Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

I already answered this.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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

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

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

Sincerely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

Oooh thems fighten words... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are your thoughts? Thanks, Tess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are your thoughts? Thanks, Tess.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

[snip]

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

[snip]

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belovedgift

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

---

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

Daveyyy,

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Daveyyy,

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

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

Dave,

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave,

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

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

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

Obviously, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did anyone ever get specific to Fred's question?

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

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

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

---

I'm shocked at you!:D

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I'm shocked at you!:D

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

I don't recall saying you did.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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

---

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

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

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

Wondergirl,
Sorry but I did not noticed that.
Fred

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2305723]

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


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

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

Do you see the difference between these two passages?

Jesus stopped in the middle of a verse!

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabrewolfe

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

---

Yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

---

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

Do you see the difference between these two passages?

Jesus stopped in the middle of a verse!

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Get real.

Okay. Let's deal with symbolism a bit.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Okay. Let's deal with symbolism a bit.

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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


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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=galveston;2310854]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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

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


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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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