This question is directed at those who take subjects like the whole rapture thing so seriously: why? It seems to me that we Christians can find the silliest things to argue and snipe at each other over, and I consider this one of them. When I was in college, a good friend of mine wrote his senior thesis on the rapture. The consensus was that he came out post-trib, which he actually didn't. I read his thesis and he concluded that the post-tribs had done a lot more research, especially recently (up to that time, around 1980) and were basically blowing the doors of the pre-tribs. His closing statement simply said that the pre-trib camp had a lot of catching up to do.

For that reason, the school refused to give him a degree. Ridiculous.

Another student did a study on the question of tongues and concluded that maybe there was some validity to the whole idea, and it should be investigated further with an open mind. He likewise was refused graduation.

We all love Jesus; we all agree he's coming back. We've all read the end of the book and we know who wins. Why isn't that enough for us?

Just a few thoughts. In a time when the rest of the world is making fun of us and pointing out all the stupid things we do, why do we try so hard to give them more ammunition?

As a French hippie might say, je ne diggue pas...

What you have to understand is that when you say "christian" it's a giant ball of wax. They all share certain beliefs but they are also very different in the ones the uphold as a denomination. There lies the conflict. Each one believes they are "right". Look at the different outcome from reading the same book. Old Testement. Jew, Muslim and Christians. 3 totally different directions and schools of thought.

Why do I feel so strongly about the rapture? Because it is such an important part of my Christian walk. Not believing in it could have you left standing by the side lines when it happens.

Why do I feel so strongly about the rapture? Because it is such an important part of my Christian walk. Not believing in it could have you left standing by the side lines when it happens.

Huh?

What you have to understand is that when you say "christian" its a giant ball of wax. They all share certain beliefs but they are also very different in the ones the uphold as a denomination. There lies the conflict. Each one believes they are "right". Look at the different outcome from reading the same book. Old Testement. Jew, Muslim and Christians. 3 totally different directions and schools of thought.

Yeah, I know. I've been involved in at least 5 different denominations in my time, and 2 or 3 "non-denominational" denominations. My dad raised me to believe that the Baptists were the only ones who were right and all Catholics are going to hell because they're Catholics. Of course, he also tried to teach me that anybody who isn't a WASP is a lower form of life. Since then, I've learned that people are people regardless of what they look like, and anybody who believes in Jesus Christ is my brother or sister. I even served as a musician in a Catholic church for the better part of a year, have been a Lutheran, C&MA, whatever the Vineyard is, a Mennonite, and I can't remember what else. We have a common denominator; I prefer to emphasize that.

Bother...
I'm not sure how this ended up in "religious discussions" instead of the Christianity forum where I thought I was putting it...

I don't suppose there's a way to move it?

There may be a way. Try clicking inappropriate post and report it as wrong category. One of the OP's can move the entire thread.

There may be a way. Try clicking inappropriate post and report it as wrong catagory. One of the OP's can move the entire thread.

Done; we shall see. Thanks!

You know the way it is going, religious discussion seems better, I think it is better left here.

Dwa,

I don't get all upset when someone doesn't believe in the rapture. Of all the topics we Christians can't agree on, this bothers me the least. Which is why I tend to make light about it. If it happens.. ( and it will) then all you guys out there that didn't believe get to eat crow. :) and I will watch. If I am wrong ( and I'm not) then I guess I will be hunted down by the antichrist for not having the mark and then killed. You all can gloat I was wrong that is IF you don't have your heads chopped off first. If saying that was mean, divisive and Unchristian.. sorry. I just can't upset over it.

Bother...
I'm not sure how this ended up in "religious discussions" instead of the Christianity forum where I thought I was putting it...

I don't suppose there's a way to move it?The Discussions forums don't allow for ratings, positive or negative. This keeps people from giving out reddies for differences of opinion.

Dwa,

I don't get all upset when someone doesn't believe in the rapture. Of all the topics we Christians can't agree on, this bothers me the least. Which is why I tend to make light about it. If it happens..( and it will) then all you guys out there that didn't believe get to eat crow. :) and I will watch. If I am wrong ( and I'm not) then I guess i will be hunted down by the antichrist for not having the mark and then killed. You all can gloat I was wrong that is IF you don't have your heads chopped off first. If saying that was mean, divisive and Unchristian..sorry. I just can't upset over it.

I know you don't, but there are plenty who do. For a long time I called myself an apathetic agnostic on the subject: I don't know and I don't care. During that time I said that I hope the pretribs are right, I'm afraid the posttribs are right, and if the midtribs are right they can kick back for all eternity and laugh at the others.

All that, of course, was before I learned that the whole "great tribulation" thing is symbolic for the entire period between Jesus' first and second coming. Now, I just know he's coming back. That's good enough for me.

The Discussions forums don't allow for ratings, positive or negative. This keeps people from giving out reddies for differences of opinion.

Huh?

Huh?Try it. Try giving someone a rating here, you'll find you can't, that's by design. All the sub topics under https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/member-discussions/ are set to not accept ratings/reputations.

Try it. Try giving someone a rating here, you'll find you can't, that's by design. All the sub topics under https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/member-discussions/ are set to not accept ratings/reputations.

I meant, Huh? What does that have to do with what I said about moving the thread? I should point out that it doesn't take much to confuse me...

I meant, Huh? What does that have to do with what I said about moving the thread? I should point out that it doesn't take much to confuse me...Oh sorry. :) If a moderator feels that a thread in the 'regular' forums can turn out to be controversial and people may deduct reputation based on emotion/opinion then they may make the decision to move it to the Discussions forum where this cannot happen. I apologize, I didn't mean to derail your thread I was simply trying to let you know how it got moved.

Oh sorry. :) If a moderator feels that a thread in the 'regular' forums can turn out to be controversial and people may deduct reputation based on emotion/opinion then they may make the decision to move it to the Discussions forum where this cannot happen. I apologize, I didn't mean to derail your thread I was simply trying to let you know how it got moved.

OK, I get it now. As I said, it doesn't take much to confuse me. Thanks!

Now I see that the subject has changed. I didn't do it; and I was actually asking about more than one topic. Befuddlement reigns in my aching head...

I know you don't, but there are plenty who do. For a long time I called myself an apathetic agnostic on the subject: I don't know and I don't care. During that time I said that I hope the pretribs are right, I'm afraid the posttribs are right, and if the midtribs are right they can kick back for all eternity and laugh at the others.

All that, of course, was before I learned that the whole "great tribulation" thing is symbolic for the entire period between Jesus' first and second coming. Now, I just know he's coming back. That's good enough for me.

Well I didn't mean to imply I don't care... because I do. I just am not going to get angry if someone doesn't get it. I believe we are raptured BEFORE and I think it is important to understand it. To say that Revelation doesn't have symbolisms would be foolish. However when you read and understand Daniel and Revelation, I just don't see how you can walk away thinking the book is ALL symbolic. None of the other times Daniel spoke of were SYMBOLIC. Oh the Animals or type of beasts he described were but they represented a REAL world ruler and a SPECIFIC time. In Revelation John is trying to describe things he hasn't seen before.. they are real, the antichrist is real and so is the 7 actual years of tribulation. Not only does John describe it... Daniel does too AND so does the Lord Jesus in Mathew.

Befuddlement reigns in my aching head...............

Ha ha... join the club! :)

Well I didn't mean to imply I don't care... because I do. I just am not going to get angry if someone doesn't get it. I believe we are raptured BEFORE and I think it is important to understand it.

Why? Assuming your view is correct, understanding or not understanding it won't affect whether one takes part in it. And assuming that we are raptured before all that stuff, who cares what happens afterward?


To say that Revelation doesn't have symbolisms would be foolish. However when you read and understand Daniel and Revelation, I just don't see how you can walk away thinking the book is ALL symbolic.

It's easy: I read it the way they intended it.


None of the other times Daniel spoke of were SYMBOLIC. Oh the Animals or type of beasts he described were but they represented a REAL world ruler and a SPECIFIC time.

Um, yes and no. But Daniel himself said he didn't understand any of it, and we only have the remotest of clues about it a thousand or so years later. And even then, some things just don't fit. Look at all the absurd attempts to fit the whole 69/70 weeks thing into the question of the temple and Jesus. It just doesn't work. And putting thousands of years' worth of gap between the 69th and 70th weeks is totally foreign to what he wrote, understood or imagined.

See, the key word in your comment is "represent." We don't know for sure; the things you've been told are somebody's best guess. Nothing more. And the times actually don't fit his descriptions. So those who want to fit it all into a nice neat package have to manipulate numbers, adjust history, play games with symbolism, and otherwise muck with the whole thing to make it fit. I have a big problem with that.


In Revelation John is trying to describe things he hasn't seen before..

We don't know that. In fact, that's the whole question. We have monsters rising out of the sea and the land, we have frog spirits causing havoc, we have horsemen, we have creatures with thousands of eyes hanging around God's throne - if he HAD seen things like that before, I'd wonder what kind of mushrooms he had been eating. But what did it all mean? That's what we don't know. We do know that "literal interpretation" leads us down a ridiculous path.


they are real, the antichrist is real and so is the 7 actual years of tribulation. Not only does John describe it... Daniel does too AND so does the Lord Jesus in Mathew.

Sorry, but there's no "antichrist" in Revelation, Daniel or Matthew. The term only occurs in John's epistles, and there he says there's more than one. The big enemy in Daniel best fits Antiochus IV who defiled the temple during the intertestamental period. Matthew 24 best fits the destruction of the temple in AD 70 by the Romans. And the number that dispensationalists are so enamored with, 666, is a symbol for Nero. Daniel's "weeks" don't fit any known period of history so they have to be something symbolic as well, or else he was wrong. And the beat goes on.

Dwash,
Okie dokie- you had me going...
I started writing down the 4 world empires that I believe Daniel prophcied. I was listing the verses in Daniel going into the symbols of the bear, the 4 generals... tons of stuff and then I happened to click on your website before I posted it.

Ok... ( I'm blonde and I KNOW my limitations)... you are OBVIOUSLY very smart and I'm not going to "enlighten" you in anything concerning Daniels visions. Something tells me you've argued this stuff before and you know it all ready.

What do you do with what Paul says in Thess. about not all of sleeping and the dead in Christ shall rise first? Putting all of it into context. I'm just wondering.

Do you believe all of revelation has already happen? The Great White Throne?

I don't know dwash... smart a guy as you seem to be.. I'm thinking your theology is WASHED up... pun intended. :)

"Do you believe all of revelation has already happen? The Great White Throne?"

No. I don't believe Jesus has returned yet. Obviously, that puts me in opposition to Charles Taze Russell's followers ;)

"What do you do with what Paul says in Thess.? about not all of sleeping and the dead in Christ shall rise first? Putting all of it into context. I'm just wondering."

I've answered this several times. Here's what I said just today in another thread:

"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."

You think the Lord Jesus would let His bride go through the WRATH that is to come? It is going to be hell on earth... not My Jesus... no way, no how. :)

You think the Lord Jesus would let His bride go through the WRATH that is to come? It is going to be hell on earth...not My Jesus...no way, no how. :)

We're talking right past each other. I already addressed this, so there it is (as the emperor said to Mozart).

Dave, if you can find a copy, I suggest you read "The Coming Prince" by Sir Robert Anderson.

The paper back copy I have was last printed in 1983 by Kregel Publications. It has prefaces to the fifth and tenth editions.

Anderson was a preacher, lawyer, and between 1888 and 1901 served as Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, and Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department. (Scotland Yard)

His above named book is a scholarly work where he uses history, Daniel's prophecy, and the Jewish calendar.

He does indeed fit the details of that prophecy into the time given.

I hope you can find a copy, as I feel certain that you would enjoy the read.

Dave, if you can find a copy, I suggest you read "The Coming Prince" by Sir Robert Anderson.

The paper back copy I have was last printed in 1983 by Kregel Publications. It has prefaces to the fifth and tenth editions.

Anderson was a preacher, lawyer, and between 1888 and 1901 served as Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, and Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department. (Scotland Yard)

His above named book is a scholarly work where he uses history, Daniel's prophecy, and the Jewish calendar.

He does indeed fit the details of that prophecy into the time period given.

I hope you can find a copy, as I feel certain that you would enjoy the read.

I've read it, but thanks for the suggestion.

Dave, you seem to think that symbolic prophecy is incomprehensible.

Why would the Holy Spirit inspire it if we cannot understand it?

God does not confuse, He enlightens.


Dan 8:16-22
16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.
18 Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright.
19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.
20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
(KJV)

Here, Daniel is TOLD about Media- Persia and Greece. Why do you insist that we cannot know these things?

Dave, you seem to think that symbolic prophecy is incomprehensible.


I did not say that. Yes, the one prophecy you quoted was explained in detail. That's one in a row. My point is, when it comes to books like Revelation, we don't have those explanations. However, it is absolutely necessary to read them on their own terms, and that does NOT mean literally.

Okay, Dave, one in a row.

Dan 2:31-45
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.
(At this time in history, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon were inseparable. Babylon was there long before Nebuchadnezzar, but it did not last long enough to count after he was gone. So Babylon was the first kingdom in this prophetic series.)
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, (we know from history that this was Medio-Persia) and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.(Greece, under Alexander)
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. (Rome)
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.
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 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.
(KJV

NOW WE SEE THE SAME PROGRESSION IN DIFFERENT SYMBOLS.
Dan 7:3-7
3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. (Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar)
5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. (Medio-Persia)
6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. (Greece under Alexander the Great)
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. KJV
(Rome. Now just where do we see the ten horns again?)

Rev 12:3
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
(KJV)

Rev 17:12
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
(KJV)
You have to understand that just as Jesus Christ is the central person of the Bible, just so Israel is the central NATION of the Bible. All Bible history and (national)prophecy revolves around Israel.

Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar saw the nations that opressed Israel BEGINNING with Babylon.

John saw the nations that opressed Israel BEGINNING with the first one, Egypt, followed by Assyria, hence the reference "five are fallen, (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece), one is, (Rome) to be followed by the final form of world government to opress ISRAEL.

That is the reason for the "gap" in prophecy, because there WAS NO ISRAEL TO OPRESS between 70 and 1948.

I'm sure you don't agree, but others reading this may find it interesting.

John

Galveston,

Check it out: Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Do you agree that the last week will start when the antichrist signs the peace treaty to protect Israel?

The way I see it, God's time clock stopped, for now. (after the stoning of Stephen) He has temporarily set Israel aside, and is in the process of calling out a people for his name sake, the Church, His bride. ( whosoever will may come) Then after the rapture of the Church, the Lord begins to deal again with the nation of Israel again. It is when the antichrist signs that peace treaty.. that 70'th week starts... what say you? Do I have it right?

John saw the nations that opressed Israel BEGINNING with the first one, Egypt, followed by Assyria, hence the reference "five are fallen, (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece), one is, (Rome) to be followed by the final form of world government to opress ISRAEL.


Surely you jest. You forgot the Hittites, the Philistines, the Moabites, the Edomites, the Syrians under Damascus and a host of others. They all oppressed Israel, so why aren't they in the list? You pulled that out of thin air. Greece fell apart after Alexander's death and its two successors, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, took turns oppressing Israel in the period between the testaments. The major baddie that Daniel saw was Antiochus IV, who desecrated the temple in Jerusalem and called himself Epiphanes, which basically means "a god in human form." He fits the bill best, which indicates that this 70th week has already happened.

And now a nice little language joke: the people on the streets of Judea had a wonderful little pun. Instead of Epiphanes, they referred to him as Epimanes, which means "maniac."

DAVE,

Do NOT make me come through this computer and smack you. Antiochus IV ( really nice name btw) was a TYPE of the antichrist.

Just like Joseph was a type or picture of the Lord Jesus. It doesn't mean HE was "the one" spoken of in Daniel.

You are sooooo close to a reddie.. don't make me use it. :D

DAVE,

do NOT make me come thru this computer and smack ya. Antiochus IV ( really nice name btw) was a TYPE of the antichrist.

Just like Joseph was a type or picture of the Lord Jesus. It doesn't mean HE was "the one" spoken of in Daniel.

you are sooooo close to a reddie..don't make me use it. :D

You can't prove the type thing about Antiochus. He not only fits the picture, he fits the time frame. Reddie? Bring it on, blondie!! ;)

John says more than once that there are many antichrists. The one spoken of in Revelation, the beast with the number 666, was Nero.

Galveston,

Check it out: Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Do you agree that the last week will start when the antichrist signs the peace treaty to protect Israel?

The way I see it, God's time clock stopped, for now. (after the stoning of Stephen) He has temporarily set Israel aside, and is in the process of calling out a people for his name sake, the Church, His bride. ( whosoever will may come) Then after the rapture of the Church, the Lord begins to deal again with the nation of Israel again. It is when the antichrist signs that peace treaty..that 70'th week starts.... what say you? Do I have it right?

That's pretty much what I think. Actually, there WAS no nation of Israel for God to deal with between 70 and 1948.

Dave, If all the prophecies of Daniel were finished such a long time ago, why haven't the kingdoms of this world been turned to dust?
The final part of the image dream HAS NOT HAPPENED, so is yet future.

Don't you see the recurring idea of the number 10? Ten toes, ten horns in both Daniel and Revelation.

I repeat; national prophecy deals with Israel, always has and always will.

Surely you jest. You forgot the Hittites, the Philistines, the Moabites, the Edomites, the Syrians under Damascus and a host of others. They all oppressed Israel, so why aren't they in the list? You pulled that out of thin air. Greece fell apart after Alexander's death and its two successors, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, took turns oppressing Israel in the period between the testaments. The major baddie that Daniel saw was Antiochus IV, who desecrated the temple in Jerusalem and called himself Epiphanes, which basically means "a god in human form." He fits the bill best, which indicates that this 70th week has already happened.

And now a nice little language joke: the people on the streets of Judea had a wonderful little pun. Instead of Epiphanes, they referred to him as Epimanes, which means "maniac."

Are you saying that the people you list above were world powers?

The prophecies in Daniel only recognize 4 world kingdoms from Daniel's day forward, and that sequence is given 3 times. (For emphasis?)

It is the end time condition of world affairs that we are interested in, and that was shown to be one of outward co-operation but very weak in actuality. (The 10 toes of iron and clay mixed.)

The image dream starts with the golden head.
Daniel gets 2 more visions, with the same subsequent countries represented by different animals.

[QUOTE=galveston;233720

I repeat; national prophecy deals with Israel, always has and always will.[/QUOTE]

Ditto... in case Dave needs to understand what ditto means... it means I concur.. I agree.. Galveston rocks and is absolutely correct.

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2302952]
Another student did a study on the question of tongues and concluded that maybe there was some validity to the whole idea, and it should be investigated further with an open mind. He likewise was refused graduation.
QUOTE]

QUESTION: Are these the same people who strongly affirm that Paul said a woman should remain silent in church, but deny what the same Apostle said about not fobidding to speak with tongues?

Are you saying that the people you list above were world powers?

You didn't say "world powers." You said


John saw the nations that opressed Israel BEGINNING with the first one, Egypt, followed by Assyria, hence the reference "five are fallen, (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece), one is, (Rome) to be followed by the final form of world government to opress ISRAEL.

We were talking about John. Suddenly you want to shift to Daniel. Make up your mind. All the nations I mentioned oppressed Israel at one time or another, and there were plenty in between Egypt and Assyria. And there were a lot more than ten of them. If we're going to talk about the ten items in John, let's talk about them. But quit flipping back and forth when you don't have an answer.

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2302952]
Another student did a study on the question of tongues and concluded that maybe there was some validity to the whole idea, and it should be investigated further with an open mind. He likewise was refused graduation.
QUOTE]

QUESTION: Are these the same people who strongly affirm that Paul said a woman should remain silent in church, but deny what the same Apostle said about not fobidding to speak with tongues?

Pretty much!

ditto....in case Dave needs to understand what ditto means....it means I concur..i agree..Galveston rocks and is absolutely correct.

So why does Paul call the church the Israel of God?

Dave,

Please provide me with the book, chapter and verse. I will answer you when I read it in context. :)

Dave,

Please provide me with the book, chapter and verse. I will answer you when I read it in context. :)

Galatians 6:16.

Galatians 6:16.

You can't build theology on only one reference. Paul consistently taught that there are no divisions in Christ.

However,

I don't see how you can say that the nation of Israel has no role in end time prophecy.

Or did you say that?

An added thought.

Since the events of what is called the rapture include the resurrection of the righteous dead and the changing of the living righteous, I think I can safely say that we BOTH believe in the rapture.

Our difference has to do with the timing of that event.

An added thought.

Since the events of what is called the rapture include the resurrection of the righteous dead and the changing of the living righteous, I think I can safely say that we BOTH believe in the rapture.

Our difference has to do with the timing of that event.

Agreed.

Dave,

Boy you ask the hard questions don't you. I like it. :)

Let me read the entire book of Galatians and I will get back with my thoughts on why Paul uses that term. Very interesting.

BUt I do agree with Galveston... you can't build a theology on only one reference.

I shall return. :)

You can't build theology on only one reference. Paul consistently taught that there are no divisions in Christ.

However,

I don't see how you can say that the nation of Israel has no role in end time prophecy.

Or did you say that?

I'm not building on only one reference. Jesus told the religious leaders that the Kingdom was being taken from them and given to someone else. Paul said that we are grafted-in members of Israel in addition to calling the church the Israel of God. The supposed activity related to Israel in Revelation has to be symbolic, because the twelve tribes listed have no resemblance to any other list of the twelve tribes anywhere else in the entire Bible.

So yes, I say the nation of Israel has no role in end time prophecy. A national Israel is meaningless; God deals with people as spiritual individuals and always has. See the "before Jesus" thread on the Christianity board, where most everybody agrees that God has always dealt with people on the basis of faith, not on nationality or ethnicity.

Dave,

You really aren't putting what Paul said in context. Paul is so clear on who the church is and the difference between grace and those under the Law. In Galatians, we find this assembly in trouble because they are giving up the truth of the gospel that Paul preached and started listening to false teaching. They started adding to the gospel and putting themselves back under the law.. by adding works as a part of salvation.

In the last chapter, what I glean is there are these Jewish teachers insisting and pushing the Gentiles to become circumcised in order to receive the promises of God. The Apostle Paul is letting them know this is NOT the case at all. It isn't about Jews or Gentiles.. it is about becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus. Those that follow this rule... of being a new creature are insured the promises of peace and mercy the real believers, the new creatures.

Paul never refers to the Church as the Israel of God except ( maybe) here. It has to do with what these "cirucumcised" Judiazing false teachers are pushing, being under the law is the way to come under God's blessings.

There were a few Gentiles mentioned in the OT, who did become believers because of their faith. I didn't get into some big discussion on the thread "before Jesus" about it because I knew it would be really unpopular to talk about his covenant with Israel. BUT... for the most part in the OT it is Israel that God was dealing with. We get a few Gentiles thrown in here and there. ( Ruth is an awsome picture of the Church.) BUT He hasn't forgotten them and he won't forget them. He has temporarily set them ( the nation not individual Jews) aside... he is calling out a people for his name sake... His Bride.. but rest assured he will deal with Israel again.

Prophecy is all about the nation of Israel. He that neither slumbers nor sleeps has his eye on them. He has an everlasting covenant with them and he isn't going to just take it back.

Numbers 23:19

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

So.. I'm tired.. not sure I'm making lots of sense. Are you saying you believe in replacement theology? That God is finished with Israel and the church is now the "Israel of God"?

You cannot turn on the news and not see something about Israel on it almost daily. Come ON Dave... 1948 Israel became a nation in a day ( another prophecy fulfilled). What other peoples have gone back to their land after being exiled for 2000 years. What other people even know who they ARE after NOT having a homeland for that long. They have been scattered all over and God has brought them back to the Land. ( another prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes) I haven't seen any "philistines" running around lately.. have you? :D

Paul never refers to the Church as the Israel of God except ( maybe) here. It has to do with what these "cirucumcised" Judiazing false teachers are pushing, being under the law is the way to come under God's blessings.

I'm not sure I follow you. What does that have to do with the church being the Israel of God?


There were a few Gentiles mentioned in the OT, who did become believers because of their faith. I didn't get into some big discussion on the thread "before Jesus" about it because I knew it would be really unpopular to talk about his covenant with Israel. BUT... for the most part in the OT it is Israel that God was dealing with. We get a few Gentiles thrown in here and there.

We also get loads of Israelites who are rejected, destroyed, oppressed, you name it, because they abandon God and turn to idols or whatever. It was never about nationalism or ethnicity, as I already said; it has always been about faith and trust in the Lord. He chose a particular group of people to transmit his revelation through, but that certainly didn't give them a free ride to heaven or automatically insure his blessings. Look at the people at the foot of Sinai. They saw God at work, heard the rumblings, and all that, and they still turned away and forced Aaron to make an idol for them. God destroyed them. Do we suppose those people were taken to paradise once they hit the bottom of the ravine that opened under them? I think not. No faith, no salvation. Thus it has always been, as far back as Cain and Abel. What was Israel's role? To bring God's revelation to the world, as described in Romans 2. But just like every other person in every other age, the only way they were saved was through personal faith. There's no national guarantee of anything, and never was.


( Ruth is an awsome picture of the Church.) BUT He hasn't forgotten them and he won't forget them. He has temporarily set them ( the nation not individual Jews) aside... he is calling out a people for his name sake... His Bride.. but rest assured he will deal with Israel again.

He already is. Individual Jews can come to Christ just like the rest of us can. That's the whole point. There's no national element to it. Yes, there's a nation of Israel again. And it's about as godless as it ever was during the time of the Judges (that comes from a Rabbi in Denver, not from me; I'm quoting). Does God have a special plan or a special soft spot for them? No. Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, Jew Gentile, in Israel, in North Dakota, whoever, wherever. There's no difference, as Paul hammers away again and again.



So.. I'm tired.. not sure I'm making lots of sense. Are you saying you believe in replacement theology? That God is finished with Israel and the church is now the "Israel of God"?

No, not "replacement." If I had to put a label on it, which I don't like to do, I'd have to call it "blending." The Israel of God includes all believers, regardless of their ancestry.

Dave:

[QUOTE]

We also get loads of Israelites who are rejected, destroyed, oppressed, you name it, because they abandon God and turn to idols or whatever. It was never about nationalism or ethnicity, as I already said; it has always been about faith and trust in the Lord. He chose a particular group of people to transmit his revelation through, but that certainly didn't give them a free ride to heaven or automatically insure his blessings. Look at the people at the foot of Sinai. They saw God at work, heard the rumblings, and all that, and they still turned away and forced Aaron to make an idol for them. God destroyed them. Do we suppose those people were taken to paradise once they hit the bottom of the ravine that opened under them? I think not. No faith, no salvation. Thus it has always been, as far back as Cain and Abel. What was Israel's role? To bring God's revelation to the world, as described in Romans 2. But just like every other person in every other age, the only way they were saved was through personal faith. There's no national guarantee of anything, and never was.


Totally agree with you there had to be by faith back then too. I never meant that I believed that all Jews automatically went to heaven. I doubt we see ol King Saul there. BUT God did make a covenant with the Nation of Israel. He chose to bless these people, he even said he'd bless nations that blessed Israel. They are the apple of his eye and that hasn't changed.


He already is. Individual Jews can come to Christ just like the rest of us can. That's the whole point. There's no national element to it. Yes, there's a nation of Israel again. And it's about as godless as it ever was during the time of the Judges (that comes from a Rabbi in Denver, not from me; I'm quoting). Does God have a special plan or a special soft spot for them? No. Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, Jew Gentile, in Israel, in North Dakota, whoever, wherever. There's no difference, as Paul hammers away again and again.

Paul hammers away at THIS: There is no difference IN the BODY of Christ. There is NO Jew in the Body of Christ, there is NO Gentile in the BODY of christ. We are EXACTLY the same in the Body of Christ. He never once says that God is finished with the nation of Israel. The scriptures teach quite the opposite.

It is not a coincidence Israel is now a nation after being exiled for over 2000 years. It is not a coincidence she became a nation in a day.. fulfilling prophecy in 1948.

What I find really interesting is John Darby who was one of the first (besides PAUL) to teach about the age of Grace,the rapture and end times, realized that Israel would have to become a Nation again before Daniels prophecy could be fulfilled. He had no clue of how or when the Jews would return to the Land. ( Honestly, the only way it could have happened is because God said it would because the odds are ridiculous) As I stated before in my last post, what other people have EVER done that? What other people have lost their land, their nation for 2000 years but not their identity? John Darby was born in the 1800's, so he couldn't have known exactly when it would happen. He just taught it would because that is what he saw in the scriptures. It isn't by chance... nothing regarding Israel is just happenstance.

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2341316]

Dave:




Totally agree with you there had to be by faith back then too. I never meant that I believed that all Jews automatically went to heaven. I doubt we see ol King Saul there. BUT God did make a covenant with the Nation of Israel. He chose to bless these people, he even said he'd bless nations that blessed Israel. They are the apple of his eye and that hasn't changed.



Paul hammers away at THIS: There is no difference IN the BODY of Christ. There is NO Jew in the Body of Christ, there is NO Gentile in the BODY of christ. We are EXACTLY the same in the Body of Christ. He never once says that God is finished with the nation of Israel. The scriptures teach quite the opposite.

I never said he was finished with them. I said he deals with everybody the same way he's always dealt with them: by faith. They haven't even been "set aside" as dispensationalism claims. They're still just as much God's people as we are when they believe in Christ and come to God by faith. As you say, there's no difference, we're all exactly the same in Christ. Believing Jews are just as much His body as believing Gentiles, and thus it has always been.


It is not a coincidence Israel is now a nation after being exiled for over 2000 years. It is not a coincidence she became a nation in a day.. fulfilling prophecy in 1948.

It's not a coincidence that the re-establishment of the nation of Israel came within a few years of the defeat of the Nazis, either. In fact, it came about BECAUSE of what the Nazis did to the Jews. The real question is this: is the current incarnation of the "nation of Israel" really what God had in mind, and is it really the fulfillment of this prophecy you speak of? Considering the religious attitude of said nation, I doubt it.

Dave,

YES! Just because they are "Godless" doesn't mean anything. How many times was Israel in this condition? Come ON! Most of the time. They couldn't keep it together right after entering the wilderness after the Exodus. And read the book of HOSEA... pretty much sums up their relationship with God. You even said yourself that the book of Judges is basically where they are as a nation spirtually... everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. What does that prove?
Did you really think after rejecting the Lord Jesus, being exiled for thousands of years they were all coming back to Israel with FAITH in God? Please!. YOU don't even believe they are special to God. How are THEY going to believe God who they don't really know or believe. Give the Lord time to deal with them. He will. Not all Jews are going to come to their senses... but the scripture is clear. Israel will repent for rejecting their Messiah. They will realize it during the 7 year tribulation... and I'm going to watch you eat crow at the wedding supper of the Lamb. I am requesting a seat next to YOU. (nasty stuff that crow.) Whilest I dine on something much more tasty... TRUTH. YUMMO! :D

( Hitler was just another (small) type of the antichrist that is to come like NERO.. don't you think it is STRANGE that these people are so hated.. ) If you can't see the spirtual battle going on for these people and this nation... then you are as blind as God says they are.)

Dave,

YES! Just because they are "Godless" doesn't mean anything. How many times was Israel in this condition? Come ON! Most of the time. They couldn't keep it together right after entering the wilderness after the Exodus. And read the book of HOSEA... pretty much sums up their relationship with God. You even said yourself that the book of Judges is basically where they are as a nation spirtually... everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. What does that prove?
Did you really think after rejecting the Lord Jesus, being exiled for thousands of years they were all coming back to Israel with FAITH in God? Please!. YOU don't even believe they are special to God. How are THEY going to believe God who they don't really know or believe. Give the Lord time to deal with them. He will. Not all Jews are going to come to their senses... but the scripture is clear. Israel will repent for rejecting their Messiah. They will realize it during the 7 year tribulation... and I'm going to watch you eat crow at the wedding supper of the Lamb. I am requesting a seat next to YOU. (nasty stuff that crow.) Whilest I dine on something much more tasty... TRUTH. YUMMO! :D

Let's try this again. There's nothing national about God's grace or salvation. The reason God singled out Israel was as a conduit for his revelation. Paul says as much in Romans 2. That was their ONLY advantage. I really don't care that a Jewish nation called Israel exists again; it might or might not be significant. It might or might not last. And the Jews themselves are still scattered all over the globe; not that many have gone back there. The vast majority don't want to. So the diaspora is still alive and well; in fact, there's a HUGE segment of the Jewish population that rejects the current "state" as a genuine reincarnation of Israel. It's easy to look at what's there right now and get all excited, but there's no guarantee that it actually means anything in the long run. But the reality is, God's revelation is complete in Jesus, so there's no reason for a separate nation to be a conduit for it any more. And what's the essence of that revelation? Come to God by faith and be forgiven. Thus it always was, and thus it will always be. Will some Jews come to Christ? Sure, they do right now, just like the rest of us. Is there any significance to a person's nationality or ethnicity? Nope. None whatsoever. You keep emphasizing that there's no difference, then want to turn around and say there is. Either there is or there isn't; you can't have it both ways. The people of God are the people of God in any place or time. Those are people who trust him and accept his forgiveness, regardless of where they came from or who their ancestors were. No difference means no difference. National borders are artificial, human inventions with no meaning in God's eyes. The Jews were a people all through the centuries between 70 and 1948; so were the Russians, the American Indians, the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Gauls, you name it. The only difference was where they were, and that's meaningless.


( Hitler was just another (small) type of the antichrist that is to come like NERO.. don't you think it is STRANGE that these people are so hated.. )

Nero wasn't a "type" of anything. The number of the beast on Revelation 13 spells out his name. I still haven't seen you deal with that. And Hitler wasn't a type of anything either; he was just plain evil. The Jews weren't the only ones he persecuted, they were just his primary target. For his reasons, read Mein Kampf and check out the economic situation of Germany during his time. Before him, the main reason they were so hated went back to the whole "Christ-killers" attitude. During the colonial/empire era, the focus was on "savage" people rather than the Jews; most every group has had their turn to be on the wrong end of prejudice and oppression. Once again, there's no difference.


If you can't see the spirtual battle going on for these people and this nation... then you are as blind as God says they are.)

Oh, are we going to start getting personal now??

Oh, are we going to start getting personal now??

Yeah.. I think I am. Gotcha running scared huh?:p

Yeah.. i think i am. gotcha runnin scared huh?:p

I'm trembling in my boots... oh, wait, I don't wear boots http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/neener.gif

There are still unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel.

I know. You say most of them are symbolic, but symbols DO mean something.

What do you say about the earthquake that will divide Jerusalem when Jesus returns?

What about the nations gathered against Jerusalem and the horrific end promised for them?

What about the one that gives the months necessary to bury Gog? That hasn't happened yet.

I'm sure there are others.

Plus Dave,

If Nero's name is really translated to the number 666, why do you take that literally and nothing else. If the antichrist was Nero, he didn't do anything the bible says the antichrist is going to do. There was no 7 year peace treaty, there was no forcing the world to take the number on the right hand and forehead. He didn't have the power that the antichrist is going to have. You take the number of his name literally enough.. why not take the rest of what he is suppose to do literally?

Stick with me. I am trying to show you one of the MANY reasons I believe that God is NOT finished with the NATION of Israel.

Anyone who studied the Bible at all agrees that Joseph is a picture of the Lord Jesus. His Brothers are the sons of Israel..

Both were the favorite son of their father: Gen. 37:3, Matt. 3:17
Both were rejected and hated by their brothers and
Both were sold for the price of a slave: Gen. 37:28, Matt. 26:15
Their brothers conspired to kill both of them;
Joseph was the Savior of his people AND of the gentiles, Jesus, the Savior of all mankind
Both were taken into Egypt to avoid being killed: Gen. 37:28, Matt. 2:13
Both began their ministry at the age of thirty: Gen. 41:46, Luke 3:23
Both gained the confidence of others quickly: Gen. 39:3, Matt. 8:8
Both resisted the most difficult temptations: Gen. 39:8-9, Heb. 4:15.
Both were hated for their teachings: Gen. 37:8, John 7:7
Both were falsely accused: Gen. 39:14, Mark 14:56

Now check this part out:



Joesph's brothers come to seek food and help during the 7 year faminie Genesis 42:5,6,7

Israel is going to come seeking help in their distress during the 7 year tribulation period. Hosea 5:15


During the 7 years of Famine, Joesph feeds and takes care of his brothers (Genesis45:11)

During the 7 year tribulation the Lord, seals , protects and takes care of Israel Rev. 7:4

Joesph's brothers finally realize who Joseph really IS and were troubled and they wept. Genesis 45: 3, 14

The Nation of Israel will have her eyes opened and KNOW who HE is and mourn: Zecheriah 12:10

Joseph was the lord of the Land Gen. 45:8,

Jesus is Lord of Lord's and King of Kings Rev. 19:16.


This is NO coincidence... the Lord is painting the picture even in the very first book.

It may be a while before I'm able to get back to this discussion; I'm battling a massive case of the Creeping Crud right now and feel like the proverbial accident looking for a place to happen. I'll keep reading, I might not respond for a few days.

There are still unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel.

I know. You say most of them are symbolic, but symbols DO mean something.

What do you say about the earthquake that will divide Jerusalem when Jesus returns?

What about the nations gathered against Jerusalem and the horrific end promised for them?

What about the one that gives the months necessary to bury Gog? That hasn't happened yet.

I'm sure there are others.

Could you give references please.

Plus Dave,

If Nero's name is really translated to the number 666, why do you take that literally and nothing else. If the antichrist was Nero, he didn't do anything the bible says the antichrist is gonna do. There was no 7 year peace treaty, there was no forcing the world to take the number on the right hand and forehead. He didn't have the power that the antichrist is going to have. You take the number of his name literally enough..why not take the rest of what he is suppose to do literally?

I'm not taking anything literally; I'm understanding it as a symbol and interpreting it as such. Once again, there is no single "antichrist." You need to get over that. Apparently some people in New Testament times were making that same mistake and John set them straight in his epistles.

The character described by the number persecutes believers and is generally not a nice person. He demands to be worshiped and requires you to identify yourself a certain way (the "mark"); Nero demanded that everyone swear allegiance to him as a god in order to be able to transact business. You want to take the "right hand or forehead" literally but what it indicated to John's listeners was, become a slave. All this is exactly what Nero did. I'm not taking anything literally; I'm looking at the symbols the way the author intended them and understanding them the way he set them out. You're the one trying to take things literally, like the mark thing and the forty-two months and all that. And of course, there's nothing in Revelation about any peace treaty with Israel.

I'm not taking anything literally; I'm understanding it as a symbol and interpreting it as such. Once again, there is no single "antichrist." You need to get over that. Apparently some people in New Testament times were making that same mistake and John set them straight in his epistles.

The character described by the number persecutes believers and is generally not a nice person. He demands to be worshiped and requires you to identify yourself a certain way (the "mark"); Nero demanded that everyone swear allegiance to him as a god in order to be able to transact business. You want to take the "right hand or forehead" literally but what it indicated to John's listeners was, become a slave. All this is exactly what Nero did. I'm not taking anything literally; I'm looking at the symbols the way the author intended them and understanding them the way he set them out. You're the one trying to take things literally, like the mark thing and the forty-two months and all that. And of course, there's nothing in Revelation about any peace treaty with Israel.


And Dave is that not YOUR OPINION?
Many disagree with you on this issue, so get over it.
See I take the whole word of God as just that. While there might be symbolism in some passages, many of it is literal. Guess we will all be surprised in the end when it comes as to how inaccurate we all are.

Could you give references please.

1. Earthquake divides Jerusalem. Rev. 16:18-20
2. Plague on forces that fight against Jerusalem. Zech. 14:12
3. Time required for Israel to bury Gog. Eze. 39:11,12

Also, the Beast and the 666 are clearly tied together. You say Nero was 666, but the judgment declared against the Beast are given here, and none of it happened to Nero's Rome. Rev. 16:1-10

And Dave is that not YOUR OPINION?
Many disagree with you on this issue, so get over it.
See I take the whole word of God as just that. While there might be symbolism in some passages, many of it is literal. Guess we will all be surprised in the end when it comes as to how inaccurate we all are.

Actually, no, it's not just MY OPINION (why are we yelling that?). It's been the opinion of several major biblical scholars over the past 100 years or so. It was a very common technique called gematria, using numbers to encode information, especially when the comments you made about somebody important could get you killed. Calling Nero a "beast" definitely fits that category! You haven't heard much about gematria and similar approaches because it doesn't sell a gazillion books and movies like Left Behind-type stuff does.

Yes, there's a lot of literal stuff in the Bible. Revelation just doesn't happen to be part of the type of literature that does that. Get over it yourself; learn something about ancient literary styles and stop being so anachronistic.

1. Earthquake divides Jerusalem. Rev. 16:18-20
2. Plague on forces that fight against Jerusalem. Zech. 14:12
3. Time required for Israel to bury Gog. Eze. 39:11,12

Also, the Beast and the 666 are clearly tied together. You say Nero was 666, but the judgment declared against the Beast are given here, and none of it happened to Nero's Rome. Rev. 16:1-10

Thanks for the references. I'll try to look at them later after I ingest massive doses of various medications.

Get over it yourself; learn something about ancient literary styles and stop being so anachronistic.

I just love how you attack those that tend to disagree with you. That is one of the main reasons I have nearly quit posting on here.

I just love how you attack those that tend to disagree with you. That is one of the main reasons I have nearly quit posting on here.

And what exactly do you call this, if not attacking?


And Dave is that not YOUR OPINION?
Many disagree with you on this issue, so get over it.
See I take the whole word of God as just that.

Going to have to go with Dave here. Even though he clearly doesn't agree with me on several points, I don't feel that he is attacking me.

Let's keep the disagreements civil or we will not get to continue.

PS, Dave, hope you are feeling better!

Get over it yourself; learn something about ancient literary styles and stop being so anachronistic.

I just love how you attack those that tend to disagree with you. That is one of the main reasons I have nearly quit posting on here.
Do you know what "anachonistic"means? (P.S. It isn't an insult.)

I'm totally in Dave's camp. That's what I was taught in a Christian college back in the early '60s, and it's still being taught there today. Revelation is written in code, is over and done with, and God didn't give us the key to the code.

What I had found really interesting is something our pastor had mentioned in a study of Revelation and 666 = Nero. The pastor said that Jesus = 7 (perfection), man = 5, and Satan = 6. With Nero getting triple 6s, that made him a real bad dude!

The Hebrew word for seven is Sheva/Sheba (hmmm, queen of Sheba), and the number seven is used innumerable times in the Bible: 70 x 7 represents the perfection of forgiveness, there are seven days in a week, the seven seals in Revelation, the seven words of Gen. 1:1, the seven last sayings of Jesus on the cross, the number seven several times in the Flood story, how the books of the Bible fall easily and naturally into seven categories, and so on.

Do you know what "anachonistic"means? (P.S. It isn't an insult.)

I'm totally in Dave's camp. That's what I was taught in a Christian college back in the early '60s, and it's still being taught there today. Revelation is written in code, is over and done with, and God didn't give us the key to the code.

What I had found really interesting is something our pastor had mentioned in a study of Revelation and 666 = Nero. The pastor said that Jesus = 7 (perfection), man = 5, and Satan = 6. With Nero getting triple 6s, that made him a real bad dude!

Following up on the Nero thing, before I go further into it I want to make sure we're all using the same vocabulary. This is not meant to be condescending to anybody, I just need to ask: does everybody interested in this thread know what a variant reading in the manuscripts is? If someone doesn't, please say so and I'll give the Readers Digest version. Again, I just want to be sure we're all on the same pages before going further.

Galveston, so far this stuff isn't letting go of me very quickly, but the miracle of chemicals keeps it from being too bad, heh heh. I'm trying to wait until it eases off a little more before I dig into those passages you presented, but if it hangs on much longer I'll just buck up and check them out.

The pre trib believers have been taught that that is the only way. They are taught why would God put a Christian through the tribulation? They do not want to look at the obvious things like many have died for their faith. In the end when they are here and having to face the end times they are going to have it a lot harder. I use to think the story of the foolish virgins at the end of Matthew was about the believer being the wise virgin and the non believers the foolish ones. I realized the foolish virgins are the ones in the Church looking for the next spiritual 'experience' and the rapture to take them out of here.

Following up on the Nero thing, before I go further into it I want to make sure we're all using the same vocabulary. This is not meant to be condescending to anybody, I just need to ask: does everybody interested in this thread know what a variant reading in the manuscripts is? If someone doesn't, please say so and I'll give the Readers Digest version. Again, I just want to be sure we're all on the same pages before going further.
Please give us the RD version, so it will be here in black and white, and no one can get offended or plead ignorance later.

Please give us the RD version, so it will be here in black and white, and no one can get offended or plead ignorance later.

"By your command" :D

Before printing, everything was copied by hand. The products of this copying are known as manuscripts (abbreviated ms in the singular, mss in the plural). Some copies of documents were made by private individuals; in the case of books for general publication there were professional scribes who hired their services out, often making several copies of a particular work. The New Testament comes to us in manuscripts. While we don't have the original documents that came from the hands of the writers, we have over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, in full or in part, some dating as early as the second century, less than 100 years after the original writings. There are places where the manuscripts disagree; that's what happens when humans are involved. They make mistakes. The places where manuscripts disagree are known as variant readings. The science of textual criticism involves comparing manuscripts and their readings and determining which readings are original (what the author actually wrote) and which are later alterations or mistakes. By comparing these manuscripts, examining the writers' styles, vocabulary, and other aspects of their writing, we can determine with confidence more than 99% of the text of the New Testament. And in nearly all cases, we can figure out why and how a variant reading came about.

So that's what variant readings in the manuscripts are. Any questions before I move on?

Any questions before I move on?
*raising my hand*

I was taught that those who copied (and all were doing so seriously with great attention to detail) and made any accidental mistakes tended to omit rather than add. I also learned that most variant readings do not change the sense of the passage very much -- "He said" might be copied as "Jesus said" or "He said to them."

Do you agree?

The pre trib believers have been taught that that is the only way. They are taught why would God put a Christian through the tribulation? They do not want to look at the obvious things like many have died for their faith. In the end when they are here and having to face the end times they are going to have it a lot harder. I use to think the story of the foolish virgins at the end of Matthew was about the believer being the wise virgin and the non believers the foolish ones. I realized the foolish virgins are the ones in the Church looking for the next spiritual 'experience' and the rapture to take them out of here.

NOhelp4u,

You know I love you, and you know 9 times out of 10 we agree on the bible... but I really disagree here.

It isn't that I think suffering through tribulations isn't something a Christian isn't going to have to do. The Lord himself said we would. I am so fortunate that I haven't had to hide to read my Bible... or I haven't had any member of my family tortured for their profession of Christ. I mean REALLY tortured... my goodness, what some have endured just for owning the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is horrifying!! The Apostle Paul called his sufferings for Christ a "light affliction". In the USA, I haven't suffered physically for His name sake. Nor any of my family... so far.

I'm not looking for an experience either. In fact, when the rapture happens it will be so fast, I don't think anyone will have time to have a spiritual experience.

I believe to my core that we are the bride of Christ. We are not appointed to God's wrath... ( in any FORM... Davey boy... aka Dwash). AND that is what is going to happen on this earth. The WRATH of God is going to be poured out... one right after the other during those 7 years and especially the last 3 1/2. It isn't going to be about suffering for his name... it is going to be for ALL of the earth and ALL those who have rejected the truth. ( and there will be millions saved DURING this period incidentally that will go through it, they just won't be part of the Bride) I believe it not because I want to escape persecution, and suffering because we are pretty much promised THAT as a Christian. But because the Bible teaches the bride of Christ will not go through these 7 years.

"By your command" :D

Before printing, everything was copied by hand. The products of this copying are known as manuscripts (abbreviated ms in the singular, mss in the plural). Some copies of documents were made by private individuals; in the case of books for general publication there were professional scribes who hired their services out, often making several copies of a particular work. The New Testament comes to us in manuscripts. While we don't have the original documents that came from the hands of the writers, we have over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, in full or in part, some dating as early as the second century, less than 100 years after the original writings. There are places where the manuscripts disagree; that's what happens when humans are involved. They make mistakes. The places where manuscripts disagree are known as variant readings. The science of textual criticism involves comparing manuscripts and their readings and determining which readings are original (what the author actually wrote) and which are later alterations or mistakes. By comparing these manuscripts, examining the writers' styles, vocabulary, and other aspects of their writing, we can determine with confidence more than 99% of the text of the New Testament. And in nearly all cases, we can figure out why and how a variant reading came about.

So that's what variant readings in the manuscripts are. Any questions before I move on?


Say it S L O W like I am a two year old. Because if I'm reading it right, you are saying our bible's are not 100 percent accurate in the NT.

(sorry you are sick... hope you are getting better btw) :)

Say it S L O W like i am a two year old. Because if i'm reading it right, you are saying our bible's are not 100 percent accurate in the NT.
You read it right. We don't have the originals. Everything is a copy. They all were copied to be true to the original -- but aren't and disagree with each other in various ways.

Dave is saying that scholars compare the copies and match 'em up as to what agrees with what and where and how often, and then make an attempt to decide which ones are probably closest to the originals.

Say it S L O W like i am a two year old. Because if i'm reading it right, you are saying our bible's are not 100 percent accurate in the NT.

(sorry you are sick.....hope you are getting better btw) :)

They're not 100 percent accurate in the Old Testament, either. See the example I gave in the "liberal or conservative" thread.

Yes, there are places where we're not sure what the exact wording is. No major Christian doctrines are affected by any of the variants, but there are definite differences. One example is in Romans 5:1. Is it "we have peace" or "let us have peace"? It's a difference of one letter: a long O versus a short O. It's easy to see how that variant came about: in professional copying houses (called scriptoriums, or, if you're a Latin purist, scriptoria) one person would read the document out loud while a room full of scribes would write down what he was saying. A little slip of pronunciation or not hearing quite right could easily lead to writing down the wrong O. (It doesn't help that, within about 500 years of the writing of the New Testament, Greek evolved to the point where both letters were pronounced the same.) Which is the correct reading? Hard to say, the evidence is about equal. Going by Paul's context etc. I lean toward "we have" but won't go to the wall for it.

That's just one example. There are plenty more, but hopefully that illustrates the situation.

Hearing no further questions, I'll proceed.

The number 666 appears in Revelation 13:18. That's the only place. Now, you'd think if it was so important to the end of the world, there'd be more development, or at least it would show up more than once, but it doesn't. That in itself is interesting, but probably a subject for another thread.

First thing to notice: it's not six-six-six. It's specifically six hundred sixty-six. It's one number, not three. Greek had easy ways to write out numbers like that so there's no confusion, just like English does. What Greek didn't have was separate written glyphs to represent numbers. In certain contexts, the letters doubled as numbers. Hebrew did the same thing. So in English, for example, we would have
A=1
B=2
...
I=9
J=10
K=20
L=30
...
S=100
T=200

and so on. In some of the manuscripts of Revelation, the number is written in this way. But since we know the values of the letters it's still very clear that we're dealing with one number, six hundred sixty-six.

But the manuscripts aren't consistent about this number. A significant number actually read "six hundred sixteen," or 616. Textual criticism has made us 99%+ certain that 666 is what John actually wrote. The question is, how in the world did some of our manuscripts end up with this variant reading?

It was a mystery until we started to understand the literary technique of Gematria. It's a Jewish technique for encoding names as numbers. It's easy enough to sort out: take the numerical values of the letters of a person's name and add them up. Most often, Jewish writers using this would encode the name in Hebrew letters, no matter what language the name actually was. John would have been familiar with this technique, and in fact this passage shows us that he used it.

Why would people use such a technique? That's easy, too; to keep one's head attached to one's shoulders. Criticizing an emperor, even a previous one, could have far-reaching consequences and could literally cost you your life. Using this kind of method to make a criticism would give you an "out" because to the untrained eye, it just looks like so much nonsense. To readers "in the know," however, it makes perfect sense. John was counting on this.

In Hebrew letters, the name Nero Caesar is spelled NRWN KSR. The numeric values of these letters add up to six hundred sixty-six. And it's the only name from antiquity that really fits that description. But more important, it explains the variant. Some scribes, seeing that number and realizing what it meant, thought there was a mistake in the documents they were copying. Why? Because the Latin pronunciation of Nero Caesar is NRW KSR, without the second "N." With that change, then numbers add up to 616. So that's what they wrote in place of 666.

Nero Caesar is the only name from all of antiquity right down to the present time that not only explains the number, but explains the variant reading. The Gematria technique was a common method for doing such things in writing and both John and his readers would have been familiar enough with it to understand what he was saying. Even though John wrote this a couple of decades after Nero, he still could have gotten in big trouble for criticizing him. Why did he choose Nero? Because Nero instigated the first really big persecution of Christians, one that took down both Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles of Christianity. He was truly a "beast."

We don't have all the answers about the rest of the symbolism in the chapter, but that's one thing we do know with a reasonable amount of certainty: when John described the beast with the number 666, he was looking back, not ahead. It's possible he was seeing Nero as a type for future persecutors of Christians throughout the Church age, but that's open to question and interpretation.

As the emperor said to Mozart, "Well. There it is."

Dave buddy ol pal,

John was SOOOO not looking BACK... ugh,, Are you serious?? ( you need a dutch rub and a yes, maybe even a wedgie for that comment.):D
( just teasing you) :)

I really believe that...
Nero was a type of the antichrist . He certainly was ANTI Christ. He was horrible, no two ways about it! But the man or beast that John describes has supernatural abilbities because he is backed by Satan himself. ( know, I know, you don't take what he actually does literal)

Joseph was a type or picture of the Lord Jesus too. Didn't make Joseph the Lord Jesus. Just a type or a picture. ( you never did comment on that post... didn't see it as relevant at all huh?)

IF the Lord Jesus is really finished with the Nation of Israel, perhaps I could believe Nero WAS who John was talking about. BUT I don't believe the Lord is... I really believe Israel as a Nation plays a HUGE part in endtimes. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it is ALL about getting them as a NATION to recognized WHO the Lord really IS ( was)... their Messiah who as a nation they rejected.

Why do you think the Lord Is coming back to sit on the Throne of David and rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lord's. Or why He is placing his foot on the Mount of Olives when he returns? If HE is so done with Israel... why Does he go to Jerusalem? Or do you NOT take that literal either?

Dave buddy ol pal,

John was SOOOO not looking BACK... ugh,, Are you serious?? ( you need a dutch rub and a yes, maybe even a wedgie for that comment.):D
( just teasing you) :)

I really believe that...
Nero was a type of the antichrist . He certainly was ANTI Christ. He was horrible, no two ways about it! But the man or beast that John describes has supernatural abilbities because he is backed by Satan himself. ( know, I know, you don't take what he actually does literal)

What supernatural abilities do you refer to?


Joseph was a type or picture of the Lord Jesus too. Didn't make Joseph the Lord Jesus. Just a type or a picture. ( you never did comment on that post... didn't see it as relevant at all huh?)

It's relevant, I just haven't felt up to digging into it with the Creeping Crud polluting my overweight body.


IF the Lord Jesus is really finished with the Nation of Israel, perhaps I could believe Nero WAS who John was talking about. BUT I don't believe the Lord is... I really believe Israel as a Nation plays a HUGE part in endtimes. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it is ALL about getting them as a NATION to recognized WHO the Lord really IS ( was)... their Messiah who as a nation they rejected.

Do you know what circular reasoning is?


Why do you think the Lord Is coming back to sit on the Throne of David and rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lord's. Or why He is placing his foot on the Mount of Olives when he returns? If HE is so done with Israel... why Does he go to Jerusalem? Or do you NOT take that literal either?

I haven't decided whether it's literal or not. Some of that stuff is in the passages that galveston tossed out, and I haven't felt up to that much digging. I'm hoping to be able to check them out soon.

Now, let's turn it around. You say there's no way John was talking about Nero. What other explanation do you have for the Gematria and especially the textual variant? Because unless you have a reasonable explanation for those things, you don't have much to back up your comments. Without some kind of alternate explanation for these things, your answer amounts to "Is not is not is not!" :D

1. Earthquake divides Jerusalem. Rev. 16:18-20

Where does it say this is Jerusalem? In most apocalyptic literature of the time "the great city" means Rome. The context also references Babylon, which was another code name for Rome. This has nothing to do with Jerusalem.


2. Plague on forces that fight against Jerusalem. Zech. 14:12

Look at the context. This "plague" seems to be taking place AFTER all the other events in the chapter (a string of obvious symbols), such as living water flowing out of Jerusalem to the eastern and western seas and all the rest. Of course, that happened in a manner of speaking when Christianity spread from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Frankly, taking just about anything in Zechariah literally is a mistake, because his symbolism is rampant throughout the book.


3. Time required for Israel to bury Gog. Eze. 39:11,12

I don't understand what this passage has to do with anything.


Also, the Beast and the 666 are clearly tied together. You say Nero was 666, but the judgment declared against the Beast are given here, and none of it happened to Nero's Rome. Rev. 16:1-10

This judgment doesn't happen to the beast, but to those who followed him. And if you can't see obvious symbolism and non-literalism here, then there's noplace for us to go. The sea turns to blood, the sun scorches everybody on earth, giant frogs coming out of the beast's mouth - were I not a believer, I'd wonder what kind of mushrooms John had been eating. How anybody can try to interpret this stuff literally is beyond me.

Stick with me. I am trying to show you one of the MANY reasons I believe that God is NOT finished with the NATION of Israel.

Anyone who studied the Bible at all agrees that Joseph is a picture of the Lord Jesus. His Brothers are the sons of Israel..

It's only a very general and vague picture, so you don't want to press it too far.


Both were the favorite son of their father: Gen. 37:3, Matt. 3:17

So God has 11 other sons? This is way beyond reaching.


Both were rejected and hated by their brothers and
Both were sold for the price of a slave: Gen. 37:28, Matt. 26:15

How exactly are you defining "brothers" in the case of Jesus? He had actual brothers, according to the gospels, and they didn't hate him. They didn't believe in him, but they sure didn't hate him and didn't sell him to anybody.


Their brothers conspired to kill both of them;

Same question.


Joseph was the Savior of his people AND of the gentiles, Jesus, the Savior of all mankind

Still reaching. Joseph was put in Egypt to bring his family down there and keep them alive so they could grow into the nation of Israel. In a sense that makes him a "savior" but only in a very limited sense.


Both were taken into Egypt to avoid being killed: Gen. 37:28, Matt. 2:13

Joseph wasn't taken to Egypt to avoid being killed. He was taken to Egypt because his brothers sold him into slavery.


Both began their ministry at the age of thirty: Gen. 41:46, Luke 3:23

Luke actually says Jesus was "about" thirty. We don't know how old he was. He could have been anywhere from about 27 to 33.


Both gained the confidence of others quickly: Gen. 39:3, Matt. 8:8

So did a lot of other people.


Both resisted the most difficult temptations: Gen. 39:8-9, Heb. 4:15.

There were lots of temptations that Joseph DIDN'T resist. Pride, telling his family about his dreams, lying to his brothers about who he was in Egypt, falsely accusing Benjamin of stealing his cup, to name just a few. Joseph is not a good picture of Jesus on this score.


Both were hated for their teachings: Gen. 37:8, John 7:7

No, Joseph was hated for his ego. He was bragging about his dreams and basically rubbing his family's nose in them. He was not hated for any "teachings."


Both were falsely accused: Gen. 39:14, Mark 14:56

I can give you that one, but it doesn't really prove anything.


Now check this part out:



Joesph's brothers come to seek food and help during the 7 year faminie Genesis 42:5,6,7

Israel is going to come seeking help in their distress during the 7 year tribulation period. Hosea 5:15

How do you get a tribulation period out of that Hosea quote? It's not there, sorry. Then there's the question of what you do with the seven years of plenty that preceded the famine in Egypt. If you're going to use Joseph as a parallel, you've got to do better than that. And Hosea is talking about the northern kingdom of Ephraim/Samaria, which no longer exists. He's not talking about Israel as a people. Check the context.


During the 7 years of Famine, Joesph feeds and takes care of his brothers (Genesis45:11)

During the 7 year tribulation the Lord, seals , protects and takes care of Israel Rev. 7:4

We have no idea what that Revelation passage means. There are several problems with it, not the least of which is that it includes both a tribe of Manasseh and a tribe of Joseph. Manasseh was one of Joseph's sons, and his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh became tribes to keep the number at 12 for land inheritance purposes, since Levi didn't have a land inheritance. Yet this list also includes Levi. And considering the number of Jews in the world today, if he's only rescuing 144,000 of them that's not much of a protection!

In addition, during the famine in Egypt Joseph took care of everybody, from Egypt on out to the most outlying regions of the famine, not just his family. So if you're going to try and connect these two things, then you have to have Jesus protecting everybody, not just a handful of Jews. Your picture doesn't work at all.


Joesph's brothers finally realize who Joseph really IS and were troubled and they wept. Genesis 45: 3, 14

The Nation of Israel will have her eyes opened and KNOW who HE is and mourn: Zecheriah 12:10

There's no indication of any "tribulation" period, much less a 7 year one, anywhere near this passage. Plus, Joseph first lied to his brothers about his identity; he spoke through an interpreter and pretended to be Egyptian, sent them away and rearrested them on a bogus charge, and it was only after he reached the end of his rope that he revealed himself. And his brothers didn't "finally realize" who he was, he came out and told them after deceiving them first. And they didn't believe him until he found a way to prove it to them. So is Jesus lying to Israel right now about his identity? (I'm messing with you there, obviously.)


Joseph was the lord of the Land Gen. 45:8,

Jesus is Lord of Lord's and King of Kings Rev. 19:16.

Joseph was NOT the lord of the land. It's pretty clear he was exaggerating there, and if Pharaoh had heard him make such a statement he probably would have been demoted post haste. What did Pharaoh say? "Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you" (Gen 41:40). Joseph was clearly second-in-command (Gen 41:43), not the ultimate authority. Considering that the Pharaohs claimed to be gods, it would have been absurd for the Pharaoh to consider Joseph his "lord."



This is NO coincidence... the Lord is painting the picture even in the very first book.

You're painting quite nicely; I'm not so sure the Lord is. Joseph is a type of Jesus, but types only go so far and you're pushing it way beyond the limits. The seven-year famine is not a type of any seven-year tribulation period, because there's no seven-year period of plenty before the purported tribulation. The famine only affected Egypt and its immediate environs; the tribulation is supposed to affect the entire world. During the famine people sold all their belongings, and ultimately sold themselves into slavery to Joseph and the Pharaoh for food, whereas in the supposed tribulation people aren't supposed to be able to buy or sell anything, much less themselves, without take the bad guy's mark and giving themselves to Satan. It just doesn't work.

Nice try, though.

Dave,

I didn't say Joesph WAS Jesus.. I said he was a type. His brothers were the sons of ISRAEL... or Jacob if you prefer. So when I say Jesus' brothers, I'm referring to the Nation of Israel as I'm sure you will agree that Jacob's sons make up the 12 tribes. Come on, really you don't see any comparison in that? I'm not in any way referring to the Lord Jesus half brothers. So.. hopefully you are clear on that.

I'm not stretching the son thing... Joseph was Jacobs favorite... and the Father clearly proclaimed that Jesus was his beloved son in whom he was well pleased. It isn't a perfect match... but again.. Joseph is simply a type... not the real deal.

OH! Actually I forgot about the coat of many colors... Joseph had that.. Jesus had a robe that was expensive and the soldier's cast lots for it. ( perfect match?. naaah, but certainly another similarity)

Joseph was sold for a price of a slave... Jesus was betrayed for the price of a slave. ( perfect match? Naaah but a similarity)

So they were around 30... ( again you are being Sir Nitpick) Perfect match?. naaah.. but a similarity.


Ok so you don't like my comparison with Joseph being Lord of the Land and Jesus being the Lord of Lords. Will you accept this... Joseph was second in command and Jesus is the second person in the Godhead... ( nanna nanna BOO) is this a perfect match?. naaah but it is a similarity.

Jesus isn't LYING or decieving anyone. The Nation of Israel rejected him... just like Joseph's brothers rejected HIM. The Nation as a whole are BLIND to who he is... but they won't always be. Yes, I believe the Lord will reveal himself to them. But Good Grief Dave, how long has the Nation of israel been around? Ummmmmmm... not that long. May 1948. After 2000 years. And THAT IS BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL. That didn't happen by accident either.

Check out the prophecy in Ezekial 37:4 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD!

37:5 This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life.

37:6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

(It is interesting in your one post you pointed out that Israel became a Nation after World War II. Ever seen pictures of the bones of those poor Jews piled high... sickening.)

Anyway, that prophecy is about them becoming a Nation again.. being brought back together. Something that was dead and gone.. suddenly comes back to life. They become flesh and blood.

Then check out this prophecy:

Is. 66:8 Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment?.

Wow, May 14, 1948. THAT very thing was fulfilled. I can't just shrug that off.

Joseph was a sinner, Jesus is NOT. But you are making it out like I'm grasping at straws here. I'm not. There is a REASON there is THAT many similarities. Nothing in the bible is by accident.

Also you seem to think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to decode or understand revelation. No WAY. The Lord wouldn't give us some weird mumbo jumbo that we can NEVER truly understand. He never has done that.. and he never WILL do that.

Incidentally, the mark of the beast will not be given to everyone... but those that take it are condemned forever. Those that don't are either hunted down and beheaded or they starve to death because they can't buy or sell. But there will be millions saved during that time. And the 144.000 GOD will take care of , he said it... not me.

I wish I had more time, I fear I am all over the map here but I have to get my children some food. They are driving me nuts even as I type. Pardon if I have misspelled.. I didn't have time to double check.

Sorry, T, but it's all reaching. Types are just that: examples. Very general examples, very general foreshadowings. You can't extend them to the details or they break down. And you sure can't get any 7-year tribulation with a pretrib rapture out of Joseph. So this line of thought is getting us nowhere.

Dave,

As long as you stay on a stubborn streak about the Nation of Israel... you are RIGHT... we are never going to get anywhere.

I never said I could get a pretrib rapture out of Joseph.. because the story is not about the Church. The story is all about the Nation of Israel and how the God of the Universe protected what would become the 12 tribes.
Joseph himself said it was all the plan of God.

And I will let you win on one thing... maybe the 7 years of famine and the 7 years of tribulation aren't the same... I DO NOT KNOW. I think it may be a small picture... my thoughts. But THAT is IT Buddy Boy! The rest you are simply not correct.

You aren't dealing with the dry bones. In Ez.. your not dealing with Is. 66:8 .

You aren't dealing with the truth that the Lord WANTS us to understand Revelation... and not just think it is something that we really can NEVER fully understand.

And you are really not dealing with the very fact that Israel is INDEED back in the land.

Like I said before: ain't no other people scattered all over the world without a homeland, going to know who they are after 2,000 years. It has NEVER happened before. I know, I know.. just another one of those DANG coinsedences.

Psst dave, ain't no such thing in the word of God as a coinsedence.

Nero is but a type of the antichrist just as Joesph was but a type of Jesus... the one described in Revelation, and Daniel is going to be a big deal... according to Revelation.. the whole world is going to watch him in amazement. WHAT? There can't ever be another man rise up out of the rivived Roman Empire with the numbers 666 matching his name? Is anything to hard for the Lord?

AND... incidently... prophecy is about the future not the past... John is looking forward.

On a personal note: I want you to know the Left Behind series in my opinion is a fictional story with bits and pieces of truth to it. I wouldn't and do NOT go by those books. I know you didn't ask... but I didn't EVER want you are anyone else to think I'm big into them. Because I am NOT. I disagree with many things. I only read like maybe a few chapters in the first book AND it wasn't biblical in MY opinion.

What I base all of my beliefs on is the word of God and rightly dividing it. Not taking any ONE scripture such as( cough cough)... Galatians 6:16.. as proof that the Lord is finished with the Nation of Israel.

The reason I keep bringing up the Nation of Israel is until you see her as being right smack dab in the middle of the tribulation 7 years... you can't understand the raputre of the Church aka the Bride of Christ. And you will NEVER understand Daniel or Revelation, The Lord WANTs us to know.. otherwise he wouldn't have told us.

as long as you stay on a stubborn streak about the Nation of Israel
I love you dearly, classyT, and have managed to stay out of this and allow you and Dave to go at it tooth and nail. I do have to say, though, that your trying to force Joseph's and Jesus' lives into parallel pathways reminds of the supposed Lincoln-Kennedy parallelisms:

snopes.com: Lincoln and Kennedy Coincidences (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp)


You aren't dealing with the truth that the Lord WANTS us to understand Revelation... and not just think it is something that we really can NEVER fully understand.
Again I say, what is related in Revelation has already transpired. Partially because of this, the book almost didn't make the cut into the canon.

AND... incidently... prophecy is about the future not the past... John is looking forward.
Yes, looking forward to what he thought might happen in his day and age. We weren't even a twinkle in his eye.

What I base all of my beliefs on is the word of God and rightly dividing it.
Maybe you should keep it together once in a while.

Dave,

As long as you stay on a stubborn streak about the Nation of Israel... you are RIGHT... we are never going to get anywhere.

I never said I could get a pretrib rapture out of Joseph.. because the story is not about the Church. The story is all about the Nation of Israel and how the God of the Universe protected what would become the 12 tribes.
Joseph himself said it was all the plan of God.

Yes - the plan of God to create a separate people that he would bring his revelation through. News flash: he already did that.

[wnip]

You aren't dealing with the dry bones. In Ez.. your not dealing with Is. 66:8 .

That's easy. They're talking about the return from the Babylonian exile under Cyrus. Check the context, biblical and historical.

[snip]

And you are really not dealing with the very fact that Israel is INDEED back in the land.

Meaningless in this context. I've already explained why.


Like I said before: ain't no other people scattered all over the world without a homeland, going to know who they are after 2,000 years. It has NEVER happened before. I know, I know.. just another one of those DANG coinsedences.

Psst dave, ain't no such thing in the word of God as a coinsedence.

I never said there was. How many other races have been scattered all over the world like that? None. Well, there's the Africans, of course, but that's different... somehow.

[snip]

AND... incidently... prophecy is about the future not the past... John is looking forward.

Actually, the vast majority of Old Testament prophecy was about the present. That is, the prophet's main job was to call the people back to God and expose their sinfulness and their corruption and all that and call on them to repent. Prophecy in its most basic biblical sense isn't foretelling, it's forth-telling. As WG already pointed out, John continued in that tradition with Revelation.

[snip]

What I base all of my beliefs on is the word of God and rightly dividing it. Not taking any ONE scripture such as( cough cough)... Galatians 6:16.. as proof that the Lord is finished with the Nation of Israel.

So you can just write off that verse because it doesn't fit your theology? Sorry, but your explanation of it was lame in the extreme. You accuse me of using one verse as proof, but you take that one verse that doesn't fit what you want to believe and just set it aside.

Is being filled with the Spirit important? Guess how many verses there are that command that? One. Count 'em, one. There may only be one verse that says we have taken over Israel's role, but that's all that's needed for it to be part of God's revelation. Of course, there are other hints, but there's one direct statement and you have yet to come to grips with it.


The reason I keep bringing up the Nation of Israel is until you see her as being right smack dab in the middle of the tribulation 7 years... you can't understand the raputre of the Church aka the Bride of Christ. And you will NEVER understand Daniel or Revelation, The Lord WANTs us to know.. otherwise he wouldn't have told us.

There is no 7 year tribulation, and I understand Daniel and Revelation just fine, thank you. While you may not base anything on the Left Behind junk (that's a Very Good Thing, btw), you base your ideas on its principle of interpreting things literally. And that's as wrong as wrong can be, because John never intended it that way. Taking outlandish symbols like he used and interpreting them literally isn't rightly dividing the Word.

Dave,
Ha ha ha... you make me laugh Dave because you act like just debunked my theology... please if only it were that easy.:p



How many other races have been scattered all over the world like that? None. Well, there's the Africans, of course, but that's different... somehow.

No, no, no Davey... I never said how many races were JUST scattered? I said how many races were scattered without a homeland... a country, and still knew who they were. Last time I checked... Africa was still there.

I have yet to run into a Philistine... but I'm thinking right now YOU could actually be one... so maybe I WAS wrong after all.:D ( yes, I think I am a HOOT)

Maybe you should keep it together once in a while.

Wondergirl,

I keep it together.. that is exactly how I rightly divide it. Hey, Paul is the one who said to rightly divide the word of truth... not me. I just follow the word.

Well, Dave and I may have been going at it tooth and nail.. but so far I don't think he has any of us have teeth marks or scratch marks.

I am surprised you don't see Joseph as a type of the Lord Jesus. I forgot to mention another similar thing... we know Joseph WAS a sinner, just check the last verse of Genesis out. BUT have you ever noticed that there is no mention of sin in his life? There is another one for my side!

(Dave, do not EVEN bring up the bragging thing.. first the Lord never told Joseph NOT to tell anyone the dream. It wasn't a sin to get up and go to breakfast and tell everyone a dream you had the night before. God never said he was displeased. I think his BROTHERS had the EGO problem, they couldn't STAND the thought of bowing to him. OOOH there is ANOTHER one for my side. Every knee Shall bow (to the Lord Jesus).

I keep it together.. that is exactly how I rightly divide it. Hey, Paul is the one who said to rightly divide the word of truth... not me. I just follow the word.
I've never heard that term until you said it on this site. It must be a Bible church/fundamentalist term. Plus, that term is not in any of my concordances. I did a Google search to find out what it means, since "divide" means to separate. One site says it means "to correctly understand the Bible." Why not say it that way?

***ADDED*** I just found out that 2 Tim. 2:15 is your "rightly divided" verse. My RSV says "correctly handles." NIV uses that too. The KJV is the only one that uses that term, it seems.


I am surprised you don't see Joseph as a type of the Lord Jesus. [snip] there is no mention of sin in his life
Uh oh.

(Dave, do not EVEN bring up the bragging thing..first the Lord never told Joseph NOT to tell anyone the dream. It wasn't a sin to get up and go to breakfast and tell everyone a dream you had the night before. God never said he was displeased. I think his BROTHERS had the EGO problem, they couldn't STAND the thought of bowing to him. OOOH there is ANOTHER one for my side. Every knee Shall bow (to the Lord Jesus).

Excuse me? Even Paul says all boasting is sin. And even Jacob thought that his boast about the sun and moon bowing to him was a sign of disrespect to for his parents. And you completely overlooked the blatant lying to his brothers in Egypt, as well as the bogus theft charge against Benjamin. He falsely accused the brothers of being spies, even though he knew who they were. He lied through his teeth every chance he got. Don't think I haven't heard this "no sin attributed to Joseph" stuff before; I've seen all the arguments, and it's still a crock. We see several sins explicitly committed by him, most against his brothers. There it is, like it or not.

Dave,

Who SAID he bragged? Who can help what they dream? He just told everyone! And he wasn't instructed NOT too! Where is the verse that says... he bragged and gloated and blah, blah, blah. Nope, he got up and told his family his dream. How can you brag when the dream is what the Lord gave him while he slept? I don't GET it. And just because Jacob got in a huff doesn't mean anything. Like I said, the kid just told everyone a dream he had. THEY had the ego problem, not Joseph.

Where did the Lord condemn him? Where did the Lord say what Joseph EVER did was a sin? I stand by it... there is NO mention of sin. Because Joseph didn't tell his bratty, mean bothers who he was when they came a begging... doesn't mean anything. He wanted to see Benjamin, he wanted to see his father. Maybe he was using wisdom. ( Like Solomon, he said he cut a baby in half to get to the truth and he didn't.) Like I said, Joseph WAS a sinner... check out where he was in the last chapter of Genesis. He is dead... so he DID sin. The BIBLE just doesn't mention him sinning. YOU assume... and you know what THAT means.

I've never heard that term until you said it on this site. It must be a Bible church/fundamentalist term. Plus, that term is not in any of my concordances. I did a Google search to find out what it means, since "divide" means to separate. One site says it means "to correctly understand the Bible." Why not say it that way?

***ADDED*** I just found out that 2 Tim. 2:15 is your "rightly divided" verse. My RSV says "correctly handles." NIV uses that too. The KJV is the only one that uses that term, it seems.


Uh oh.

Wondergirl,

Glad you found it. I should have told you where it was... my bad. I mostly use KJV...

Dave,

Who SAID he bragged? Who can help what they dream? He just told everyone! And he wasn't instructed NOT too! Where is the verse that says... he bragged and gloated and blah, blah, blah. Nope, he got up and told his family his dream. How can you brag when the dream is what the Lord gave him while he slept? I don't GET it. And just because Jacob got in a huff doesn't mean anything. Like I said, the kid just told everyone a dream he had. THEY had the ego problem, not Joseph.

It's in the tone of the report. No, he wasn't instructed not to tell the dreams; he wasn't instructed at all. They were images, not communiques. Look at Gen 37:8: they hated him, not just because of his dream, but because of what he said to them, or more precisely, because of HOW he told them.

He's already gotten them in trouble with a "bad report," and he's his father's favorite as shown by the fancy coat. He has to know his brothers hate him. But rather than try to get along with them, he rubs their noses in it with his dreams, to the point where even his father can't take his boasting any more.


Where did the Lord condemn him? Where did the Lord say what Joseph EVER did was a sin? I stand by it... there is NO mention of sin.

Get real. This could be said about 90% of the characters in both testaments. It's meaningless.


Because Joseph didn't tell his bratty, mean bothers who he was when they came a begging... doesn't mean anything.

Surely you jest. He didn't just withhold info, he LIED. He pretended not to speak their language, he falsely accused them of being spies, the whole enchilada. There's no other way to look at it: he LIED. He bore false witness. He apparently also practiced divination (Gen 44:5). Joseph has several sins to his credit. Get used to it.


He wanted to see Benjamin, he wanted to see his father.

So that justifies anything and everything he did? Come on, you're smarter than that.


Maybe he was using wisdom. ( Like Solomon, he said he cut a baby in half to get to the truth and he didn't.)

That's not what Solomon did. Read it again. 1 Kings 3:16-27.


Like i said, Joseph WAS a sinner... check out where he was in the last chapter of Genesis. He is dead... so he DID sin. The BIBLE just doesn't mention him sinning. YOU assume... and you know what THAT means.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading it there in Genesis. You seem to think that because the Bible never explicitly identifies anything he did as a sin, that means nothing he's recorded as doing was a sin. That's simply not the case. We know that lying was a sin from the very beginning, and no amount of interpretive gymnastics will make it otherwise.

Dave,

Stop hating on Joseph. I really don't believe telling his family about a dream was a sin. Having said that, you may have a point with decieving his brothers. I don't know. BUT he is still a type of the Lord. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

This is totally off topic but I'm still going to say it. I really do think it is an assumption to say the Joseph was bragging. I once heard someone say that the reason John the Baptist was beheaded was because he didn't have enough faith in the Lord Jesus. (You know... when John sends a message to the Lord asking him if he really was the "one".) Utterly ridiculous, in my opinion. If the Bible doesn't say he was bragging and he had a big ego, don't add it.

"interpretive gymnatstic"... lol lol lol You're descriptions are too much.

I'm not done either with discussing the prophetic verses you dismissed so easly regarding the rebirth of the Nation of Israel. But I'm not going to say something off the top of my head anymore without researching it further. ( like with solomon and Joseph) I believe you are wrong but I want to study and pray before I debate this further.

(Dust off your boxing gloves Dave, because you are going down.) :)

classyT
On your defence... http://www.his-forever.com/jewish_weddings_rapture.htm
The rapture is a big deal and as long as we have the time to give others the chanse to get away from the wrath of God, we should not stop doing that.

classyT
On your defence... http://www.his-forever.com/jewish_weddings_rapture.htm
The rapture is a big deal and as long as we have the time to give others the chanse to get away from the wrath of God, we should not stop doing that.

Adam,

Thanks. I agree with you. Yes, I will check out the website... the rapture IS a big deal and we are not appointed to God's wrath in any way shape or form. :)

Adam,

Thanks. I agree with ya. Yes, i will check out the website ....the rapture IS a big deal and we are not appointed to God's wrath in any way shape or form. :)

Oh , you will love the website!!

Dave,

Stop hating on Joseph. I really don't believe telling his family about a dream was a sin. Having said that, you may have a point with decieving his brothers. I don't know. BUT he is still a type of the Lord. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

I didn't say he wasn't a type, I just said you can't push it too far. And I'm not "hatin" on anybody, just looking at the text as it stands.


"interpretive gymnatstic"... lol lol lol You're descriptions are too much.

I used to say "exegetical back-flip," but too many people didn't get that.


(Dust off your boxing gloves Dave, because you are going down.) :)

Bring it on!! ;)