible teaches, so I choose to believe the bible!

What you are seeing in the world today, wars, earthquakes, volcano's are all signs that point to the end. They are all foretold in the Bible as signs of the end of this age and the beginning of the next period, the tribulation.

450donn,
I think you just don't get it from what I say.
I was speculating about what could trigger the tribulations from a nature point of view.
I KNOW what the bible says. I KNOW that tribulation time is not yet and won't be for many years because of unfulfilled prophesy.
I am not a believer in the rapture, but apparently you are.
So be it.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

OK Fred I will repost my comments about the signs of the end of this age for you;

What you are seeing in the world today, wars, earthquakes, volcano's are all signs that point to the end. They are all foretold in the Bible as signs of the end of this age and the beginning of the next period, the tribulation.

Since NO ONE knows the hour or the day of the end of this age, I really do not understand how YOU can make false claims that the end is so far off?
What exactly prophesies have not been fulfilled yet? As I see it everything that was prophesied has been completed. As I am typing this another hugh earthquake has been reported in South America. So this is another sign of the end of this age In my opinion. But I understand that you don't believe this because the RCC does not teach the end of the age. Sad really.

What you are seeing in the world today, wars, earthquakes, volcano's are all signs that point to the end. They are all foretold in the Bible as signs of the end of this age and the beginning of the next period, the tribulation.Haven't there been wars, earthquakes and volcanos since the dawn of man, for thousands of years? What makes these recent ones any different?

NK,
As long as you are asking out of curiosity I will be glad to answer. The bible speaks about earthquakes in Strange places. Don't you think Chile is sort of strange? Volcano's and there is another one rumbling to life In South America. Wars and rumors of war. The middle east comes to mind, but there are rumors of wars across the earth. Israel deciding to increase building in the disputed areas of Jerusalem is another sign I believe. Especially after Obama's snubbing of Israel during his last trip to the region. I am reminded of what happened to the United Kingdom in the last 100 years. Once the most powerful and richest nation on earth when the UK turned it's backs on the Jews God turned his back on the UK and in less than 100 years they have gone from a position on immense strength and wealth to one of mediocrity on the world stage. Singularly they can be written of as nothing of importance. But collectively they In my opinion point to the last days before Gods pours his wrath upon the earth.

Don't you think Chile is sort of strange?
No, it's part of a fault line. Here, you can educate yourself: Nazca Plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Plate)
It's not a strange place just because it's far from where you live. The world is an amazing place, you should travel more.


Volcano's and there is another one rumbling to life In South America. Google volcano + ring of fire


Wars and rumors of war. The middle east comes to mind, but there are rumors of wars across the earth.{/quote] See my first post, you haven't answered anything there.
[QUOTE=450donn;2270032] Israel deciding to increase building in the disputed areas of Jerusalem is another sign i believe.How about the American invasion of Iraq, was that a sign to you? If not, why?


I am reminded of what happened to the United Kingdom in the last 100 years. Once the most powerful and richest nation on earth when the UK turned it's backs on the Jews God turned his back on the UK and in less than 100 years they have gone from a position on immense strength and wealth to one of mediocrity on the world stage. Singularly they can be written of as nothing of importance. But collectively they IMHO point to the last days before Gods pours his wrath upon the earth.I have no idea what the UK story explains. The US is also wallowing in mediocrity but you don't mention that.

You really haven't made any valid argument here.

450donn,
There was no need to repast that.
I already know it as I said.
The main prophesy still to be fulfilled id the building of the third temple.
Though funds are now being collected for such the Muslims are in control of the Temple Mount and unlikely to allow the building of the temple soon.
Also because NO IRON can be used in the building thereof it will take many years to build it and cedars must come from Lebanon.
My MINIMUM guess for construction is at least 50 years but more like 100.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The building of the temple does not occur until after the rapture. We have discussed that before and it is apparent that you do not believe that Israel has already collected many of the tools and utensils needed for sacrifice. They have also discovered the original placement of the temple and the Dome of the Rock is not in the way. The authorities have discovered very recently that the original location is a bit North (I believe) of the dome. So there is no interference. In a one world government system that will occur after the rapture Lebanon will be under the control of the one world ruler. As such the cedars will become readily available. And like I said before, under a single ruler system the resources could be made available build any structures that are to be built in very short order. Actually that last hurdle was very recently overcome. The special blue dye used to dye the priests robes. The formula has been lost for centuries and a small sample was actually found. Now, using modern technology the actual formula has been determined. Guess what, the end is Near. Far nearer that you are being led to believe. Maybe you need to get out of your bubble and start listening to teachings on the last days from knowledgeable people outside the RCC. Or is that another law you cannot violate?

I have no idea what the UK story explains. The US is also wallowing in mediocrity but you don't mention that.

You really haven't made any valid argument here.

What I was trying to explain to you was how a government who turns it back on Israel is doomed to extinction. Same for the US or any country. It has happened countless times throughout history, The UK being the latest example. The US can not be far behind with our current leaders policies toward Israel. I do not disagree about the ring of fire. However the ring has been relatively quiet for many centuries. Now it is rumbling to life. So if a region or tectonic plate system has been quiet for 100,000 years and now is coming to life what does say to you? What do you believe then if these signs are not signs of the end of the age? I have been open, so how about you for a change?

450donn,
That is IF the rapture takes place which I and a great many others do NOT believe in.
The ring of fire has not been dormant for centuries. During the last few centuries as before it has had periods of activity and quiet just like right now.
It is unlike Yellowstone Park which has not erupted for many centuries.
The history of the ring of fire is easily available.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn,
You are arguing for a rapture in the near future because this is something you wish to happen. Others don't feel the same way.

NeedKarma,
You have made a very good point.
Most Christians do not believe in the rapture for they believe it is not biblical theology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

NeedKarma,
You have made a very good point.
Most Christians do not believe in the rapture for they believe it is not biblical theology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred you are not in the position to tell a non Christians what most Christians believe in, the rapture is entirely Scriptural so perhaps you should say it's not Fred's theology

paraclete,
Sorry, but I very much disagree.
The rapture is a hoax and NOT biblical although some folks have put together SELECTED verses in an ATTEMPT to sell that theology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

NeedKarma,
You have made a very good point.
Most Christians do not believe in the rapture for they believe it is not biblical theology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, lets be completely honest. You and YOUR brand of religion choose to ignore the truth as found in the bible on this subject. So why do you ask questions then? Your brand or religion may or may not be "most" You cannot say for sure. I ask you once before to open your eyes to the teachings of scholars that study this subject and have more than a passing knowledge about the rapture and the end times. Why don't you for a change and then come back with at least some semblance of knowledge on the subject.

paraclete,
Sorry, but I very much disagree.
The rapture is a hoax and NOT biblical although some folks have put together SELECTED verses in an ATTEMPT to sell that theology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
So you have finally made public your true feeling about God and the Bible. If the rapture is in your words a hoax, then the whole bible must be a hoax. Is that how you truly feel?
By selected verses are you referring to the books of Daniel and Revelation among others?

I just wanted to say I've read the whole Left Behind series, and it is such a nice concept of the rapture and the tribulation. It is very detailed and it makes you think a lot. Such a scary time to be around on earth, but I believe it will happen. Just hope and pray I won't be around to experience it first hand.

paraclete,
Sorry, but I very much disagree.
The rapture is a hoax and NOT biblical although some folks have put together SELECTED verses in an ATTEMPT to sell that theology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred that is rich coming from a member of the RCC. Your theoolgy is based on selected verses, this is why you have priests, why you have circumcision, why you have purgatory, why you sprinkle children and call it baptism, and you dare to tell us that beliefs contrary to your position are a hoax. There is more reason from Scripture to believe in the rapture than most of your dogma

paraclete,
Sorry, but The Church believe the entire bible not bits and pieces as you claim.
That is why I became a Catholic. I formerly believed as you do.
I know better now.
Fred

Fred you are not in the position to tell a non Christians what most Christians believe in, the rapture is entirely Scriptural so perhaps you should say it's not Fred's theologyI was merely pointing out the 450donn that the "facts" about earthquakes and volcanoes he uses to back up his claim are erroneous. There is no increased activity. People believe what they want to believe.

paraclete,
Sorry, but The Church believe the entire bible not bits and pieces as you claim.
That is why I became a Catholic. I formerly believed as you do.
I know better now.
Fred
Sorry Fred, but you are simply going around in circles. You claim to believe in the whole bible, but yet you claim to NOT believe in the rapture. So which is it? The bible, or the teachings of the RCC as the current pope chooses to interpret it?
You NEVER believed as I do! If you had you would know and follow Christ instead of the pope

NeedKarma,
Thanks for the clarification.
You are correct.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I believe there is a great deal of missinformation about these things. The great tribulation is not confirmed as a 7 year event anywhere in scripture. Furthermore the great tribulation should not be confused with the great day of gods wrath. Matt 24:21 jesus describes a length of time for tribulation and in yhe next verse proclaims a shorting of that time for the sake of the elect. Tribulation is translated from two greek words which literally mean birth pangs. Think of tribulation like contractions during labor and it becomes evident that tribulation against the people of god has in a steady manner go on from exactly the time jesus said it would,the beginning of sorrows,progressively getting stronger in nature even in this present day. We here in the United States seem to be unaware of this things going on world wide,and giving to assumtion that tribulation is for a latter date. The reality is people of God are being murded at the same rate as the days of the early apostles yet on a global scale. The wrath of God is decscribed as beginning with the opening of the sixth seal in rev. 6:12-17 and matt. 24:29-31. Hope this helps

belovedgift ,
Thanks much for that.
Yes, Christianity is under fire in many places including in the USA.
In that respect one can say that the tribulations are at work right now.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

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 want to 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).

We've been living in the tribulations for over 2,000 years.

Yeah, I think that is true. Look at all of the things that have transpired over the last 100 years alone... if the Holocaust and two World Wars aren't enough to be considered tribulation, I don't know what is.

I do very much agree.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

yeah, I think that is true. Look at all of the things that have transpired over the last 100 years alone...if the Holocaust and two World Wars aren't enough to be considered tribulation, I don't know what is.

Jake, While I usually agree with your thinking, on this subject I have to disagree.
The things you spoke of are foretold in scriptures as being wars and rumors of wars. The Word is very clear that the tribulation period is 7 years. It is divided in half. The first half or 3-1/2 years will be relative peace, the second half is when the plagues of the great tribulation period will be unleashed. At the end of this period is when the battle of Armageddon takes place and Jesus comes back to judge all.
The books of Daniel and Revelation are two books that are not taught very often in churches today. That is a sad thing. As we approach the end of times it is vitally important that we understand the things that are to come lest we miss them. I understand that certain religions do not accept the teachings on the last days because it does not fit into their liturgy, and that is also sad. They are going to miss one of the greatest events the earth has ever known while waiting for the return of our Lord and Savior. To those that disagree with me, that's fine. Maybe you should get some teaching on the subject from several sources outside of your religious circle first and then decide for yourselves.

Jake, While I usually agree with your thinking, on this subject I have to disagree.
The things you spoke of are foretold in scriptures as being wars and rumors of wars. The Word is very clear that the tribulation period is 7 years. It is divided in half. The first half or 3-1/2 years will be relative peace, the second half is when the plagues of the great tribulation period will be unleashed. At the end of this period is when the battle of Armageddon takes place and Jesus comes back to judge all.
The books of Daniel and Revelation are two books that are not taught very often in churches today. That is a sad thing. As we approach the end of times it is vitally important that we understand the things that are to come lest we miss them. I understand that certain religions do not accept the teachings on the last days because it does not fit into their liturgy, and that is also sad. They are going to miss one of the greatest events the earth has ever known while waiting for the return of our Lord and Savior. To those that disagree with me, that's fine. Maybe you should get some teaching on the subject from several sources outside of your religious circle first and then decide for yourselves.

This last sentence is, pardon me, laughable. Why do you assume that anybody who disagrees with you just needs to "get some teaching"? Just FYI, I started with your point of view, and could argue it with the best of them. Unfortunately, I got "some teaching" about the nature of apocalyptic literature and proper exegetical method, and had to chuck the whole "literal interpretation" bit. It has nothing to do with "liturgy" as I don't have one. Maybe we're not the ones who need to "get some teaching."

How do you answer the point that apocalyptic literature was never intended to be taken literally?

How do you answer the point that apocalyptic literature was never intended to be taken literally?

Please explain where you get that comment?
I suspect by your comments that you are another RCC convert or someone who just plane does not want to accept that the end times are not yet upon us and that the things spoken about in Revelation are actually going to happen.

Please explain where you get that comment?
I suspect by your comments that you are another RCC convert or someone who just plane does not want to accept that the end times are not yet upon us and that the things spoken about in Revelation are actually going to happen.

Are you for real?

Any decent book on exegesis or Bible interpretation will tell you about apocalyptic literature.

"another RCC convert." You have no idea how funny that really is.

Oh yeah, and "plane" is something that flies through the air, or a technical term for a flat surface. "Just plane does not want" makes no sense.

The statement put before us was prefaced with the statement, “tribulations are coming someday.” Someday could be tomorrow, someday could be millions of years from now. The OP continues asking, whether there will be floods, war, and petulance over the entire world? Most Protestant or Evangelical answered essentially, ’yes’. And it seems that the reason why is that God will reign his Justice down on the world. At the same time on other threads, the argument is ‘your salvation Is secured, bought and paid for by the Passion of Christ. Consequently, “Be a sinner and sin stoutly, but trust in Christ much more firmly” and rest assured of your salvation that no matter the sin it will not tear you from Christ, even should you be a whoremonger or a murder thousand times a day.

Why then should God, judge the earth (which he created and found ‘good’) and now finding it evil want to destroy it, raining tribulation on everybody, even those who ‘believe’. Is God so contrary that he would pick this one to ‘rupture’ and this one to leave behind? At the same time saying to us to simply ‘believe' and I’ll guarantee your salvation? God is just, so doesn't justice demand that the good servant be rewarded? Doesn’t make much sense does it? Doesn’t God know that we now have Obama's “share the wealth” now and therefore He should share the holy salvation - what's the need of justice? And still, if he was going to warn us, why didn’t he make it perfectly clear when the age or the day would be here? Why did he tell John Darby and not Peter, or Paul, or Thomas, or any of the Twelve? Have you got a clue?

We do know that to believe is all we need so let’s believe in John Darby’s eschatological theology for a minute and see where it gets us. Darby told us that there are multiple 2nd comings of Christ. Extensions of this theory require 3 to 5 returns of Christ – all of which are ‘sola Scriptura’. But Scripture doesn’t mention multiple ‘second comings’ of Christ. Where in scripture does it talk about the 3rd or 4th “Second coming of Christ”? Of course there are multiple ‘clairvoyant’ versions of how this will happen. We’ve got pre-tribers, post-tribers, anti-tribers, premillenialsits, amillenialists, millenialist, postmillennialists, and dispensationalist. If the Bible “interprets itself,” how then do we discern the multiple theories of “self-evident” scriptural truth – of course all of which are guided by the Spirit?

And, when will the 2nd coming of Christ be? No one knows! (Matt 24:36) However, we do know it will be on the “last day” (John 6:25, 39; John 12:48; John 11:24). Not a multiple number of last days but the last "last day". Scriptures don’t say the last day just before the last day, or the last period before the last day. Scripture says Christ's return will be on “THE LAST DAY.” Well, for sure, I don’t want to be left behind; or do I?

We do know the 2nd coming will be like the days of Noah, they (the bad guys) will be making marry up till the last day (Matt 24:36-38). In Noah’s day it was those making marry until “the flood came and took them all away.” (Matt 24:39). So, it was bad guys who were taken up in Matthew’s gospel. A real contradiction left by Darby- and LaHay, they want to "take up" the good guys? Well, for sure, I don’t want to be left behind; or do I?


JoeT

Are you for real?

Any decent book on exegesis or Bible interpretation will tell you about apocalyptic literature.

"another RCC convert." You have no idea how funny that really is.

Oh yeah, and "plane" is something that flies through the air, or a technical term for a flat surface. "Just plane does not want" makes no sense.

Book by WHO? Smart mouth!

Wow.

450donn,
Please. Just where in Scripture is this 7 year period that you speak of.
I'd like to see it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, Revelation 12 VS 1-6 talk about the last half when it is speaking about the 1260 days. Earlier in Revelation there is another mention about 1260 days. Which is the first half of the tribulation. This time is when Satan fools the world by making a treaty with Israel which of course is broken at the end of the first 1260 days. I am real busy this weekend, being Resurrection Sunday and all so I will have to get back to you on the reference to the first half.

The "trigger" for the Great Tribulation (not tribulations in general) will be either the Rapture or the signing of the treaty between the Anti Christ and Israel. The two events wll likely be very close together.

To all of you who do not believe there will be a rapture, I have some questions.

1. Do you believe that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write his letters?

2. Do you believe in the resurrection of the just?

1Thes 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
(KJV)

In 2 verses Paul tells us that the resurrection of the just and the changing of the living to be called up to Jesus are similtaneous.

It seems to me if you deny the rapture, you have to deny the resurrection also.

The "trigger" for the Great Tribulation (not tribulations in general) will be either the Rapture or the signing of the treaty between the Anti Christ and Israel. The two events wll likely be very close together.

To all of you who do not believe there will be a rapture, I have some questions.

1. Do you believe that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write his letters?

2. Do you believe in the resurrection of the just?

1Thes 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
(KJV)

In 2 verses Paul tells us that the resurrection of the just and the changing of the living to be called up to Jesus are similtaneous.

It seems to me if you deny the rapture, you have to deny the resurrection also.

For one thing, I don't know of too many people who deny the idea of A rapture, myself included. The question is when it happens in relation to other events. So to accuse me or anybody else who has spoken up here of "deny the rapture" is erroneous, not to say a misrepresentation. The 1 Thessalonians passage says nothing about WHEN this happens in relation to other events, so that does nothing to support your pre-tribulational view.

As I already pointed out, Titus 2:13 indicates that the "blessed hope," which dispensationalists equate with the rapture, and the "glorious appearing" are the same event. It sounds to me like some people have been reading too much Tim LaHaye and not enough George Ladd. My web site has a review of LaHaye's [I]Are We Living In the End Times? which is his companion book/justification for the whole Left Behind thing. I suggest you check it out.

Book by WHO? Smart mouth!

You could start with this one:

William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas: Word, 1993.

For one thing, I don't know of too many people who deny the idea of A rapture, myself included. The question is when it happens in relation to other events. So to accuse me or anybody else who has spoken up here of "deny the rapture" is erroneous, not to say a misrepresentation. The 1 Thessalonians passage says nothing about WHEN this happens in relation to other events, so that does nothing to support your pre-tribulational view.

As I already pointed out, Titus 2:13 indicates that the "blessed hope," which dispensationalists equate with the rapture, and the "glorious appearing" are the same event. It sounds to me like some people have been reading too much Tim LaHaye and not enough George Ladd. My web site has a review of LaHaye's [I]Are We Living In the End Times? which is his companion book/justification for the whole Left Behind thing. I suggest you check it out.


Titus 2:13
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
(KJV)

I think the "and" indicates that these may NOT be the same thing.

It's not likely that Paul would contridict himself on the subject. He wrote very specifically to the Thessalonians on the subject.


II Th 2:3-8
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
(KJV)

I'm sure you know that "let" means hinder.
Verses 3 & 4 clearly describe Anit-Christ, and someone/something hinders his coming to power.

What could that be?
Not human government.
The Holy Spirit? How?
In this dispensation, the Holy Spirit works through believers, and the Church is made up of believers.

If it is NOT the Church that holds back Anti Christ, then what/who do you suggest does so?

If it IS the Church, then the Church must be absent before Anti Christ can come to power.

What other agency do you suggest now holds back the full expression of evil in this world, and how and when do you expect it to be gone?

Titus 2:13
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
(KJV)

I think the "and" indicates that these may NOT be the same thing.

Wrong. The construction in Greek is such that it denotes two of the same thing. The same construction is in the phrase "the great God and our savior," indicating that Jesus is both "the Great God" and "our savior." So if the "and" indicates that the blessed hope and glorious appearing aren't the same thing, the next "and indicates that Jesus and God are not the same thing. Are you prepared to say that?

It's called Granville Sharp's Rule, if you want to do some digging. Pretribbers like LaHaye try to claim it doesn't apply here, but they don't have any kind of linguistic basis for it.


It's not likely that Paul would contridict himself on the subject. He wrote very specifically to the Thessalonians on the subject.



II Th 2:3-8
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
(KJV)

What is the "day" that is spoken of? He tells us in verse 1:
"the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him." That's not helping your pretribulational case, because he clearly says we won't be "gathered to" Jesus until these things have happened.


I'm sure you know that "let" means hinder.

So why not just say "hinder"? Why hang on to the KJV and have to get redundant explaining it? Check out the NIV, it makes much more sense because it's in our language.


Verses 3 & 4 clearly describe Anit-Christ, and someone/something hinders his coming to power.

What could that be?
Not human government.
The Holy Spirit? How?
In this dispensation, the Holy Spirit works through believers, and the Church is made up of believers.


Ah, there's the rub, as what's-his-name said. "In this dispensation." You assume everybody believes the whole dispensational schema. But we don't. It's an arbitrary overlay onto the Scriptures that frankly does more harm than good. Again, I suggest George Ladd, especially Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God. We don't know that there is a single "anti-Christ;" in fact, John tells us that there are lots of them (1 John 2:18). And why couldn't the "hinderer" be human government? Or the Jews? Or El Niño? It's easy to say "It's not this" but it's another matter to prove it.


If it is NOT the Church that holds back Anti Christ, then what/who do you suggest does so?

If it IS the Church, then the Church must be absent before Anti Christ can come to power.

What other agency do you suggest now holds back the full expression of evil in this world, and how and when do you expect it to be gone?

I'm not going to bother with these questions, as any answer would be an assumption, just like yours. I don't know, and I don't care. My goal is to follow Jesus and let the future take care of itself.

It amazes me how so many Christians, especially American ones, talk as though going through "the Tribulation" is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to people. Um, try telling that to Christians in China right now. Try telling that to all the martyrs for the faith down through the centuries. Nothing but American escapism sustains the whole pretribulational idea, and it's frankly ridiculous. We've had it far too easy for far too long, and it's turned us into a group of wimps who quail at the very idea of REAL persecution. We all really need to grow up. (Yes, I count myself in that number.)

Wrong. The construction in Greek is such that it denotes two of the same thing. The same construction is in the phrase "the great God and our savior," indicating that Jesus is both "the Great God" and "our savior." So if the "and" indicates that the blessed hope and glorious appearing aren't the same thing, the next "and indicates that Jesus and God are not the same thing. Are you prepared to say that?

It's called Granville Sharp's Rule, if you want to do some digging. Pretribbers like LaHaye try to claim it doesn't apply here, but they don't have any kind of linguistic basis for it.



What is the "day" that is spoken of? He tells us in verse 1:
"the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him." That's not helping your pretribulational case, because he clearly says we won't be "gathered to" Jesus until these things have happened.



So why not just say "hinder"? Why hang on to the KJV and have to get redundant explaining it? Check out the NIV, it makes much more sense because it's in our language.



Ah, there's the rub, as what's-his-name said. "In this dispensation." You assume everybody believes the whole dispensational schema. But we don't. It's an arbitrary overlay onto the Scriptures that frankly does more harm than good. Again, I suggest George Ladd, especially Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God. We don't know that there is a single "anti-Christ;" in fact, John tells us that there are lots of them (1 John 2:18). And why couldn't the "hinderer" be human government? Or the Jews? Or El Niño? It's easy to say "It's not this" but it's another matter to prove it.



I'm not going to bother with these questions, as any answer would be an assumption, just like yours. I don't know, and I don't care. My goal is to follow Jesus and let the future take care of itself.

It amazes me how so many Christians, especially American ones, talk as though going through "the Tribulation" is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to people. Um, try telling that to Christians in China right now. Try telling that to all the martyrs for the faith down through the centuries. Nothing but American escapism sustains the whole pretribulational idea, and it's frankly ridiculous. We've had it far too easy for far too long, and it's turned us into a group of wimps who quail at the very idea of REAL persecution. We all really need to grow up. (Yes, I count myself in that number.)

They are valid questions. Why do you avoid them if you are on solid theological ground?

Can you see that a main feature of the Great Tribulation will be the wrath of God?


1Thes 1:10
10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
(KJV)

1Thes 5:9
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
(KJV)

God's children will NOT go through the wrath of God. You agree?

1Thes 4:13-18
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
(KJV)

Do you believe this will happen?

When do you believe that it will happen?

Please give scripture for your opinion.

You see, I believe that if God didn't want us to know the seasons He would have not inspired the Gospel writers to even bring the subject up.

EDIT: Jesus and the Father are not the same person. Was that what you refer to in the first paragraph?

They are valid questions. Why do you avoid them if you are on solid theological ground?

Because there are no answers. I know dispensationalists like to have every duck in its own box (yes, I love mixed metaphors) but the Bible won't be pigeon-holed like that. Get over it.


Can you see that a main feature of the Great Tribulation will be the wrath of God?


Um, no. God's wrath is already being poured out (Rom 1:18; Eph 5:6; 1 Thess 2:16). These passages all use either present or past tenses, not future. In fact, if the "main feature" of this "Great Tribulation" is the wrath of God, that's an even better argument for the view that it's happening right now, not in some future novelize-able scenario. So you're not doing your view a whole lot of good so far.


1Thes 1:10
10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
(KJV)

1Thes 5:9
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
(KJV)

God's children will NOT go through the wrath of God. You agree?


No, I don't. God's children DO not go through the wrath of God. The passages you quote are clearly talking about eternal condemnation. That's especially true since Paul seems to be including himself among those who have been saved from that wrath, and we know he wasn't there for any Great Tribulation.


1Thes 4:13-18
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
(KJV)

Do you believe this will happen?

When do you believe that it will happen?

Please give scripture for your opinion.


Already answered and scripture given. I see no reason to repeat myself.


You see, I believe that if God didn't want us to know the seasons He would have not inspired the Gospel writers to even bring the subject up.

As a patriotic American I adamantly support your right to believe whatever you want. That doesn't make it right.


EDIT: Jesus and the Father are not the same person. Was that what you refer to in the first paragraph?

So Jesus isn't God? Is that what you're saying? Titus 2:13 doesn't mention the Father; you plucked that out of the air. That's something dispensationalists do a lot.

I do firmly believe in the resurrection of the just, but NOT in the rapture as LaHaye presents it.
To me his books are a hoax.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I do firmly believe in the resurrection of the just, but NOT in the rapture as LaHaye presents it.
To me his books are a hoax.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, You have said this a dozen times at least and every time I tell you the Left Behind series is a work of fiction. Get over it please and move on!
So you believe that the Christian church will be there during the tribulation period? Where do you get that from Scripture please. And if you were to read all the prophesies concerning the tribulation period you would quickly learn that one of the signals of the start of the end times is the removal or the restraining force from the earth. Thus allowing Satan his season (7 year period) or the tribulation. What is the restraining force you should be asking? Once you come to terms with that answer you will realize what the rapture is about.

Fred, You have said this a dozen times at least and every time I tell you the Left Behind series is a work of fiction. Get over it please and move on!

Are you joking? The series is based on LaHaye's own theological assumptions, and that's what we're talking about. Quit trying to dodge.


So you believe that the Christian church will be there during the tribulation period? Where do you get that from Scripture please. And if you were to read all the prophesies concerning the tribulation period you would quickly learn that one of the signals of the start of the end times is the removal or the restraining force from the earth. Thus allowing Satan his season (7 year period) or the tribulation. What is the restraining force you should be asking? Once you come to terms with that answer you will realize what the rapture is about.

*TWEET* Foul on the play! I already answered this and you haven't dealt with what I said. Section 4, paragraph 8, subparagraph c of the Guide To Dumb Things Christians Argue With Each Other About manual specifically prohibits this kind of dodge. The manual requires you to answer me before trying to pass the question off to somebody else.

:D:D:D

So here you go again making assumptions based on what? NO knowledge just assumptions which are all wrong! Dr LaHay is the first to tell you that the books are a work of fiction. It is based on scripture, BUT IT WAS WRITTEN AS A NOVEL, WHICH IS FICTIONS! Anyone that thinks they are his interpretation of what will happen in the end has never read them. Have you? I have, And while they are a great read, I do not believe most of them.

I get reddies for calling you a smart mouth, but the same people say nothing to you for your comments in your last few posts. Why is that?
Since you are new to the forums, you need to chill a bit more.

dwashbur,
The bible does say that the Church will be here to the end of time.
Jesus said it and that the gates of hell will NOT prevail against it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

So here you go again making assumptions based on what? NO knowledge just assumptions which are all wrong! Dr LaHay is the first to tell you that the books are a work of fiction. It is based on scripture, BUT IT WAS WRITTEN AS A NOVEL, WHICH IS FICTIONS! Anyone that thinks they are his interpretation of what will happen in the end has never read them. Have you? I have, And while they are a great read, I do not believe most of them.

I get reddies for calling you a smart mouth, but the same people say nothing to you for your comments in your last few posts. Why is that?
Since you are new to the forums, you need to chill a bit more.

Have you read Are We Living In the End Times? LaHaye wrote it, by his own description, as a companion volume to explain the theology behind the books. He says in so many words that the novels are his interpretation of the biblical material. I read most of the novels; I also read and reviewed the companion volume. That's how I know that the books do represent what he thinks will happen: he said so.

dwashbur,
Yes he did say so.
There are millions of people who think differently that LaHaye did or does.
I am one of that many.
The main thing to know is that Jesus will return and I hope soon for we need Him to put a stop to all the wars, murders, rapes and other terrible things we humans do to each other.
When all of the prophesies are finally fulfilled they we can expect His return.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Nothing but American escapism sustains the whole pretribulational idea, and it's frankly ridiculous.

This is an interesting thought that I have often pondered over. I have to admit that I have not spent a lot of time studying out the various passages that seem to deal with all of the prevailing ideas concerning the last days. Jesus Christ suffered greatly at the hands of sinful men. So did Paul and Peter. Stephen was stoned to death. John was exiled on Patmos. John the Baptist was beheaded. King David was pursued and despised by Saul for his faith in Yahweh.

The people of God throughout every generation have suffered on account of their faith. So it is striking to come across this idea that God will spare his people from suffering and wisk them away on a cloud. And I agree with you that the passages some cite to prove the point are passages that are talking about the condemnation that awaits those who are disobedient to the truth. To those who out of a good conscience serve the Creator and persevere in doing good (as Paul puts it), they will receive life everlasting, but to those who do evil, there will be wrath and fury. Paul goes on to use the language of tribulation:

"There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality."

The context in this passage is the judgment of God on the day of judgment. To those who have obeyed God and served him, they will be spared from eternal condemnation. That is how I understand both this passage as well as many of the others that I see people referring to. That's why I am suspect of the claims made by some, of God rescuing people from tribulation other than eternal condemnation.

My feeling is that if the biblical authors are saying that there is this period of tribulation that God will spare his people from, that reality cannot be proven by passages that are talking about eternal condemnation. I'm sure many would disagree with me. This is an interesting discussion, though.

dwashbur,
The bible does say that the Church will be here to the end of time.
Jesus said it and that the gates of hell will NOT prevail against it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Again Fred, please quote the scripture reference. Not what the pope or your priest thinks!

And belovedgift gives me my very first reddie! Now I really feel like part of the gang.

Beloved, did you see the three big grins after my paragraph? Dost thou understand the concept of a joke??

One of the biggest problems with this whole discussion, and indeed most intra-Christian discussions, is people take themselves far too seriously. My philosophy is "have a dumb joke for every occasion and you'll have fewer ulcers."

It really astounds me how you who claim to be christian slam a pastor that has done more to protect the unborn and children from murder and pedophiles than all the popes in the RCC put together.
According to wicipedia, "LaHaye has promoted or started numerous groups to promote his views, having became involved in politics at the Christian Voice during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1981 he left the pulpit to concentrate his time on politics and writing.[4] That year, he helped found the Council for National Policy (CNP) a lobby group in which membership is only available through invitation; it has been called "the most powerful conservative organization in America you've never heard of," and should not be confused with the liberal Center for National Policy.[5] In 1979, he helped to establish the Institute for Creation Research, along with Henry Morris, in Santee, California. The same year he encouraged Jerry Falwell to found the Moral Majority, whose board of directors he sat on.[3][5] In the 1980s, LaHaye founded the American Coalition for Traditional Values and the Coalition for Religious Freedom. He founded the Pre-Tribulation Research Center along with Thomas Ice in 1998. The center is dedicated to producing material that supports a dispensationalist, pre-tribulation interpretation of the Bible. He and his wife have connections to the John Birch Society, a conservative, anti-communist group.[1][6]

Don't you think that before you go out and slam someone for his beliefs that you try and understand him and his teachings first?

It really astounds me how you who claim to be christian slam a pastor that has done more to protect the unborn and children from murder and pedophiles than all the popes in the RCC put together.
According to wicipedia, "LaHaye has promoted or started numerous groups to promote his views, having became involved in politics at the Christian Voice during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1981 he left the pulpit to concentrate his time on politics and writing.[4] That year, he helped found the Council for National Policy (CNP) a lobby group in which membership is only available through invitation; it has been called "the most powerful conservative organization in America you've never heard of," and should not be confused with the liberal Center for National Policy.[5] In 1979, he helped to establish the Institute for Creation Research, along with Henry Morris, in Santee, California. The same year he encouraged Jerry Falwell to found the Moral Majority, whose board of directors he sat on.[3][5] In the 1980s, LaHaye founded the American Coalition for Traditional Values and the Coalition for Religious Freedom. He founded the Pre-Tribulation Research Center along with Thomas Ice in 1998. The center is dedicated to producing material that supports a dispensationalist, pre-tribulation interpretation of the Bible. He and his wife have connections to the John Birch Society, a conservative, anti-communist group.[1][6]

Don't you think that before you go out and slam someone for his beliefs that you try and understand him and his teachings first?

So the fact that he tries to do some good in areas like abortion, he's infallible in eschatology?

I do understand him and his teachings. And as a pastor, he's fine. As a theologian, he leaves much to be desired. I challenge you to read something beyond your own little dispensational circle and find out just how many fallacies there are in that system before you go slamming us for pointing them out.

Once again, we are basing our critiques on what LaHaye has actually said in print. That's not slamming him, that's called peer review. It's an accepted part of doing scholarship.

And I gather you still think I'm a Catholic?

A couple of things:

What does Paul say in his salutations? (First verse or two)

Rom 1:3-4
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
(KJV)

1 Cor 1:3
3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
(KJV)

2 Cor 1:2-3
2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
(KJV)

Gal 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
(KJV)

Eph 1:2-3
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
(KJV)

Phil 1:2
2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
(KJV)

Col 1:2-3
2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
(KJV)

1Thes 1:1
1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(KJV)

II Th 1:1-2
1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
2 Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(KJV)

1 Tim 1:1-2
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
(KJV)

2 Tim 1:2
2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
(KJV)

Titus 1:4
4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
(KJV)

Titus 1:4
4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
(KJV)

Phile 1:3
3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(KJV)

Paul understood the concept of Father and Son.

The Father is God, the Son is God.

They are not the same person.

The Holy Ghost is a Person, God, but neither the Father or the Son.

I assume you know this.

Now as to the wrath of God:


Rev 6:16
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
(KJV)

Rev 11:18
18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
(KJV)

Rev 14:10
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
(KJV)

Rev 14:19
19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
(KJV)

Rev 15:1
1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
(KJV)

Rev 15:7
7 And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.
(KJV)

Rev 16:1
1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
(KJV)

Rev 16:19
19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
(KJV)

Rev 19:15
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
(KJV)

Do you still think that the wrath of God will not be a major feature of the Great Tribulation?

The Earth has not seen the wrath of God since the days of Noah, other than isolated cases, such as Sodom and Gomorrah.

I assume you DO believe that believers will be caught up to meet Jesus in the air?

At what point (not date) do you think this will happen?

It is clear that Paul taught it as being the same time as the general resurrection of the just.

Let me give you one more point.


Matt 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(KJV)

Luke 17:28-30
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
(KJV)

Here we have it from the lips of Jesus.
The flood did not come until Noah was in the ark!

And:

The fire of destruction did not fall until Lot was out of town.

Get it?

The wrath of God will not fall on this planet until the believers are safe with Him.

Hallellujah!

I assume you DO believe that believers will be caught up to meet Jesus in the air?

At what point (not date) do you think this will happen?

It is clear that Paul taught it as being the same time as the general resurrection of the just.

Let me give you one more point.


Matt 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(KJV)

Luke 17:28-30
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
(KJV)

Here we have it from the lips of Jesus.
The flood did not come until Noah was in the ark!

And:

The fire of destruction did not fall until Lot was out of town.

Get it?

The wrath of God will not fall on this planet until the believers are safe with Him.

Hallellujah!

You're kind of shooting yourself in the foot here, because there was essentially no interval between when Noah went into the ark and the flood, or when Lot exited town and when Sodom was destroyed. Likewise, Jesus' return is a single event: believers caught up into the air return to earth with him in triumph. In fact, the term that's used in 1 Thessalonians for "meet" as in "meet him in the air" was used to describe the people of a city going out to meet a conquering king and immediately escort him back to the city. Same deal with the return of Jesus.

As for God's wrath, I already presented several passages that speak of it in the present and past tenses; what do you do with those?

dwashbur,
I do agree with you.
Fred

You're kind of shooting yourself in the foot here, because there was essentially no interval between when Noah went into the ark and the flood, or when Lot exited town and when Sodom was destroyed. Likewise, Jesus' return is a single event: believers caught up into the air return to earth with him in triumph. In fact, the term that's used in 1 Thessalonians for "meet" as in "meet him in the air" was used to describe the people of a city going out to meet a conquering king and immediately escort him back to the city. Same deal with the return of Jesus.

As for God's wrath, I already presented several passages that speak of it in the present and past tenses; what do you do with those?

It sounds to me like you don't put much credence in the Book of Revelation.

In the Scriptures I gave you, wrath fell AFTER Noah and Lot were safe.

The vials of wrath will be poured out on this Earth BEFORE Jesus returns.

You apparently think that believers will be present when that wrath is poured out. I do not.

When Jesus comes back TO EARTH with his saints, it will be to establish the Kingdom of God in its visible and physical form on this planet.

You have not answered what your belief is concerning the resurrection of the righteous. At what point in the chain of events?

It sounds to me like you don't put much credence in the Book of Revelation.

Taking it literally the way you do, a way that neither John nor any other writer of apocalyptic from the time ever intended, no, I don't. I understand it symbolically the way it's supposed to be.


In the Scriptures I gave you, wrath fell AFTER Noah and Lot were safe.

The vials of wrath will be poured out on this Earth BEFORE Jesus returns.

You apparently think that believers will be present when that wrath is poured out. I do not.

I already answered this.


When Jesus comes back TO EARTH with his saints, it will be to establish the Kingdom of God in its visible and physical form on this planet.

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.


You have not answered what your belief is concerning the resurrection of the righteous. At what point in the chain of events?

It happens as Jesus is returning to earth. He appears and every eye sees him (Rev 1:7), the dead in Christ rise and the living are caught up with him (1 Thess 4:13ff) and they escort him to earth where he sets up his kingdom. As I already mentioned before, the word "meet" in 1 Thessalonians 4 was used in a particular way: a king would go out to battle, and when he returned in victory, the people of his city would go out and "meet" him (same Greek word) and escort him back to the city. That seems pretty clear to me. We either rise or are caught up and accompany Jesus to earth in triumph.

That's the "chain of events." A literal 7 year "tribulation" would contradict the whole idea that no one knows the day or hour when Jesus will return, because all one would have to do is start counting from the day that whatever trigger event happens, and say with confidence "He'll be here on such and such a date." Not going to happen. The Bible is consistent with itself, hence no one knows the day or hour because it could happen today, tomorrow, or 10,000 years from now.

I read the end of the book. We win. That's good enough for me.

galveston,
All of that does not fit what I believe.
I believe that everyone alive at the times of any tribulations will have to deal with them their way, through faith or otherwise.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

This is an interesting thought that I have often pondered over. I have to admit that I have not spent a lot of time studying out the various passages that seem to deal with all of the prevailing ideas concerning the last days. Jesus Christ suffered greatly at the hands of sinful men. So did Paul and Peter. Stephen was stoned to death. John was exiled on Patmos. John the Baptist was beheaded. King David was pursued and despised by Saul for his faith in Yahweh.

The people of God throughout every generation have suffered on account of their faith. So it is striking to come across this idea that God will spare his people from suffering and wisk them away on a cloud. And I agree with you that the passages some cite to prove the point are passages that are talking about the condemnation that awaits those who are disobedient to the truth. To those who out of a good conscience serve the Creator and persevere in doing good (as Paul puts it), they will receive life everlasting, but to those who do evil, there will be wrath and fury. Paul goes on to use the language of tribulation:

"There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality."

The context in this passage is the judgment of God on the day of judgment. To those who have obeyed God and served him, they will be spared from eternal condemnation. That is how I understand both this passage as well as many of the others that I see people referring to. That's why I am suspect of the claims made by some, of God rescuing people from tribulation other than eternal condemnation.

My feeling is that if the biblical authors are saying that there is this period of tribulation that God will spare his people from, that reality cannot be proven by passages that are talking about eternal condemnation. I'm sure many would disagree with me. This is an interesting discussion, though.

I don't believe the Lord Jesus ever promises us we will be free of troubles or tribulation. In fact, He said in the world we WOULD have them. BUT the tribulation period is different... God pouring his wrath out on mankind for rejecting his love, grace, mercy and most importantly HIS SON.

Mathew 24:22 says this about the tribulation: Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of the chosen ones, those days will be shortened.

It isn't going to be like anything this world has ever seen before. There are many reasons I believe the Bible teaches the rapture of the church before the tribulation. We are not appointed to God's wrath. I don't know anyone who would let their BRIDE go through something that horrible... how much more is the Lord's love for HIS bride? But reasoning aside, the Bible is clear in my understanding.

It happens as Jesus is returning to earth. He appears and every eye sees him (Rev 1:7), the dead in Christ rise and the living are caught up with him (1 Thess 4:13ff) and they escort him to earth where he sets up his kingdom. As I already mentioned before, the word "meet" in 1 Thessalonians 4 was used in a particular way: a king would go out to battle, and when he returned in victory, the people of his city would go out and "meet" him (same Greek word) and escort him back to the city. That seems pretty clear to me. We either rise or are caught up and accompany Jesus to earth in triumph.



It's interesting but it seems to me that much of the pre-trib theology hangs entirely on one word, "meet." By taking the word meet to mean how you define it changes the interpretation of this whole passage completely (1 Thess 4:13) and leaves much of pre-trib theology shot through. This is why 1 Thess 4 and John 14 are woefully inadequate passages to support pre-trib theology.

Thanks for your take on the use of the word meet and its use in its historical context.

Waiting to see how Galveston or 450donn will refute that.

Sincerely.

I don't believe the Lord Jesus ever promises us we will be free of troubles or tribulation. In fact, He said in the world we WOULD have them. BUT the tribulation period is different....the is God pouring his wrath out on mankind for rejecting his love, grace, mercy and most importantly HIS SON.

Mathew 24:22 says this about the tribulation: Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of the chosen ones, those days will be shortened.

It isn't going to be like anything this world has ever seen before. There are many reasons why I believe the Bible teaches the rapture of the church before the tribulation. We are not appointed to God's wrath. I don't know anyone who would let their BRIDE go thru something that horrible...how much more is the Lord's love for HIS bride? But reasoning aside, the Bible is clear in my understanding.

Romans 1:18 says that God's wrath is already coming upon the earth. Romans 13:4 says that governments are agents of God's wrath. Ephesians 5:6 says God's wrath is already coming upon the disobedient. Romans 5:9 and 1 Thessalonians 5:9 (curious coincidence there) both put God's wrath in contrast to eternal salvation, making it clear that the wrath being spoken of is eternal condemnation, not some tribulation period. Until you manage to understand some of these terms in their proper context, we're not going to get anywhere.

It amazes me how so many Christians, especially American ones, talk as though going through "the Tribulation" is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to people. Um, try telling that to Christians in China right now. Try telling that to all the martyrs for the faith down through the centuries. Nothing but American escapism sustains the whole pretribulational idea, and it's frankly ridiculous. We've had it far too easy for far too long, and it's turned us into a group of wimps who quail at the very idea of REAL persecution. We all really need to grow up. (Yes, I count myself in that number.)

Dave,
The worst thing possible is a person dying in their sins and rejecting Jesus Christ. No doubt about it. HOPEFULLY we can agree on at least THAT.

It isn't so much that I believe the tribulation is the worst thing possible... It is MORE that the Bible teaches it is going to be a HORRIBLE time like none other.

Look.. the Apostle Paul suffered more than I ever have or probably ever will. (shipwrecked, beaten, stoned, put in prison and eventually beheaded, he called them LIGHT afflictions) According to many theologians and historians, PETER was crucified upside down. How much more brutal and horrifying can you get?? Christians have been burned alived!! AND YET according to the BIBLE... it is NOTHING compared to the tribulation period. This 7 year period is going to be so bad the Lord Jesus says no flesh would be left if he didn't return. I didn't SAY it... the LORD did. Big difference.
Yes, I admit it. I am a wimp. I don't EVEN like being called a dispensationalist... I tear up at the word PREtribber! ( is that REALLY a word?) I PREFER a Christian who knows how to "rightly divide" the word of truth. :D

Until you manage to understand some of these terms in their proper context, we're not going to get anywhere.

Oooh thems fighten words... :D

oooh thems fighten words......:D

Hey, put 'em up! I have at least a 50-50 chance of beating a girl...

I agree with dwashbur and Jakesbur on this.
There is much in the bible that to me does not agree with the theology of the rapture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The rapture will precede the tribulation, which the bible divides into 3-1/2years of tribulation, and 3-1/2years of great tribulation, but those who are raptured will return with christ in the second coming when he will riegn for 1000 years and so on ---

truck 41,
So you believe, but I do not.
I think the rapture is very bad theology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

truck 41,
So you believe, but I do not.
I think the rapture is very bad theology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Would you consider then the Gathering as mentioned in Matthew 24?

belovedgift,
This is how I believe it will be...
"Matthew 24:26  If therefore they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the wilderness; go not forth: Behold, he is in the inner chambers; believe it not.
27  For as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
28  Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29  But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30  and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31  And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."
The elect are the true Christians.
Where they will be gathered to gather is not mentioned.
When Jesus comes back all the world will know that He has come.
There will be no secret or hidden coming.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

belovedgift,
This is how I believe it will be....
"Matthew 24:26  If therefore they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the wilderness; go not forth: Behold, he is in the inner chambers; believe it not.
27  For as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
28  Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29  But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30  and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31  And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."
The elect are the true Christians.
Where they will be gathered to gather is not mentioned.
When Jesus comes back all the world will know that He has come.
There will be no secret or hidden coming.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

This gathering is described in vivid detain in Revelation7:1,9-17.

I don't believe the Lord Jesus ever promises us we will be free of troubles or tribulation. In fact, He said in the world we WOULD have them. BUT the tribulation period is different....God pouring his wrath out on mankind for rejecting his love, grace, mercy and most importantly HIS SON.

Mathew 24:22 says this about the tribulation: Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of the chosen ones, those days will be shortened.

It isn't going to be like anything this world has ever seen before. There are many reasons why I believe the Bible teaches the rapture of the church before the tribulation. We are not appointed to God's wrath. I don't know anyone who would let their BRIDE go thru something that horrible...how much more is the Lord's love for HIS bride? But reasoning aside, the Bible is clear in my understanding.

OK, Tess - first off, how are you? Good to see you around.

Secondly, I appreciate your thoughts and even bothered to read Matthew. I'm not one to read one verse (the one you quoted) so I read all of Matthew 24 to see what's going on. Before I offer my interpretation, I thought I'd at least make it known that you and I (and everyone for that matter) have a set of lenses that we bring to the Scriptures when we read them. We already have a set of assumptions that we can sometimes impose upon the text as we read it. I have done it before and because I am more aware of it now, I see my tendencies to do that. What I have realized is that we put a lot of stake in our theology and we are not casual about changing the way that we see things. This is why we can become very passionate about insisting our view is right because so much of our emotion and heart is tied to what we believe. As a phenomenon, Tess, do you recognize that such a thing as I am describing is true? Ok, back to the matter at hand.

So when I read Matthew 24 beginning at v 3, I was struck by what is going on (editorial comment: I personally do not hold any position on the rapture because I have not studied it so I feel that I am mostly neutral on the subject). The disciples have come to Jesus and are asking him what will be the sign of his coming and the close of the Age.

First he says there will be wars and rumors of wars but that... the end is not yet.

Secondly he says nations will rise against nations, and famines and earthquakes in various places... all these are the BEGINNING of the birth pains.

Thirdly, he says his followers will be delivered up to tribulation and put to death and hated for his name sake. Many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another (the Judas-type disciples). False prophets will come to lead others astray. Love will grow cold... but the one who endures to the end will be saved. The gospel will be proclaimed to all the world, and then the END will come.

In verse 15, Jesus continues to elaborate on what he has already said. He's giving more meat to his prediction by spelling out in greater detail what will happen. The abomination of desolation (spoken of by Daniel) takes place and he tells his readers to run.

Finally he says that then there will great tribulation, such as hasn't been from the beginning of the world until now, and never will be. And if those days hadn't been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be cut short.

This is my point. It seems to me that what Jesus is describing here is a time where his people will be caught in the middle of war between God and his enemies. Since the enemies of God cannot get at God, they are bent on killing his people and trying to destroy them. Because the intensity of that persecution and hatred will be so great, Jesus is saying that length of time that is the Tribulation will be shortened or else nobody would be saved. By that I think he means people's faith would be tested so greatly (like that of Job but perhaps even more intense) that unless God was merciful to end the trial, no mere human could withstand that trial.

Tess, in my opinion, I think what you may be doing is mixing two ideas together:

1) God pouring out his wrath on unbelievers
2) God's people going through the tribulation

Perhaps you have other pieces of the puzzle that I don't have (from other passages you have read, etc.). I wholeheartedly agree with you that God is not going to punish his people or pour out his wrath on them. If that were true, then most of the New Testament teaching goes completely out the window. But the idea of God's people going through an immense struggle between good and evil, God and his enemies, is something that is not at all beyond the scope of what we are called to as believers.

What are your thoughts? Thanks, Tess.

ok, Tess - first off, how are you? Good to see you around.

Secondly, I appreciate your thoughts and even bothered to read Matthew. I'm not one to read one verse (the one you quoted) so I read all of Matthew 24 to see what's going on. Before I offer my interpretation, I thought I'd at least make it known that you and I (and everyone for that matter) have a set of lenses that we bring to the Scriptures when we read them. We already have a set of assumptions that we can sometimes impose upon the text as we read it. I have done it before and because I am more aware of it now, I see my tendencies to do that. What I have realized is that we put a lot of stake in our theology and we are not casual about changing the way that we see things. This is why we can become very passionate about insisting our view is right because so much of our emotion and heart is tied to what we believe. As a phenomenon, Tess, do you recognize that such a thing as I am describing is true? Ok, back to the matter at hand.

So when I read Matthew 24 beginning at v 3, I was struck by what is going on (editorial comment: I personally do not hold any position on the rapture because I have not studied it so I feel that I am mostly neutral on the subject). The disciples have come to Jesus and are asking him what will be the sign of his coming and the close of the Age.

First he says there will be wars and rumors of wars but that...the end is not yet.

Secondly he says nations will rise against nations, and famines and earthquakes in various places...all these are the BEGINNING of the birth pains.

Thirdly, he says his followers will be delivered up to tribulation and put to death and hated for his name sake. Many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another (the Judas-type disciples). False prophets will come to lead others astray. Love will grow cold...but the one who endures to the end will be saved. The gospel will be proclaimed to all the world, and then the END will come.

In verse 15, Jesus continues to elaborate on what he has already said. He's giving more meat to his prediction by spelling out in greater detail what will happen. The abomination of desolation (spoken of by Daniel) takes place and he tells his readers to run.

Finally he says that then there will great tribulation, such as hasn't been from the beginning of the world until now, and never will be. And if those days hadn't been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be cut short.

This is my point. It seems to me that what Jesus is describing here is a time where his people will be caught in the middle of war between God and his enemies. Since the enemies of God cannot get at God, they are bent on killing his people and trying to destroy them. Because the intensity of that persecution and hatred will be so great, Jesus is saying that length of time that is the Tribulation will be shortened or else nobody would be saved. By that I think he means people's faith would be tested so greatly (like that of Job but perhaps even more intense) that unless God was merciful to end the trial, no mere human could withstand that trial.

Tess, in my opinion, I think what you may be doing is mixing two ideas together:

1) God pouring out his wrath on unbelievers
2) God's people going through the tribulation

Perhaps you have other pieces of the puzzle that I don't have (from other passages you have read, etc.). I wholeheartedly agree with you that God is not going to punish his people or pour out his wrath on them. If that were true, then most of the New Testament teaching goes completely out the window. But the idea of God's people going through an immense struggle between good and evil, God and his enemies, is something that is not at all beyond the scope of what we are called to as believers.

What are your thoughts? Thanks, Tess.



In ALL fairness to you Jake, YES we all bring our assumptions or whatever teachings we have been taught before and believed to be the truth. Having said that, I really have studied trying my level best to be neutral on the topic. Whenever I have a major disagreement with a Christian I respect their thoughts and beliefs even if different from mine. I REALLY do want the truth.. not just what I have been taught to be the truth. What good does it do any of us to hold on to something biblically incorrect just because we were "taught" as a child or it is a "tradition". I don't understand that mindset. For one thing, I know my Savior only has the best in store for me so I'm not afraid of his word or the hidden truths in it. So.. don't go thinking I'm a stubborn old goat here. I am a truth seeker. Or at least I try HARD to be. I surely do not think I know it all and in many instances have changed my beliefs because they do not line up with what the Bible teaches.

Mathew 24... when we put it in CONTEXT the Lord Jesus is telling the Jewish people what they can expect during the tribulation period. I think it is important to understand Jesus is speaking directly to the Jewish Nation... not the church. Make sense? Their eyes WILL be opened again.. and he has a remnant of Jews that he is going to protect. This is NOT the Bride of Christ. NO way.. no how.. it isn't the Church. During the tribulation period.. the gospel isn't going to be... accept the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved... it is going to be the gospel of the Kingdom. REPENT for the Kingdom of God is at hand. In other words... The LION of the TRIBE of Judah is coming REPENT.

But when you read Daniel, and Revelation it is amazing to me how they go hand in hand. Daniel prophcied the future and what ISRAEL would have to go through. 70 Weeks... the prophecy has been fulfilled up to the 69 week. ( Dave disagrees.. I know) But NO ONE could ever predict what was going to happen between the 69 week and the 70 week. This is what even the disciples couldn't understand at first... it is the CHRUCH period. The period of Grace... where God is calling out a people for his name sake. It was a mystery or a secret to the Jews. The Apostle Paul was the one the Lord revealed these things to.

No one knows how long this period of Grace will last. No one. BUT we can go back to Mathew 24 and read what Jesus told his disciples... and we can see the birth pains... we can know about what it is going to look like when it does... as in the days of Noah.

Israel became a nation in 1948... pretty cool. You can't have end time with her and she hasn't been around for almost 2000 years. I think that is a big sign the Lord is getting ready.

So then Jake, what will become of the Church? The 7 year tribulation period WILL come... and God is going to JUDGE and pour out his wrath. What of his bride? This is why Paul explains in his letter to the Thessalonians what will occur... the church is caught up. AND he encourages them to comfort one another with those words. Now why in the WORLD would he say to comfort one another with those things IF the CHURCH must endure God's wrath. There is NO comfort for you if you choose not to take the mark of the beast. You can't buy or sell.. you can't eat. You are a enemy and hunted as such. IF you aren't caught and beheaded, you pretty much are going to starve to death. Plus you and the ones you love have to endure the plagues, catastrophies, one after another. The Bible says that men will BEG to die and will NOT die. So what then... the church endures all of this and in a twinkle of an eye.. he comes back!! We that are alive and remain are battered, beaten, sick, burned, thirsty, discouraged, fearful, bloody.. I don't know what His BRIDE would look like much worse than that.. I just guessed.. but DAVE thinks it is THEN that he raputures HER. Well golly gee wiz, why bother? Naaah.. no way. We will be with him in the clouds as his mighty army. Already refreshed, already with new incorruptible bodies. Spending the last seven years at the judgment seat of Christ and the marriage supper of the Lamb. My Jesus is a SAVIOR and he loves his BRIDE.

When the antichrist or Beast as Revelation calls him signs a 7 year peace treaty to protect Israel... this starts up God's time clock and thus the 70th week will begin. It is going to be hell on earth. Israel is going to back to sacrificing animals!! Remember, Daniels prophecies are all FOR ISRAEL. The Lord is not finished with his earthly people. NOW then, how can it be that his BRIDE is down here experiencing those judgements? Why is this so difficult to understand that the tribulation period has NOTHING in the WORLD to do with the Church.. the Bride of Christ or Grace. It is God going back picking up where he left off with Israel, pouring his wrath on mankind and this world that rejected his son, and eventually doing what the bible screams is the heart of God... putting His SON on the Throne, giving Jesus his rightful place.


NOTE: edit: I re -read this... I kind of rambled but in all fairness to me my son was texting me on all the reasons I should bring him lunch today at school. I was arguing with him and trying to type and make some kind sense of the rapture and why the church isn't part of the tribulation period. In the end.. my son won I got to go get him some lunch... ugh errr.. spoiled little monkey. I hope you can understand what I was trying to say. I didn't pull out verses but I can if you need me to. :)

[snip]

Mathew 24...when we put it in CONTEXT the Lord Jesus is telling the Jewish people what they can expect during the tribulation period. I think it is important to understand Jesus is speaking directly to the Jewish Nation...not the church. make sense? Their eyes WILL be opened again..and he has a remenant of Jews that he is going to protect. This is NOT the Bride of Christ. NO way..no how..it isn't the Church. During the tribulation period..the gospel isn't gonna be...accept the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved...it is going to be the gospel of the Kingdom. REPENT for the Kingdom of God is at hand. In other words...The LION of the TRIBE of Judah is coming REPENT.

[snip]

Hi Tess,
You knew I had to jump in here;) Where is this "context" you refer to? I know this is the common dispensational explanation of the Olivet Discourse, but there's no basis for it except a desire to hang on to the rapture thing. The 12 come to him, AS HIS DISCIPLES, and ask the questions. He answers them, AS HIS DISCIPLES, because there's no trigger anywhere in the text to indicate otherwise, and tells them YOU will see these things. He begins with the destruction of the temple, which some of them did in fact see in AD 70 (some had been killed by then, of course) and goes on to describe events after that. In no way do they represent Israel during this talk. They represent followers of Jesus. It's that simple. That's what the text says, and that's what it means. If that means they won't be raptured (and yes, that's what it means) then so be it.

Incidentally, more recent dispensational scholars would disagree with you about how people will be saved. Most of them now agree that people are saved by grace through faith in every age. But I'll let that pass :D

This gathering is described in vivid detain in Revelation7:1,9-17.

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up. Oh wait, it's not clear. Exactly how are this passage and Matthew 24 connected, and how do you establish that connection?

Daveyyy,

Yes, they came to him as his disciples... true enough. There was no church though, there was no GRACE period, there was no BRIDE. He was talking to the Jewish disciples who were still under the law and had NO concept of anything BUT the law. CONTEXT get it now? They were waiting for him to set
Up the Kingdom... knew nothing of the age of Grace. All of the phophecies mentioned in Daniel are for Israel and God dealing with his EARTHLY people. Israel wasn't promised a rapture. Jesus never ever spoke of a rapture with these guys. Why? Because it hadn't been revealed yet. Because the Church hasn't been established, he hasn't started calling out a people for his name sake. Not until after the resurrection and the stoning of Stephen. Sorry.

For the life of me, I can't understand how you can't see that the CHURCH has nothing to do with the tribulation. It isn't about the Church. It is ALL about God dealing with Israel and the unbelieving world. I know I keep repeating myself, like I think you are slow witted. ( and I know better)

OK, I worried when I put that Gospel of the Kingdom thing in. What I meant is this, people will get saved.. you bet they will for believing that Jesus Is God and died, rose and is coming back. What I guess I wanted to say.. is they are NOT part of the Bride of Christ. So you win that argument I suppose. YES it is ALWAYS because of grace, and faith that anyone gets saved. I guess I wasn't too clear. BUT they will indeed be saying REPENT for HE is coming back to set up his Kingdom.

And just because they will know about the time of his coming doesn't mean they will know the day or the hour. Jesus said we can know the signs.. even as in the days of Noah. So your theory has been debunked by a mere blonde GIRL. Ha

Daveyyy,

Yes, they came to him as his disciples...true enough. There was no church though, there was no GRACE period, there was no BRIDE. He was talking to the Jewish disciples who were still under the law and had NO concept of anything BUT the law. CONTEXT get it now? They were waiting for him to set
up the Kingdom...knew nothing of the age of Grace. All of the phophecies mentioned in Daniel are for Israel and God dealing with his EARTHLY people. Israel wasn't promised a rapture. Jesus never ever spoke of a rapture with these guys. Why? Because it hadn't been revealed yet. Because the Church hasn't been established, he hasn't started calling out a people for his name sake. Not until after the ressurrection and the stoning of Stephen. sorry.

For the life of me, I can't understand how you can't see that the CHURCH has nothing to do with the tribulation. It isn't about the Church. It is ALL about God dealing with Israel and the unbelieving world. I know i keep repeating myself, like i think you are slow witted. ( and I know better)

ok, i worried when I put that Gospel of the Kingdom thing in. What i meant is this, people will get saved..you bet they will for believing that Jesus Is God and died, rose and is coming back. What i guess I wanted to say ..is they are NOT part of the Bride of Christ. So you win that argument i suppose. YES it is ALWAYS because of grace, and faith that anyone gets saved. I guess i wasn't too clear. BUT they will indeed be saying REPENT for HE is coming back to set up his Kingdom.

And just because they will know about the time of his coming doesn't mean they will know the day or the hour. Jesus said we can know the signs..even as in the days of Noah. So your theory has been debunked by a mere blonde GIRL. ha

Tess,
There's nothing in the Bible that indicates this "age of grace" that you refer to. Again, people have been saved by grace in every age, from Adam to the present time. You are artificially overlaying a line of demarcation between the Old Testament and the New, and that line just isn't there. That's why there's so much typology and such in the Old Testament, all pointing to Jesus: He's the focal point. Galatians 6:16 specifically calls Christians "the Israel of God" and Romans says that the promises to Israel have passed on to us. The dispensational distinction between Israel and the church is a false one. The disciples didn't ask about the establishment of the kingdom, they asked about the destruction of the temple and the end of the age. There is no "church vs. Israel" distinction in the Bible; that's something that some theologians with an ax to grind have read into it in order to support their lame theology.

So YOUR theory has been debunked by a middle-aged, overweight nerd. Neener neener!

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".. .

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

God The Father knows ALL.
Jesus said that only the Father knows.
Gal knows that. Gal was referring to people, not the Father.

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.

Wondergirl,
Sorry but I did not noticed that.
Fred

[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.

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!

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.

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)?

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

Yeah.

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[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.

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?

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

dwashbur says It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.

That sort of snide comments are uncalled for. Why do you always attack others when you are shown to be wrong?

dwashbur says It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.

That sort of snide comments are uncalled for. Why do you always attack others when you are shown to be wrong?
Please give the complete context. Did he say this to you? (I read back in the thread, but couldn't find this.)

Please give the complete context. Did he say this to you? (I read back in the thread, but couldn't find this.)

Last line of his post#120

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.
Thanks, donn450, for pinpointing its location for me.

Well, Dave certainly knows what he's talking about. I wouldn't argue Bible history with him! I suspect his "you" is generic. And you certainly weren't snide or on the attack (a soupçon of sarcasm there).

dwashbur says It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.

That sort of snide comments are uncalled for. Why do you always attack others when you are shown to be wrong?

Not an attack. Advice. If you had checked out my profile, or my website, or both, you would have known my thoughts about the Old Testament. That's why I put them out there like that, so I don't have to keep repeating myself *click* repeating myself *click* repeating myself *clunk* thanks, I needed that.

And I find it amusing that you are now griping about "snide comments" in light of the following:


You claim to believe in the whole bible, but yet you claim to NOT believe in the rapture. So which is it? The bible, or the teachings of the RCC as the current pope chooses to interpret it?
You NEVER believed as I do! If you had you would know and follow Christ instead of the pope


Could you please explain to the rest of that are not as enlightened as you claim to be where you get this theory?


Book by WHO? Smart mouth!

I suspect by your comments that you are another RCC convert

Pot and kettle, my friend.

And I haven't been shown to be wrong yet.

Dave,

I don't understand some of your last comments.

The complete Bible (St. Joseph ver.) is read to the Church populace at Mass. The Church uses a three year cycle to do this. The cycles are "A", "B" and "C".

The Pope does not render interpretations on the Bible. The Pope is only under the seal of infallibility with respect to matters of Faith and Dogma.

With the RCC it is not a matter of the Bible or the Teachings of the Church. It is a matter of the Bible and the teachings of the RCC.

Where are you getting this information?

If you are going to try to dismiss or trash our Faith, I'm curious as to why? What has the RCC done to you that is so egregious?

Dave,

I don't understand some of your last comments.

The complete Bible (St. Joseph ver.) is read to the Church populace at Mass. The Church uses a three year cycle to do this. The cycles are "A", "B" and "C".

The Pope does not render interpretations on the Bible. The Pope is only under the seal of infallibility with respect to matters of Faith and Dogma.

With the RCC it is not a matter of the Bible or the Teachings of the Church. It is a matter of the Bible and the teachings of the RCC.

Where are you getting this information?

If you are going to try to dismiss or trash our Faith, I'm curious as to why? What has the RCC done to you that is so egregious?

Uhhhh, run that by me again? I think you may have me confused with somebody else. I'm one of the folks who's been (more or less) defending the RCC.

Then my sincere apologies.

Just for completeness I 'm appending the RCC's definition for "Ex Cathedra"

Ex Cathedra
Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

Again, I do apologize for picking on you. I must have gotten out of sync with all the cut-outs..

Ex Cathedra
And that has occurred only twice?

The next one will be priests allowed to marry? Would that be an "ex cathedra" statement, or could the Pope merely make some kind of new rule?

P.S. Hmmm. We're wandering away from the OP.

WG -

You have to know that I'll never have anything to do with that decision. And I truly doubt that I will be consulted. Me, I've been married to the same Lady for 45 years and there are two lifeforms that I have no concept of, Single which I have heard about and "Celibate" which I missed the boat on some 45 years ago.

You do know that historically there were married RCC Priests and that currently there are married priests, don't you?

Currently, Priests that convert to RCC, I think Anglican Priests, but I can very well be wrong if they are married stay that way until the ole, "Death do us part."

And no, I do not know of any RCC hit squads going around and making widowers. <That's just a chuckle>.

If your are up to it, I have a RCC joke that a Priest in KY shared with me, that is if you want to read it.

You do know that historically there were married RCC Priests and that currently there are married priests, don't you?
Yup, Anglican and also converts from Protestant denominations.

My dad, who was doing his vicarage year in Idaho when he met my mom (a member of his pastor-uncle's church), told my mom when he asked her to marry him that God and the Church would always come first, and second would be she and any children they would have. And that's how it was.

If your are up to it, I have a RCC joke that a Priest in KY shared with me, that is if you want to read it.
I'm always ready for a chuckle. Is the Tribulation in it? (just trying to stay on task... )

WG -


If your are up to it, I have a RCC joke that a Priest in KY shared with me, that is if you want to read it.

What are you waiting for?

While we are waiting here's one

Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation. "What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? " the one asked.

The second replied, "Well, they were both founded by Spaniards -- St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy -- the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants."

"What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?"

"Met any Albigensians lately?"

Here's one my dad told me:

Two Irish Catholics, Pat and Mike, were sitting by the road outside the local house of ill repute, chatting. They saw the local Protestant minister come walking up the road. Pat said, "Now there's a good man." Mike agreed, "Aye. I don't believe the same things he does, but he's a good man all right." The minister turned and entered the house. Both men were horrified. "Oh, Mike!" Pat exclaimed. "How terrible such a good man should fall like that!" Mike nodded, fighting back a tear.

Soon they saw the local Rabbi coming along. Mike said, "Ah, there's another good man." Pat said, "A good man indeed. Not a Christian, but a good upstanding man in the community." The Rabbi also turned and entered the infamous house. Both men gasped. "Did ye see that?" Pat exclaimed. "Aye," said Mike. "I never would have believed it. The mighty are fallen, 'tis the truth."

A moment later, the local Catholic priest came by. "Ah," said Pat. "Now there's me man! Solid, godly and upright!" Mike nodded. "A true light in our community, a man I'd trust with me very life!" The priest then turned and walked into the House.

Pat grabbed Mike's arm. "Begorrah, Mike! Somebody must be dyin' in there!"

(Note: Yes, I'm Irish. On both sides.)

[QUOTE=galveston;2310854]

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.)

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.

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

I have offered something that is reasonable in the light of Scripture AND history. It is a historical fact that the progression of empires was Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Do you dispute that?

You have offered nothing other than saying that I am wrong.

Why not tell us what YOU believe? How do YOU interpret these prophecies?

Do you have nothing positive for this Texas redneck? Hmmmm?

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2310878]

I have offered something that is reasonable in the light of Scripture AND history. It is a historical fact that the progression of empires was Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Do you dispute that?

You have offered nothing other than saying that I am wrong.

Why not tell us what YOU believe? How do YOU interpret these prophecies?

Do you have nothing positive for this Texas redneck?? Hmmmm?

I'm not saying the vision doesn't represent those four. I'm saying it's not spelled out in the text, and is left to the reader to try and sort it out. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were giving an interpretation that isn't explicitly in the text.

Now, how about this: the stone that destroys the statue and grows to fill the earth is: the church! God's kingdom breaks into human history in the form of Jesus' church which he established by his resurrection when he defeated death and Satan and made membership in his kingdom possible for everyone. If we're going to go by historical sequence, that's the most reasonable explanation for the final portion of the vision.

[QUOTE=galveston;2312242]

I'm not saying the vision doesn't represent those four. I'm saying it's not spelled out in the text, and is left to the reader to try and sort it out. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were giving an interpretation that isn't explicitly in the text.

Now, how about this: the stone that destroys the statue and grows to fill the earth is: the church! God's kingdom breaks into human history in the form of Jesus' church which he established by his resurrection when he defeated death and Satan and made membership in his kingdom possible for everyone. If we're going to go by historical sequence, that's the most reasonable explanation for the final portion of the vision.

Can't fault your interpretation

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2312321]

Can't fault your interpretation

Why, thank you ;)

Where is everybody?

I’m still irritated about the Catholic jokes. I don’t get it. Who was it that died?

JoeT

I’m still irritated about the Catholic jokes. I don’t get it. Who was it that died?
Do you really want an explanation? I'll PM you if you do. Change the Catholic to Lutheran; they're still funny.

I’m still irritated about the Catholic jokes. I don’t get it. Who was it that died?

JoeT

They assumed the priest couldn't have been going into the place for the most obvious reason. As WG said, change it from Catholic to whatever you please, it works with any of them. Don't get irritated, it's all in fun. In fact, I usually tell my jokes about Baptists since that's the group I know best.

Another great line I heard a long time ago:

To live above, with those we love, oh, that will be glory.
To live below, with those we know, now that's another story.

Do you really want an explanation?


Well, NO!!

Well, NO!!!
Do you get it now? I could make it less of a (staying on-task here) tribulation for you by changing "Catholic" to "Lutheran."

[QUOTE=galveston;2312242]

I'm not saying the vision doesn't represent those four. I'm saying it's not spelled out in the text, and is left to the reader to try and sort it out. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were giving an interpretation that isn't explicitly in the text.

Now, how about this: the stone that destroys the statue and grows to fill the earth is: the church! God's kingdom breaks into human history in the form of Jesus' church which he established by his resurrection when he defeated death and Satan and made membership in his kingdom possible for everyone. If we're going to go by historical sequence, that's the most reasonable explanation for the final portion of the vision.

So do you think that the church will, in the process of time, take over the kingdoms of this world and send them into the dust bin of history, or do you think it will be a cataclysmic event at the return of Christ?

I’m still irritated about the Catholic jokes. I don’t get it. Who was it that died?

JoeT

Apparently you are not Irish

galveston, Good questions.
Fred

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2312321]

So do you think that the church will, in the process of time, take over the kingdoms of this world and send them into the dust bin of history, or do you think it will be a cataclysmic event at the return of Christ?

Both.

apparently you are not Irish

Its hard enough being Italian and then you want wish Irish on me too? Do you know how hard it is to talk the blarney while you're eating spaghetti?

JoeT

Its hard enough being Italian and then you want wish Irish on me too? Do you know how hard it is to talk the blarney while you’re eating spaghetti?

JoeT

No, but being part English and German in addition to Irish, I know how hard it is to live up to people's expectations of putting mayonnaise on your bratwurst...

dwashbur,
LOL
Thanks I'll remember that for I am German, Irish, French, and some other mixtures.
A mongrel, that's me.
Peace asnd kindness,
Fred

[QUOTE=galveston;2313869]

Both.

Well, the Church has grown and continues to grow, but I doubt you can show from Scripture that it will take over the world and present it to Christ when He returns.

There are some people who believe that. I am not one of them.

[QUOTE=galveston;2312242]

I'm not saying the vision doesn't represent those four. I'm saying it's not spelled out in the text, and is left to the reader to try and sort it out. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were giving an interpretation that isn't explicitly in the text.

Now, how about this: the stone that destroys the statue and grows to fill the earth is: the church! God's kingdom breaks into human history in the form of Jesus' church which he established by his resurrection when he defeated death and Satan and made membership in his kingdom possible for everyone. If we're going to go by historical sequence, that's the most reasonable explanation for the final portion of the vision.


Lets take a look at the scriptures:

Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. Daniel 2:45 KJV

And the NIV : This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands--a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

Now who in the word of God is called a stone?
Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily

The Lord Jesus Christ.

Who in the word of God is called a Rock?

Ps. 94:22 But the LORD has become my fortress, and my God the rock in whom I take refuge.

The Lord Jesus Christ

The bible is a self defining book. It is clear the stone or rock not formed by HUMAN hands is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ.

The thought it could be the church very unlikely. Think about it.. the church or the body of Christ can't agree on squat. How are we going to defeat this giant beast that devours and crushes. Sad but true..

The thought it could be the church very unlikely. Think about it..the church or the body of Christ can't agree on squat. How are we gonna defeat this giant beast that devours and crushes. Sad but true..
Just like when Jesus told Peter, "Upon this rock [then pointed at Himself] will I build My Church."

If Jesus had meant Peter, He would have said, "Upon thee will I build My Church."

then pointed at Himself


Which verse does it say "then pointed at Himself"? I must've missed that one.

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2312321]

The thought it could be the church very unlikely. Think about it..the church or the body of Christ can't agree on squat. How are we gonna defeat this giant beast that devours and crushes. Sad but true..

Irrelevant. The description fits the church. Look at Jesus' parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13. One of the things that dispensationalists have never understood is the tension inherent in the "here/not-here," "now/not-yet" nature of the Kingdom. It has broken into human history in the form of the church Jesus founded, and continues to gradually leaven the whole lump. It reaches its culmination in the return of Jesus to complete the job.

Dave,

What you want to debate was my OPINION. And you are welcome to do that because it is only MY thoughts. BUT...

I gave you biblical reasons as to why I believe this stone or rock is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is a self defining book. Rock and Stone... is MY savior not the church.

Honestly, it isn't about being a dispensationalist. I'm NOT trying to make my views FIT a pretrib rapture. No scripture is of a private interpretaion, therefore it must be compared with other scripture. Sorry Dave, Jesus IS the ROCK.

Just like when Jesus told Peter, "Upon this rock [then pointed at Himself] will I build My Church."

If Jesus had meant Peter, He would have said, "Upon thee will I build My Church."

Well, I don't know that he pointed to himself.. but I believe he was speaking of himself. So I agree with you... The wise man built his house upon THE ROCK... just one more thing the Lord himself said. :)

Well, I don't know that he pointed to himself..but I believe he was speaking of himself. So I agree with you.......The wise man built his house upon THE ROCK....just one more thing the Lord himself said. :)
It was on Skype. Sorry you missed it.

(Just think -- if only they had had cell phones and computers and Skype back then.)

The Bible is a self defining book.



Where is scripture given the authority of self determination? Or self 'defining'? I sure am missing a bunch of verses. 'T' how can a book have authority, what's it going to do to correct you when you're wrong, close on your finger?

JoeT

Where is scripture given the authority of self determination? or self 'defining'? I sure am missing a bunch of verses. 'T' how can a book have authority, what's it going to do to correct you when you're wrong, close on your finger?

JoeT

LOL... hey I can't help it if the BIBLE defines itself. I certainly didn't write it, I'm not that smart. :p The Bible is the word of God, HE said it... not me. That is the only authority I have. I may not be Einstein, (although lately you couldn't tell my looking at my HAIR) but I CAN read and the written word defines itself. Who ELSE is called the ROCK? I AM that I AM? The chief cornerSTONE? Sorry... I didn't make it up... I just read it and with the help of the Holy Spirit I am given some understanding .

Don't make me come through this computer and smack you. :D

Dave,

What you want to debate was my OPINION. and you are welcome to do that because it is only MY thoughts. BUT.....

I gave you biblical reasons as to why I believe this stone or rock is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is a self defining book. Rock and Stone....is MY savior not the church.

Honestly, it isn't about being a dispensationalist. I'm NOT trying to make my views FIT a pretrib rapture. No scripture is of a private interpretaion, therefore it must be compared with other scripture. Sorry Dave, Jesus IS the ROCK.

Agreed. But Jesus also lives in us, and is reaching the world through us. That was my point. The leaven parable shows it most effectively, at least for me, and when we take the Daniel vision in conjunction with the parables and Jesus' other descriptions of his kingdom, it starts to come together and we get a picture of the gradual growth of the kingdom, culminating in Jesus' return. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

LOL ...hey I can't help it if the BIBLE defines itself. I certainly didn't write it, I'm not that smart. :p The Bible is the word of God, HE said it...not me. That is the only authority i have. I may not be Einstein, (although lately you couldn't tell my looking at my HAIR) but i CAN read and the written word defines itself. Who ELSE is called the ROCK? I AM that I AM? the chief cornerSTONE? sorry...i didn't make it up...i just read it and with the help of the Holy Spirit I am given some understanding .


Don't make me come thru this computer and smack ya. :D

'T', Rock is Christ; not bible. I AM IAM is God; not scripture. Scripture is a book, surly you don't worship a book? How does God work through our lives if He is stuck in a book?

JoeT

It was on Skype. Sorry you missed it.

(Just think -- if only they had had cell phones and computers and Skype back then.)

DARN! I'm never on Skype when HE is... I miss everything. :)

'T', Rock is Christ; not bible. I AM IAM is God; not scripture. Scripture is a book, surly you don't worship a book? How does God work through our lives if He is stuck in a book?
That's what she said -- the Rock is Jesus. He's alive and in our hearts.

'T', Rock is Christ; not bible. I AM IAM is God; not scripture. Scripture is a book, surly you don't worship a book? How does God work through our lives if He is stuck in a book?

JoeT

Oooooooh... fighten me on this huh? I'm going to take you down. LoL... the Bible isn't just a BOOK. It is the word of GOD. Ever read any mere BOOK that could do this:

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Jesus is... ( according to the Bible in the gospel of John) the Word... I do not worship the Bible... I worship the Word that was made flesh. I believe the Bible is everything God has to say to mankind. Therefore it is my ONLY authority.

Saying that Jesus is the rock in that passage is purposely taking it out of context .
Jesus was talking to Peter all the way through that and at the end told Peter He would give him the Keys To The Kingdom.
And no I do not believe that The Church will succeed in bringing the world to its knees or whatever for the arrival of the Messiah.
Rather I think the world will be very much divided and only a portion will be Christian as now they are just one third of the population.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Saying that Jesus is the rock in that passage is purposely taking it out of context .
Jesus was talking to Peter all the way through that and at the end told Peter He would give him the Keys To The Kingdom.
And no I do not believe that The Church will succeed in bringing the world to its knees or whatever for the arrival of the Messiah.
Rather I think the world will be very much divided and only a portion will be Christian as now they are just one third of the population.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,
I was quoting scripture from Isaiah and psalms that says states the Lord is the rock and the chief cornerstone. I wasn't talking about Peter at all. Trying to prove the Bible defines who the uncut stone really is in Daniel.

AND... I agree. The church isn't going to crush anything... nor bring the antichrist to his knees. We are too divided. We can't do it now... let alone during the tribulation period.

Saying that Jesus is the rock in that passage is purposely taking it out of context .
Jesus was talking to Peter all the way through that and at the end told Peter He would give him the Keys To The Kingdom.
And no I do not believe that The Church will succeed in bringing the world to its knees or whatever for the arrival of the Messiah.
Rather I think the world will be very much divided and only a portion will be Christian as now they are just one third of the population.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The reality is, Fred, suggesting that Peter is the rock is taking what was said out of context and is certainly not a faithful translation. That rock you suggest Peter to be is described as a stumbling block almost immediately. Is that Church "founded by Peter" a stumbling block, Fred? You should try reading Scripture in context. Have you considered that the Keys to the Kingdom may not be physical but his teachings? Interesting you focused on a third of the population, that is the number that Scripture says will be saved, so much for those who aren't part of the RCC eh, they get in after all

To clarify, I never said the church would crush anything. The church is what grows like yeast in a lump of dough, but the finishing blow has to come from Jesus himself at his return. I thought I made that clear. If Jesus truly is the head of the church, there's no problem with the view.

Jesus didn't say Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. The name Peter is "petros," which means "a small stone," where the word Jesus used for "rock" is "petra," which basically means "a massive boulder." The "rock" he built his church on is himself, not any human.

As for the "keys to the kingdom" we can only speculate about what that meant. We do know that the passage about binding and losing has been grossly misunderstood by some; what it says is "whatever you bind on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven" etc. The verbs are future perfects. Basically, Peter by his actions will acknowledge things that God has already established and decreed. My own view is that this refers to the spreading of the gospel beyond the Jews to encompass us Gentiles as well, which Peter initiated with Cornelius in Acts 10. It certainly isn't a blanket statement setting Peter up as the head of the church, and it says nothing whatsoever about any kind of succession.

That's as far as I'm willing to go on that front.

Jesus didn't say Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. The name Peter is "petros," which means "a small stone," where the word Jesus used for "rock" is "petra," which basically means "a massive boulder." The "rock" he built his church on is himself, not any human.

Your reading would then be something like this -

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art a small stone, and upon this massive boulder of myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It just doesn't make sense - even in English. Immediately after acknowledging the supreme importance of the Father revealing to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah (the first one to do so), Jesus calls Peter "a small stone" - huh? It doesn't follow.

Throw in all the arguments re language - Greek, poetic Greek, Aramaic (where the problem doesn't occur), Koine Greek - and the original reading by the Catholic Church holds up best.

(A few verses later, Jesus is calling Peter, Satan. But that probably is a later time.)

The passage clearly shows the primacy of Peter among the Apostles. Whether it can be extended to popes is another question.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art a small stone, and upon this massive boulder of myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.[/I]

It just doesn't make sense - even in English. Immediately after acknowledging the supreme importance of the Father revealing to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah (the first one to do so), Jesus calls Peter "a small stone" - huh? It doesn't follow.
It makes perfect sense. If the Church isn't built on the massive boulder of the risen Christ... And Jesus was reminding Peter (the impulsive, even rash disciple) that he is merely a small stone in the foundation, whereas Jesus is the massive boulder, the cornerstone.

It makes perfect sense. If the Church isn't built on the massive boulder of the risen Christ.... And Jesus was reminding Peter (the impulsive, even rash disciple) that he is merely a small stone in the foundation, whereas Jesus is the massive boulder, the cornerstone.

It only makes sense when it is forced to do so. You are making an interpretation to fit into your already-held notion of the meaning. The language (little pebble, massive rock) is far too quirky for the author to have meant what you say it does.

I understand it's hard to come at these things objectively, but an attempt should be made, nevertheless.

It only makes sense when it is forced to do so. You are making an interpretation to fit into your already-held notion of the meaning... I understand it's hard to come at these things objectively, but an attempt should be made, nevertheless.
Oh, that is so true, isn't it!

The language (little pebble, massive rock) is far too quirky for the author to have meant what you say it does.
Our Greek scholar (among many others) has (have? I need Rich!) said they are two different words with different meanings. Why would that be if Jesus hadn't meant He was referring to two different people? Why use two different words for rock?

It only makes sense when it is forced to do so. You are making an interpretation to fit into your already-held notion of the meaning. The language (little pebble, massive rock) is far too quirky for the author to have meant what you say it does.

I understand it's hard to come at these things objectively, but an attempt should be made, nevertheless.

Actually, it's a pun. He's been calling Simon son of Jona "Peter" (or Cephas in Aramaic) for a long time, and he's pointing out that even though he's been calling him "rocky" so to speak, his church will be built on a much bigger Rock, i.e. himself.

There's an alternate interpretation, which suggests that the "rock" he's speaking of is Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. I could go with that one, too. But what he's definitely NOT saying is that Peter himself is the "rock."

Oh, that is so true, isn't it!

Our Greek scholar (among many others) has (have? I need Rich!) said they are two different words with different meanings. Why would that be if Jesus hadn't meant He was referring to two different people? Why use two different words for rock?

There are very reasonable explanations for the language arguments/discrepancies. Google Matthew 16 and you will find them all - both Catholic and protestant. Too detailed to do them here.

One argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic, only one word would have been used, eliminating the problem. Some maintain Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Aramaic, but Koine Greek - a kind of patois.

Others say Matthew's Greek was the only legitimate way to understand the passage since that Greek was inspired by the Holy Spirit - even though it was not the language Jesus used. I don't give any weight to that kind of argument.

I tend to come down on the side of the scholarship of the Catholic Church, especially since their position has been consistent for two millennia. There have been plenty of Greek scholars in the Church over that period.

I tend to come down on the side of the scholarship of the Catholic Church, especially since their position has been consistent for two millenia. There have been plenty of Greek scholars in the Church over that period of time.
And that's a valid argument? It's always been done that way, so it must be right? And let's interpret to fit the agenda?

One argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic, only one word would have been used, eliminating the problem. Some maintain Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Aramaic, but Koine Greek - a kind of patois.


I think we've reached a bit of an impasse on the Rock question, but I do want to address this, because it's erroneous.

Koine Greek was not a patois, it was the language of the common folks of the Roman Empire. "Koine" means "common" as opposed to the Attic of the philosophers and such. Let me give a somewhat embarrassing example.

I was talking with some people who were into the "prosperity" gospel. One verse they pointed at was 3 John 2, which out of context appears to say that one of the top apostles wants believers to prosper. I tried to explain the difference between genres that are prescriptive and those that are merely salutations. They stared at me like I had two heads. A week later, the pastor of our church stood up during his sermon and addressed that same question with the words "It's not a promise, it's a greeting." Same thing I said, except my answer was Attic (and hence way over the heads of regular people) and his was Koine.

Over the past 80 years or so we've come to realize that what used to be considered Aramaic influence on the Greek of the New Testament was nothing of the kind; we've found letters, shopping lists, bills of lading, certificates freeing slaves, you name it, from here and there around the ancient Roman world, and they show that this was "plain" Greek, not some Greek-Aramaic patois.

Actually, it's a pun. He's been calling Simon son of Jona "Peter" (or Cephas in Aramaic) for a long time, and he's pointing out that even though he's been calling him "rocky" so to speak, his church will be built on a much bigger Rock, i.e. himself.

There's an alternate interpretation, which suggests that the "rock" he's speaking of is Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. I could go with that one, too. But what he's definitely NOT saying is that Peter himself is the "rock."

I don't know how you can be so "definitive" about it when scholars disagree with your position in good faith. See my reply to Wondergirl above re reading the different points of view.

And that's a valid argument? It's always been done that way, so it must be right? And let's interpret to fit the agenda?

The argument, obviously, refers to the amount of study that has been put in over time - not that it's correct because "it's always been done that way".

As to agenda - are you saying Protestants have no agenda in this? Let's be honest - the Catholic Church is the big kid on the block - and is an easy target. Both sides have agendas. The trick is figuring out which one accords best with the facts. If dogma is left out (admittedly, not an easy thing to do), the meaning of the passage becomes clear.

If dogma is left out (admittedly, not an easy thing to do), the meaning of the passage becomes clear.
I see you've totally ignored your dogma and left it out. That was so easy too.

Koine Greek was not a patois

Over the past 80 years or so we've come to realize that what used to be considered Aramaic influence on the Greek of the New Testament was nothing of the kind; we've found letters, shopping lists, bills of lading, certificates freeing slaves, you name it, from here and there around the ancient Roman world, and they show that this was "plain" Greek, not some Greek-Aramaic patois.

Thank you. "Patois" was a hasty choice of words.

There are very reasonable explanations for the language arguments/discrepancies. Google Matthew 16 and you will find them all - both Catholic and protestant. Too detailed to do them here.

One argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic, only one word would have been used, eliminating the problem. Some maintain Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Aramaic, but Koine Greek - a kind of patois.

Others say Matthew's Greek was the only legitimate way to understand the passage since that Greek was inspired by the Holy Spirit - even though it was not the language Jesus used. I don't give any weight to that kind of argument.

I tend to come down on the side of the scholarship of the Catholic Church, especially since their position has been consistent for two millenia. There have been plenty of Greek scholars in the Church over that period of time.
Wow! There must be plenty of other things we Protestants are screwing up in translation and interpretation. I'll have to let everyone know and call a high-level meeting about this.

I see you've totally ignored your dogma and left it out. That was so easy too.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be implying I have a "dogma".

Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no dogma - no agenda - no ax to grind. My interest is simply getting to the truth of the passage we're discussing.

My interest is simply getting to the truth of the passage we're discussing.
So if we agree about the rock-Rock thing being Peter because of faulty translation and not knowing what Jesus REALLY said, what else are we wrong about?

Wow! There must be plenty of other things we Protestants are screwing up in translation and interpretation. I'll have to let everyone know and call a high-level meeting about this.

Your sarcasm is noted, and I'm at a loss to understand why you feel you must be sarcastic.

There is not a scintilla of doubt that Protestants, those of the fundamentalist stripe, have "screwed up" Biblical interpretation. No rational human being could possibly believe otherwise.

I'm sure the Catholic Church has its biblical "screw ups" also, and when those arise, be assured I will not defend them. But the Catholic Church is far more credible and intellectually solid regarding Bible interpretation when compared to the fundamentalists.

I do not think your position here in this discussion is fundamentalist. I think it is a disagreement, but I think the arguments for your position are not as worthy as those of the Catholic Church.

So if we agree about the rock-Rock thing being Peter because of faulty translation and not knowing what Jesus REALLY said, what else are we wrong about?

Who's "we"?

Who's "we"?
All of us.

(Is it time for another Darvocet?)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be implying I have a "dogma".

Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no dogma - no agenda - no ax to grind. My interest is simply getting to the truth of the passage we're discussing.

I don't have any ax to grind, either. I follow the language wherever it leads. That's how I ended up where I am. I frankly couldn't care less what any church, synod, council, mucky-muck or anybody else says about doctrines, about what's "at stake," or anything else. If we believe the words of the Bible are inspired, then I'll spend my life working to understand them properly.

I've seen every interpretation of the passage out there, seen what they're based on, seen the language itself, and all the rest. This is where I ended up. The Rock is Jesus (not Duane Johnson), not Peter; we're told more than once that the church's cornerstone is Jesus Christ and no one else. I can see the alternate explanation that the Rock is Peter's confession, and hence the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, but it doesn't really explain the Greek pun. And I do conclude that it's a pun that Jesus deliberately made in Greek, simply because it works so well as a pun. If he had said it in Aramaic, the gospel writer would have had no good reason to use two different words for "rock." When something that subtle is there in the language, I like to take it seriously. I know others disagree, and that's fine. My approach is as purely linguistic as I can make it, partly because if our theology isn't based on the language of the Bible, then what is it based on? And partly because I just naturally hate theology.

You probably already know that this isn't the only Greek pun we have in Jesus' words.

All of us.

(Is it time for another Darvocet?)

I prefer Demerol myself...

I prefer Demerol myself...
Wow! There's something better?? I'll have to ask my doctor for a 'script for during the tribulation period (just to link this minor derailment to the OP).

... My approach is as purely linguistic as I can make it, partly because if our theology isn't based on the language of the Bible, then what is it based on?

The difficulty, of course, comes from the interpretation of the language.

(Btw, I've read the first chapter of your on-line novel. Fun, so far.)

Jesus didn't say Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. The name Peter is "petros," which means "a small stone," where the word Jesus used for "rock" is "petra," which basically means "a massive boulder." The "rock" he built his church on is himself, not any human.

As for the "keys to the kingdom" we can only speculate about what that meant. We do know that the passage about binding and loosing has been grossly misunderstood by some; what it says is "whatever you bind on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven" etc. The verbs are future perfects. Basically, Peter by his actions will acknowledge things that God has already established and decreed. My own view is that this refers to the spreading of the gospel beyond the Jews to encompass us Gentiles as well, which Peter initiated with Cornelius in Acts 10. It certainly isn't a blanket statement setting Peter up as the head of the church, and it says nothing whatsoever about any kind of succession.

That's as far as I'm willing to go on that front.

Peter was the first among equals, the first among the Twelver.. I like to show this by starting with Scriptural proofs. Afterwards, I'll show historical proof.

Scriptural Tradition: In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:


And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

As you might know, Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

If you will, imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop; he asked twice (not once but twice), “Whom do they say that I am?” None of the disciples could give the answer except Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed.


And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can't claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42, and once in Matthew 16:17. It's only used once by Jesus. (This holds true in the NKJV as well) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor's gives judgment,” ( the first Vicar of Christ starts with St. Peter who is succeeded by St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI)

Warren Carroll best expresses the petros/petra/kepha argument; “In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man's name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ's words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew's Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135


And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name.” The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" which is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant (the earthly Church). But I would suggest it wasn't the set of keys conferred on St. Peter, the keys to heaven the right to bind or loose in heaven and earth. The reason is that these keys in the book of Revelations are located in heaven, held by an angel church that is using the keys to keep open the door, presumably the door of holy righteousness. Another reason I don't think they are the same keys is because we see three sets of keys in sacred Scripture, the Keys of Heaven, the Key of the bottomless pit (hell), and the Keys of the House of David. Rev 9:1 “And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet: and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth. And there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit.” But in Revelations, where John is escorted through God's Kingdom in Heaven, we don't hear of the Key's of Heaven. Are we to presume that there are Keys to a earthly kingdom, a hellish kingdom, but no keys to heaven to heaven? The reason they're not mentioned is that the Keys to Heaven reside with the heirs of St. Peter.

Each time the Twelve are listed in Scripture; deference most always places Peter first among equals. For these reasons, and other not mentioned Catholics hold Peter the Apostle on which Christ built his Church, the first Pope.

JoeT

Actually, it's a pun. He's been calling Simon son of Jona "Peter" (or Cephas in Aramaic) for a long time, and he's pointing out that even though he's been calling him "rocky" so to speak, his church will be built on a much bigger Rock, i.e. himself.

There's an alternate interpretation, which suggests that the "rock" he's speaking of is Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. I could go with that one, too. But what he's definitely NOT saying is that Peter himself is the "rock."

Excellent response. I agree completely. If we put ALL scripture into context I believe that is EXACTLY what Jesus was saying.

classyT, I very much disagree.
Why?
Because I believe all of that passage and do not pick what I want it to say.
Fred

Peter was the first among equals, the first among the Twelver.. I like to show this by starting with Scriptural proofs. Afterwards, I'll show historical proof.

Scriptural Tradition: In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:


And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

As you might know, Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

If you will, imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop; he asked twice (not once but twice), “Whom do they say that I am?” None of the disciples could give the answer except Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed.


And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can’t claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42, and once in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus.

It's a different word than in Luke 1:42. This one means "happy."


(This holds true in the NKJV as well) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” ( the first Vicar of Christ starts with St. Peter who is succeeded by St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI)

While I appreciate all the effort you've put into this - you obviously know what you believe, and more important, you know why, which puts you miles ahead of most Christians - this drifts far off the "scriptural tradition" you were discussing. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus was saying that Peter would be the "founding father" (for lack of a better term) of his church, nothing in the passage requires, or even indicates, any kind of succession.


Warren Carroll best expresses the petros/petra/kepha argument; “In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135

Actually, both words were perfectly good nouns in Greek. I've already given the difference in meaning between the two. And if he's going off the tradition about Matthew that Eusebius described, he's making a flying leap by saying it was Aramaic, because Eusebius actually says it was Hebrew. Carroll's explanation is about as convoluted as anything I've seen in recent memory, and I'm not totally sure what his point is.



And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

I already dealt with this. The verbs "bind" and "loose" are in a form that indicates the things described will have already happened; Peter's job is to acknowledge them on earth. He wasn't receiving any particular authority of his own. And the Isaiah passage is talking about something completely different that has nothing to do with this.


One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name.” The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" which is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant (the earthly Church).

Uh, to use the vernacular, you pulled that out of left field. Clearly the reference in verse 7 looks back to the Isaiah passage, but there is NOTHING relating it to Peter at all. The one who has this "key" is Jesus himself, the speaker in the passage. How you get from that to Peter is beyond me, because if anything this contradicts your idea, and Jesus is saying that the one with ALL the keys is himself and nobody else.

I have no problem with you believing in Catholic tradition as well as the biblical material, but if we're going to discuss the biblical part let's stick to that and try to avoid reading tradition into it, especially in cases like this where it's just not there.

dwashbur,
I fully agree with JoeT.
That was one of the main understandings I came to when on the road from Protestantism to Rome.
I fully believe that Jesus made Peter the prime minister of Christ's kingdom with the keys to heaven.
It should be no surprise that Peter can forgive sins. You and I can do so.
I very often forgive everyone who has sinned against me.
The difference is that Peter's forgiveness is accepted as such in heaven while mine may not be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

classyT, I very much disagree.
Why?
Beacuse I believe all of that passage and do not pick and choose what I want it to say.
Fred

AHHHHH Fred,

I believe YOU believe you don't pick. But you do. Catholics add way too much into that passage about Peter. It is what it is and no more. The same way you all read into the Lord's supper... when the Lord said to take eat of the bread it was his body. Clearly he was saying it was symbolic of his body. His BODY was right there attached to his head while he was talking to them.

If you take what the Lord was saying literally, how about when the Lord Jesus spoke to the woman at the well. He said whoever would drink of THIS water would never thirst again. He didn't mean physically thirst though and he wasn't talking about literal water... it was SYMBOLIC. See?


THEN when we are told to call no man our FATHER... Catholics call Priests Father and this blows my mind... the pope The HOLY Father. So... sorry Fredrick. You do pick. But hey... I still love you. ;)

Wondergirl, of course I call my father, Father or Popsey even. I was picking on Fred a bit. I believe the Lord was talking about calling anyone spiritually your Father. Only God is our Father.

The Apsotle Paul uses the term Father when he is speaking to them about provoking their children to anger and other places in the NT and OT it is certainly used.

Ex,

You making fun of me again? You believe the stuff I say about as much as you believe the moon is made of cheese... you ain't foolin me none. :)

~ OOPS~

JoeT

It's a different word than in Luke 1:42. This one means "happy."

Just because I'm a cradle Catholic doesn't mean I was raised in a barn painted with “See Rock City” on the roof!

That's funny KJV uses “blessed art thou.” As do most all recognized translations. Are you saying all are all wrong?


While I appreciate all the effort you've put into this - you obviously know what you believe, and more important, you know why, which puts you miles ahead of most Christians - this drifts far off the "scriptural tradition" you were discussing. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus was saying that Peter would be the "founding father" (for lack of a better term) of his church, nothing in the passage requires, or even indicates, any kind of succession.

No effort; truth comes easy. You've misunderstood something; Peter isn't the “founder.” No such claim is made; anyway not by Catholics. The founder is Christ which, as he stated, he built His Church on Peter. Similar to the way we name newly built buildings. The name of the founder (the authority) is the name of the building and the foundation is that which supports the founder's wishes. Thus we have Christ the “founder” (the authority) designating Peter to the task of supporting the founder's Church; primarily because of his faith was bequeathed by God. "You are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the Chief Cornerstone. In Him the whole structure is fitted together and grows into a temple holy in the Lord."
Ephesians 2:20-21

Interesting note about Simon Bar-Johnah.

BAR-JONAH
Simon Peter's surname. Peter was the son of Jonah. Jesus hailed him by his family name at the time he bestowed on him his new name. "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). (Etym. Greek bar ionas, from Aramaic bar yonah, son of Jonah; Hebrew yonah, dove.) Catholic Culture : Dictionary : BAR-JONAH (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32091)

Seeing that Simon has the Hebrew meaning, “he has heard” with the surname meaning “dove”, which in most cultures nuances of peace, Matthew 16:17 takes a special significance. Christ renames the son of peace who has heard the son of the living God, a 'rock.' Peter is made the living foundation (or cornerstone if you prefer that metaphor) of the Church. Even the location can't be discounted; Caesarea Philippi is a region that has a large rock outcrop that forms a cliff. Christ's intent is clear and his words have faithfully survived in His Bride for 2,000 years.


Actually, both words were perfectly good nouns in Greek. I've already given the difference in meaning between the two. And if he's going off the tradition about Matthew that Eusebius described, he's making a flying leap by saying it was Aramaic, because Eusebius actually says it was Hebrew. Carroll's explanation is about as convoluted as anything I've seen in recent memory, and I'm not totally sure what his point is.

Oh, I wouldn't say so; it's quite an accepted interpretation. Peter is referred to as Cephas or Kepha throughout Scripture. It is my understanding that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Aramaic and translated to Greek. Eusebius (Church History III.39.16 CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm) ) said that the Gospel of Matthew was a compilation of two manuscripts (a synetaxato in Aramaic). Consiqently, it's more than likely those translating it from Aramaic to Greek used the term


John 1:42 (English Standard Version)

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of(A) John? You shall be called(B) Cephas" (which means(C) Peter[a]).

Footnotes:
a. John 1:42 Cephas and Peter are from the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek, respectively

Cross references:
A. John 1:42 : John 21:15-17
B. John 1:42 : 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22
C. John 1:42 : Matt 16:18
John 1:42 - PassageLookup - Darby Translation - BibleGateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:42&version=DARBY)


Uh, to use the vernacular, you pulled that out of left field. Clearly the reference in verse 7 looks back to the Isaiah passage, but there is NOTHING relating it to Peter at all. The one who has this "key" is Jesus himself, the speaker in the passage. How you get from that to Peter is beyond me, because if anything this contradicts your idea; and Jesus is saying that the one with ALL the keys is himself and nobody else.

I have no problem with you believing in Catholic tradition as well as the biblical material, but if we're going to discuss the biblical part let's stick to that and try to avoid reading tradition into it, especially in cases like this where it's just not there.

He didn't ask everybody, “Whom to you say that I am?” Jesus “he asked his disciples.” (Cf. Matt 16:13)

But then you've got to deal with the historical ramifications of Christ's founding of the Church on Peter. The following is but a few references to Peter in various writings and manuscripts, i.e. the Tradition of the Church:

It's important to note, that these were the Bishops and Popes that followed Peter. They didn't need to write a book, they lived the history of Apostolic succession and knew its teaching authority first hand. To these men head of the Church was fused to the Chair of Peter since Peter's death.

I've but together various quotes from the early Church dating from the early Church, approximately 90 AD to about 400 AD. Each consistently shows that Peter was held to be the Prime Bishop, Bishop of Bishops, the Bishop of Rome the first See, holder of the keys, etc. But I will only bore you with the first two pages. It's quite clear that Peter was understood to be the first Vicar of Christ.

Doctrine and authority of the bishop in Rome was then passed to Clement I, (CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm)) bishop of Rome (circa 90 AD rebuked the Corinthian authority. It is likely the Apostle John was still alive. Pope Clement both rebukes the schism to pull the Corinthian Church in line. Here too we see a further congealing of the Church's Apostolic and priestly structure.

We see a historical continuance the Church in the latter part of the first century. A well defined hierarchy can be clearly deduced. In The Shepherd of Hermas, (CHURCH FATHERS: The Shepherd of Hermas, Book I (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02011.htm)) Hermas wrote, “You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens [bishop of Rome] and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his [authoritative letter] to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so.” It's not until 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon do we see the primacy of Peter being challenged mostly by Greek patriarchs.

St. Ignatius holds a marked reverence (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Romans (St. Ignatius) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm)) for the founders of the Christian faith in Rome as well as a respect for their authority. Furthermore he seems to be deferring to Rome on several matters in his epistle to the Romans, c 110 AD. When arrested and sent to Rome to eventually be martyred sometime between 98 and 117, he entrusts his diocese in Antioch to the Roman See; twice using the term prokathetai (primacy); “has the primacy in the place of the region of the Romans” presiding in love (prokathemene tes agapes). Furthermore we find St Ignatius using phases such as 'first-seat' and the Episcopal seat, "You [the Roman bishop] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1).

Marching through time we find St. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing around 180 AD, CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) " Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

St. Irenaeus describes St. Victor's (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm)) excommunication of the Asian Churches from the Universal Church in other writings. Equally important was the fact that no one challenged St. Victor's authority in the excommunication. St. Victor was the bishop of Rome, 189-19. St. Irenaeus wrote to him and pleaded with him not to do it, for the sake of the peace of the Church, and St. Victor relented.

St. Clement (CHURCH FATHERS: Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (St. Clement of Alexandria) (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:RVUe2AjilwUJ:www.newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm+%22the+blessed+Peter,+the+chosen%22+site: newadvent.org&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)) of Alexandria (between 190-210 AD), in Clement, On the Rich Man, writes, " Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. “

Tertullian (c. 200 AD) refers to the Pope as the first bishop of bishops, “ Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men” From which we can also deduce that it was important to trace the heredity of the bishop to the Apostles. "

Tertullian )CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian) (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:kCPXodEvy04J:www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm+%22from+the+knowledge+of+Peter%22+site:ne wadvent.org&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)) also wrote, "What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, when they were alone, He used to expound all things Mark 4:34 which were obscure, telling them that to them it was given to know those mysteries, Matthew 13:11 which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?." Depicted here is the knowledge that Christ ordained his Apostles; establish His Church in them, commissioned them to teach with Christ's authority symbolized in the keys.

Tertullian writes further, "Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones [cathedrae] of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each. Achaia is near you, so you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can cross into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, 'whence also our authority derives'. How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island."

JoeT

Just because I’m a cradle Catholic doesn’t mean I was raised in a barn painted with “See Rock City” on the roof!

That’s funny KJV uses “blessed art thou.” As do most all recognized translations. Are you saying all are all wrong?



No, but there are major nuances in pronunciation as well as definition. What does "blessed" mean? That's the real question. One of the churches where I used to lead music enjoyed a song called "I'm Blessed," which means "God has done good things for me." That's the word in Matthew 16. The word in Luke 1 means "Others speak well of you." Two very different ideas, yet both rendered by the same word because the English word is very flexible in meaning.

Again I appreciate all the effort you put into the quotes and all, and I did read them. However, church tradition doesn't really cut any ice with me, so it doesn't change my mind about anything. And once again, I do not see any hint of apostolic succession in the Bible. Church leaders after the apostles can claim it, but I don't see any scriptural basis for it.

At that point I'm willing to agree to disagree, with one exception: you did catch me on the phrase "founded on Peter" and nailed me good. I stand corrected.

classyT, Sorry but I FULLY DISAGREE.
If Jesus would have wanted us to believe that the bread He consecrated was symbolically His body he would have mad that clear. Instead He said, "This IS my body. This IS my blood."
Jesus even made it clear when He said this is the NEW COVENANT.
Something that important would not have been symbolic.
We are living in New Covenant times.
No, In the passage about Peter I am adding nothing nor taking away anything.
Jesus was talking directly to and about Peter. The language is clear on that.
Only people who can not see that of refuse to are those who THINK that what is says is to Catholic.
They do not realize that the Church from the first year on took Jesus' words at what they say.
We know that from what is said about it in Acts and elsewhere in the bible.
Such as here...
Corinthians 11:27  Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Jesus was talking directly to and about Peter. The language is clear on that.

Actually, I have shown several times that it's not clear at all.

dwashbur,
Let me put it this way... it is clear to me that Jesus was talking to and about Peter.
It's not just me but also over about a billion people and a great many theologians in several denominations.
One thing about this subject about Peter and how and what he was and became, it has been a great discussion, question and answer topic for many years after the reformation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Just to get back on subject, volcanos?

Was Peter the first Pope?

Was Peter even IN Rome?

In my regular reading, I came to the book of Romans for the umpteenth time, and suddenly it hit me!

Why did Paul even write the letter to the Romans? In it he spoke of his desire to see them and preach to them.

WHY?

If Peter was the bishop of Rome, then there was no need for Paul to write to them or to go there.

Why would the Holy Spirit send two of the top level Apostles to the same city at the same time?

If Paul needed to minister to the people at Rome, then Peter wasn't doing his job!

Was Peter the first Pope?

Was Peter even IN Rome?

In my regular reading, I came to the book of Romans for the umpteenth time, and suddenly it hit me!

Why did Paul even write the letter to the Romans? In it he spoke of his desire to see them and preach to them.

WHY?

If Peter was the bishop of Rome, then there was no need for Paul to write to them or to go there.

Why would the Holy Spirit send two of the top level Apostles to the same city at the same time?

If Paul needed to minister to the people at Rome, then Peter wasn't doing his job!

I think you need to get a grip on Church history and realise that the organisational structure we see today didn't arise until the fourth century.
Peter and Paul could have made journeys to Rome without any idea that each was doing it. Journeys in the ancient world took many months, even years, and so a letter would take a long time to be delivered. Rome was the centre of the empire and Paul was forced to go there, and was a prisioner there for two years, and his journey had begun years before, but don't we have visiting evangelists? Does that mean the locals aren't doing their job. Paul was the person who spread christianity throughout the Roman empire so there was every reason why he would visit Rome

dwashbur,
Let me put it this way....it is clear to me that Jesus was talking to and about Peter.
It's not just me but also over about a billion people and a great many theologians in several denominations.
One thing about this subject about Peter and how and what he was and became, it has been a great discussion, question and answer topic for many years after the reformation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'm aware of how many people believe the way you do. An equal number believer otherwise. And it has indeed been a subject of discussion for centuries, and not always in as civil a manner as we've been doing ;)

Wow! There's something better???? I'll have to ask my doctor for a 'script for during the tribulation period (just to link this minor derailment to the OP).

Yeah, Demerol is better, but you have to tear your Achilles' tendon in two and have a surgeon take 2 1/2 hours to repair it in order to get some (at least that's how I got mine). Worth it? That's questionable ;)

dwashbur, Far more people believe that Peter was the first leader of The Church than those who do not.
Catholics amount to 1 billion of them, but there are other denominations who also so believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

dwashbur, Far more people believe that Peter was the first leader of The Church than those who do not.
Catholics amount to 1 billion of them, but there are other denominations who also so believe.
That means it must be true?

Wondergirl,
No that means that more people believe what the bible says about that than others do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
No that means that more people believe what the bible says about that than others do.
Or, if that's not what the Bible says, then more people believe the wrong thing than don't.

dwashbur, Far more people believe that Peter was the first leader of The Church than those who do not.
Catholics amount to 1 billion of them, but there are other denominations who also so believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

What other denominations do you refer to?

dwashbur,
That includes the Anglican, Episcopal, Some Lutheran, and the various Orthodox churches.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

dwashbur,
That includes the Anglican, Episcopal, Some Lutheran, and the various Orthodox churches.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks. Which Lutherans? I've been one and never heard it mentioned in any kind of positive way.

Was Peter the first Pope?

Was Peter even IN Rome?

In my regular reading, I came to the book of Romans for the umpteenth time, and suddenly it hit me!

Why did Paul even write the letter to the Romans? In it he spoke of his desire to see them and preach to them.

WHY?

If Peter was the bishop of Rome, then there was no need for Paul to write to them or to go there.

Why would the Holy Spirit send two of the top level Apostles to the same city at the same time?

If Paul needed to minister to the people at Rome, then Peter wasn't doing his job!


Yes, Peter was the 'first Pope.'



The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. (Pope Leo I [Reigned 440-461](Book Information | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.html) )

I’m constantly amazed at the bible-only crowd. “Peter was never in Rome – there is no scriptural reference to Peter being in Rome,” so they say. The first thought that might come to mind is to ask, where else would he be? Christ didn’t have any problem feasting with the publicans so if his mission is to teach, wouldn’t His envoy find his way to the center of the world. That is to say, Men don’t “light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house” (Cf. Matthew 5:15). “that the light of Truth which was being displayed for the salvation of all the nations, might spread itself more effectively throughout the body of the world from the head itself. What nation had not representatives then living in this city; or what peoples did not know what Rome had learnt? Here it was that the tenets of philosophy must be crushed, here that the follies of earthly wisdom must be dispelled, here that the cult of demons must be refuted, here that the blasphemy of all idolatries must be rooted out, here where the most persistent superstition had gathered together all the various errors which had anywhere been devised” (Ibid.)

In spite of our muffled candle let’s see if we can find Peter’s apartment number in Rome. It’s been established that Peter died in Rome, hung upside-down on a cross along the road to Ostia. The last I heard this was very, very, close to Rome; buried in a spot over which the Vatican was built. And we have witnesses.

Tertullian writes:


“Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence.” (as quoted by Eusebius, Church History II.1 CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book II (Eusebius) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm#chapter1))

Eusebius also tells us through the words of Caisus that nobody was condemned by Nero “unless it was something of great excellence.” Accordingly, we have the most excellent Peter in Rome according to witnesses. When Christ turned to Peter and said, “Follow me” He bound Peter like no other:

"And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John 21:18-19). John prefigured Peter’s end on this earth. (Ibid.).

Using the term ‘Babylon’ was double speak in antiquity for ‘Rome.’


St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111). CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm)

Eusebius’ history tells us that Peter also preached ‘Church Doctrine’ in Rome.


From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle. (Ibid.)

These testimonies (and many more I won’t bore you with) by contemporaries show that Peter took up residence in Rome, functioned as ‘the first Pope’ and was recognized by the Church as the first Apostle among his equals, i.e. the first Pope.

JoeT

I’m constantly amazed at the bible-only crowd.

JoeT

So am I. If it's not mentioned in the Bible, it's not true. Heck, the original writings don't even EXIST, yet the various extant copies are granted an infallibility that borders on idolatry. Yes, use the Bible as an historical document, even as inspired, but don't park your brain somewhere that prevents you from applying logic and reason to the Bible.

I have no problem with the fact that Peter was in Rome at some point; Joe, I agree with you about the Babylon reference, especially since the literal Babylon was nothing but a collection of ruins at the time. I do have a problem with the idea that he was ever bishop of Rome. I accept the tradition that he was executed in Rome around the same time that Paul was.

Fr. Charles Chiniquy has informed us that it was the RCC that streneously objected to having the Bible taught in public schools.

I wonder why?

Fr. Charles Chiniquy has informed us that it was the RCC that streneously objected to having the Bible taught in public schools.

I wonder why?

Probably because Chiniquy hated the Catholic Church.

He also said the Jesuits assassinated Abraham Lincoln, the Catholic Church was a vast conspiracy intending to take over the United States, has been the inspiration for the notorious anti-Catholic Jack Chick, and is beloved today by that extreme Bible-only segment of Protestantism.

He died in 1899, a convert to Protestantism.

I wonder why you brought it up?

Fr. Charles Chiniquy has informed us that it was the RCC that streneously objected to having the Bible taught in public schools.

I wonder why?

Great Reference !:

Are you trying to make a point with a Jack Chick (a personification of 'hate-Catholic') reference? Gee, should we expect any less from an excommunicated crackpot? Is this the best you can do? FYI:


In 1885, a former Catholic priest, Charles Chiniquy, wrote a book titled Fifty Years in the Church of Rome in which he made many scandalous allegations against the Catholic Church, including the accusation that the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865 had been the result of a conspiracy by the Catholic Church, and that the assassin John Wilkes Booth was a Catholic who had been corrupted and led by the Vatican to commit the murder.

Chiniquy, who had been excommunicated by the Catholic Church in 1858, claimed that "emissaries of the Pope" had promised Booth "a crown of glory in heaven" for the killing of Lincoln. According to Chiniquy, the assassination was perpetrated by the Church in revenge for Lincoln's defense of Chiniquy in a 1856 lawsuit.

Chiniquy's writings are still widely distributed and promoted, in books and on webpages. The goal of this website is to provide factual information concerning Charles Chiniquy and his allegations against the Catholic Church. WHO WAS CHARLES CHINIQUY: Facts Versus Falsehood on this anti-Catholic preacher (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/Charles-Chiniquy-Anti-Catholic.htm)


See also, Charles Chiniquy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Chiniquy)

Of course, he was excommunicated.

What does that prove?

More in line with the OP, I saw on the news a reporter holding a piece of ice in his hand that the volcano had thrown into the air. I looked like it weighed maybe 5 - 8 pounds and I thought about this passage.


Rev 16:21
21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
(KJV)

The notes in my Bible say that a talent weighs about 114 pounds. Now that is much more than what you can hold in your hand, but just goes to show that large chunks of ice can actually fall from the skies.

Fr. Charles Chiniquy has informed us that it was the RCC that streneously objected to having the Bible taught in public schools.

I wonder why?

Who cares?

Incidentally, Joe, Jack Chick's other inspiration for his hatred of Catholicism was Alberto Rivera, a guy who claimed to have been a priest and been involved in all kinds of horrible stuff. In the early 80's Christianity Today, one of the most prominent non-Catholic Christian publications in the country, investigated and found out that Rivera was a fraud. He had never been a priest, had never been to any of the places he wrote about, and was wanted in at least 7 states for things like check fraud.

Chick sure can pick 'em, eh?

Of course, he was excommunicated.

What does that prove?

It proves you're disingenuous.

It proves you're disingenuous.

Huh?

It proves you're disingenuous.

It proves nothing of the sort!

Even if Chiniquy was excommunicated, it doesn't even prove that he was lying!

Your personal attack is not appreciated.

So the RCC says that Chiniquy lied. The RCC does not have a very good track record, even to this date about admitting when it is wrong. You know, all the pedophilia, etc.

It proves nothing of the sort!!

Even if Chiniquy was excommunicated, it doesn't even prove that he was lying!

Rev. Sydney F. Smith, S. J. makes an excellent case against Chinquy. His stories were fabricated, unsupported, false, or exaggerated. “in short, that the author of a story which makes out the Catholic Church of Canada and the United States, at the date of which he writes, to be so essentially different from what unbiased witnesses find it to be within the scope of their own direct observation, is one who paints himself in his own book as destitute of all those qualities which predispose a discerning reader to repose confidence in an author's statements.” See the following: AN EXAMINATION OF HIS "FIFTY YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME" by REV. SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J. AN ESSAY ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN 1908 (WHO WAS CHARLES CHINIQUY: Facts Versus Falsehood on this anti-Catholic preacher (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/Charles-Chiniquy-Anti-Catholic.htm) )

JoeT

More in line with the OP, I saw on the news a reporter holding a piece of ice in his hand that the volcano had thrown into the air. I looked like it weighed maybe 5 - 8 pounds and I thought about this passage.


Rev 16:21
21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
(KJV)

The notes in my Bible say that a talent weighs about 114 pounds. Now that is much more than what you can hold in your hand, but just goes to show that large chunks of ice can actually fall from the skies.

Imagine it? What a horrible blood bath and instead of repenting, the people blasphemed God. This is a perfect example of the condition of mankind... a stoney heart and pride out the waaazooo! Glad this little pretribber won't be here to see it. :)

classyT,
Yes, it is many people's habit to blame God for happenings.
Even insurance companies use the term "acts of God".
They really are consequences of nature.
Some of the boulders that blew out of Mt. St Helens weighed about a ton. Fortunately they only flew about a mile.
Smaller chunks flew much farther.
Peace and kindness,
Fred