Questions for those who deny the pre-trib rapture position

[Pulpitfire]

1) Since the NT epistles were written to apply the gospel message to the
church, as it pertains to the church, why would there not be a lot of
instruction, especially surrounding passages like 1 Thessalonians
4:15-17, to warn believers of impending Tribulation trouble and how to
deal with it?

2) Why is there no strong warning to make sure you don't accept the mark
of the beast and anti-christ, in the epistles? Why isn't Paul worried
that believers will be fooled into accepting the anti-christ, and
warning them about it?

3) Where, in the epistles, do you find any instruction for the church to
flee to the hills of Judea to avoid the persecution of the beast and
anti-christ?

4) Why does 2 Thessalonians 2 beseech believers, by the prospect of
being gathered to the Lord, NOT to be TROUBLED "as if" the day of the
Lord were at hand for the church?

5) Why are those who think they are Israel, and are going through the
Tribulation in their lifetime, not moving to Judea now, and preparing a
place in the mountains?

6) Why look for the Tribulation, instead of the hope of Christ's return,
as the NT believers apparently did?

7) Why does Revelation call the church "church" 18 times in chapters
2-3, when it addresses the church, then never use the word "church"
again until the Tribulation is over, in chapter 22?

8) Why is the bride (which the only bride of God identified in the NT,
is the church), coming with Christ, from heaven, to the marriage supper
of the lamb on earth after the Tribulation?

9) Why would some of the church miss out on the wedding ceremony and
time in the Father's house (John 14)?

10) When do views that deny the pre-trib rapture allow time for the
judgment of believers works, the marriage of the church to Christ, and
the time spent in the Father's house (John 14), before she comes to the
marriage supper of God?

These are just a few of the questions that, as far as I'm concerned,
those who deny the pre-trib rapture don't have a convincing answer for.

--
=============================================
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10). www.pulpitfire.org
=============================================

[oldwetdog]

Pulpitfire wrote:
>
>

Randy, when you abandon the false doctrine of the 'rapture,' your
questions will appear to be honest -- rather than troll bait.

[Clip the sophistry]

Randy said, "I believe the church will not go through the
Tribulation ... because the return of Christ for the church could
happen at any time (John 14:2-3; Acts 1:11; 1 Cor. 15:51-52;
Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 1:10; 1 Tim. 6:14; James 5:8; 2
Pet. 3:3-4).

When someone quotes scripture to prove a statement I ALWAYS
examine the scripture to see if it does say what they infer it
says, or if it does support their statement.

The statement these scripture were quoted to prove was "the
return of Christ for the church could happen at any time."

Our Question is: Do the quoted scriptures say this, or do any of
these scriptures support that statement?

John 14:1-3
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also
in me.
2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I
would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and
receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
-+-
John 14:13 does not say "the Lord could return at anytime," nor
does it support that statement.
-+-

Acts 1:10-11
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up,
behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up
into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into
heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into
heaven.
-+-
Acts 1:10-11 does not say "the Lord could return at anytime," nor
does it support that statement.
-+-

1 Cor. 15:51-52
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and
this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought
to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
-+-
1 Cor. 15:51-52 does not say "the Lord could return at anytime,"
nor does it support that statement.
-+-

Phil. 3:20
20 For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a
Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
21 who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it
may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the
working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself.
-+-
Phil. 3:20 does not say "the Lord could return at anytime," nor
does it support that statement.
-+-

Col. 3:4
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also
appear with him in glory.
-+-
Col. 3:4 does not say "the Lord could return at anytime," nor
does it support that statement.
-+-

1 Thes 1:10
9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we
had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the
living and true God;
10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the
dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
-+-
1 Thess. 1:10 does not say "the Lord could return at anytime,"
nor does it support that statement.
-+-

1 Tim. 6:14
13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all
things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate
witnessed a good confession;
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable,
until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only
Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man
can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be
honour and power everlasting. Amen.
-+-
1 Tim. 6:14 does not say "the Lord could return at anytime," nor
does it support that statement.
-+-

James 5:8
7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.
Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the
earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early
and latter rain.
8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the
Lord draweth nigh.
-+-
James 5:8 does not say "the Lord could return at anytime," nor
does it support that statement.
-+-

2 Peter 3:3-4
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the
fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the
beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the
water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word
are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment
and perdition of ungodly men.

~~
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the
elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the
works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what
manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and
godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the
elements shall melt with fervent heat?
-+-
2 Pet. 3:3-4 does not say "the Lord could return at anytime," nor
does it support that statement.
-+-

In this statement (top) Randy said "the Lord could return at any
time," yet in another statement he said, "no proper definition of
'the rapture' includes 'When' it will happen." These two
statements are contradictory.

In still another statement, Randy said, "The rapture is not part
of the Day of the Lord." (Saying that the "rapture" is not part
of the day of the Lord" is equal to knowing when it will be,
since you cannot know when it will not be unless you know when it
will be.) Then in yet another statement he said, "I believe the
church will not go through the Tribulation because we are not
children of darkness." (Being "Not Children of darkness” [in
context] means we can see that day approaching -- which in not
possible unless we can recognize the signs of the times by the
fulfillment of prophecy.)

THESE FOUR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ARE ALL IN A SINGLE POST!!
http://tinyurl.com/lod9b

CONCLUSION
First:
The scripture Randy Quoted did not say what he inferred it said,
and it did not support his statement. To put this in simple
terms; this is proof Randy lied.

Second:
The four statements Randy made, in a single post, contradict each
other. When someone makes contradictory statements, there are two
possibilities: either
a) They are confused and do not know what they are saying, or
b) At least one statement is a lie.

Randy is too intelligent to be confused.

owd
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/

[Pulpitfire]

oldwetdog wrote:
> Pulpitfire wrote:
>>
>>
>
> Randy, when you abandon the false doctrine of the 'rapture,' your
> questions will appear to be honest -- rather than troll bait.

The problem for this kind of response is that the reasons for the
pre-tribulation rapture aren't based on my character or honesty, but on
what the Bible says. So spending your time trying to ruin my
credibility is a distraction that won't change what the Bible says, even
if you succeed. I'm sorry to see that you are apparently opting for a
cheap political victory, that depends on your ability to deceive and
distract people, rather than an honest, exegetical reply to the questions.

[oldwetdog]

Pulpitfire wrote:
> oldwetdog wrote:
>> Pulpitfire wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Randy, when you abandon the false doctrine of the 'rapture,' your
>> questions will appear to be honest -- rather than troll bait.
>
> The problem for this kind of response is that the reasons for the
> pre-tribulation rapture aren't based on my character or honesty, but on
> what the Bible says.

The Bible gives irrefutable evidence to anyone who loves Truth
that there is no rapture, not pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib or
whatever-trib.

Those who teach 'rapture' are suffering from Strong Delusion.

[oldwetdog]

Pulpitfire wrote:

Your concluding statement indicates that you have only asked your
questions in a rhetorical sense, and do not want and will not
accept answers -- since you believe they are answered by your
false doctrine.

However, in the hope that someone may be interested in answers, I
will offer them.

> 1) Since the NT epistles were written to apply the gospel message to the
> church, as it pertains to the church, why would there not be a lot of
> instruction, especially surrounding passages like 1 Thessalonians
> 4:15-17, to warn believers of impending Tribulation trouble and how to
> deal with it?

There is; you reject it in your efforts to prove a false doctrine.
http://www.geocities.com/gaedhealic/aflctn.html

>
> 2) Why is there no strong warning to make sure you don't accept the mark
> of the beast and anti-christ, in the epistles? Why isn't Paul worried
> that believers will be fooled into accepting the anti-christ, and
> warning them about it?

There is; you ignore it in your effort to prove a false doctrine.

>
> 3) Where, in the epistles, do you find any instruction for the church to
> flee to the hills of Judea to avoid the persecution of the beast and
> anti-christ?

There is; which you reject in your attempt to prove a false doctrine.
http://www.geocities.com/gaedhealic/olivet.html

>
> 4) Why does 2 Thessalonians 2 beseech believers, by the prospect of
> being gathered to the Lord, NOT to be TROUBLED "as if" the day of the
> Lord were at hand for the church?

The day of the Lord was not at hand for THEM, and you reject 2 Th
2:3 in your attempt to prove a false doctrin

>
> 5) Why are those who think they are Israel, and are going through the
> Tribulation in their lifetime, not moving to Judea now, and preparing a
> place in the mountains?

The Tribulation of Mat 24:14-21 has not yet begun, but you reject
the sequence given by Jesus in your attempt to prove a false
doctrine.
http://www.geocities.com/gaedhealic/beginning.html

>
> 6) Why look for the Tribulation, instead of the hope of Christ's return,
> as the NT believers apparently did?

Jesus said, WATCH! Tribulation is just ONE SIGN we are
_commanded_ to watch for. This sign means there is only about 3
1/2 years unto the return of the Lord.
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/main/about/signs.html

>
> 7) Why does Revelation call the church "church" 18 times in chapters
> 2-3, when it addresses the church, then never use the word "church"
> again until the Tribulation is over, in chapter 22?

The Church / the Kingdom http://tinyurl.com/sxkcz
The Church in the Last Days http://tinyurl.com/mfb9l

>
> 8) Why is the bride (which the only bride of God identified in the NT,
> is the church), coming with Christ, from heaven, to the marriage supper
> of the lamb on earth after the Tribulation?

false premise, based on belief in false doctrine of rapture.

>
> 9) Why would some of the church miss out on the wedding ceremony and
> time in the Father's house (John 14)?

false premise, wrong assumption.

>
> 10) When do views that deny the pre-trib rapture allow time for the
> judgment of believers works, the marriage of the church to Christ, and
> the time spent in the Father's house (John 14), before she comes to the
> marriage supper of God?

false premise, based on rejection of sequence of end time events
as revealed in prophecy.

owd
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/

[Pulpitfire]

I see. So basically, your response is twofold. 1) Maintain your
dogmatic assertions 2) Deny and malign people you don't agree with.
There's no point in trying to debate in that kind of environment.

[oldwetdog]

Pulpitfire wrote:
>
> I see. So basically, your response is twofold. 1) Maintain your
> dogmatic assertions 2) Deny and malign people you don't agree with.
> There's no point in trying to debate in that kind of environment.

Quoting Scripture accurately is "dogmatic"?? well... ok...

Debate?

Who would be interested in an exchange of ideas with a top
posting troll?

[Fred A Stover]

"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@yehooD0Tcom> wrote in message
news:12823bh...@corp.supernews.com...

The Rapture: What is it? When is it?

In scripture the rapture is described in 1Thess 4:17 Then we which are alive
and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the
Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. It is our being
caught up to meet the Lord. As He promised I go to prepare a place for you
and I will come again, and receive you unto myself (John 14:2-3).

The word rapture comes from the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible deinde
nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam
Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus. The we...shall be caught up
in English is rapiemur in Latin. Rapiemur is the future passive of the Latin
verb for to seize away [rapio, -ere, rapui, raptum], and the English word
rapture comes from the future participle of rapio [rapturus, -a, -um], just
as the English word capture comes from the Latin word capio.

Our Lord was referring to the rapture in Matt 24:30-31 when He said, 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 in
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send 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. However, the
rapture is only part of this thorough gathering of all His elect. In
addition to the Christians who will be gathered into His rest (Heb 4:9), and
go to the place prepared (John 14:2-3), the heavenly city (Heb 11:16). The
enemy-of-the-gospel elect are also gathered: As concerning the gospel, they
are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved
for the fathers' sakes (Rom 11:28). They enter His wrath instead of His
rest: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest
(Ps 95:11). As we go to the place prepared for us, they are returned to
Israel: Ezek 37:12 Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause
you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel,
where they are saved after He has arrived And I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they
shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in
bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn (Zech
12:10) and For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their
sins (Rom 11:27). The gathering of his elect from the four winds, from one
end of heaven to the other is all of His elect.

In Matt 24:37 the Lord says, But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the
coming of the Son of man be, and in Gen 7:16-17 it is written And they that
went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and
the LORD shut him in. And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the
waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
The door was shut and the flood was on the earth. The door to His rest is
shut when the last gentile enters-in: For I would not, brethren, that ye
should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of
the Gentiles be come in" (Rom 11:25)], as in the days of Noah, His wrath
will rain down upon the earth. We are also told that the rapture follows the
revealing of the man on sin: Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be
not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor
by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man
deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a
falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself
that he is God (2 Thess 2:1-4). These verses not only tell us that His
coming and our being gathered to Him will follow the revealing of the
antichrist, but also tell us how he will be revealed. He will sit in the
temple shewing himself to be God by sitting in God's place: the mercy seat
between the cherubim on the ark of the covenant.

The time of the rapture is at the time when the two witnesses ascend into
heaven in Rev 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto
them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their
enemies beheld them. The two witnesses are part of all His elect which are
gathered from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (Matt
24:31). They are changed, putting on immortality and ascending into heaven,
at the same time, the same twinkling of an eye, that we all are changed at
the last trump in Rev 11 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,

at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised

incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on

incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality

(1Cor 15:51-53). The church enters His rest and the rest of mankind enters
His wrath.

The rest into which the church enters but His-enemy-of-the-gospel elect do
not enter is His day of rest Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in
David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear
his voice, harden not your hearts (Heb 4:7). It is the same day as the day
of the Lord But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in

the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein

shall be burned up (2Pet 3:10). It begins with His coming like a thief in
the night and ends at the end of His 1000 year reign when there is a new
heaven and a new earth And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea" (Rev
21:1) and His bride, the church, descends in the place He prepared for her
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of
heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband (Rev 21:2).

It is written in 2 Pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as
one day, and the day of His rest, the day of the Lord, is a 1000 year day,
which is the third day of the prophecy in Hosea 6:2 to Jews who will live in
His millennial reign After two days will he revive us: in the third day he
will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

What is revealed by the 1000 year days in scripture is a week of 1000 year
days with the last day of the week being the day of the Lord, the day of His
rest. The three days of Hosea 6:2, the three at the end of the week, are
what scripture calls the last days, and the first day is the day in which
Adam ate of the forbidden fruit and died at the age of 930 But of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen 2:17).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~

Early Church Father Tertullian"

"But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although
before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be
after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of
Jerusalem, 'let down from heaven,'"

Early Church Father Justin Martyr:

"We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is
as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was
a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ,
who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who
believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that
thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment
of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They
shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the
angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.'"

Early Church Father Irenaeus:

"For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall
it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: Thus the heaven and
the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a
conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested
upon the seventh day from all His works.' This is an account of the things
formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day
of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were
completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the
sixth thousand year.

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he
will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at
Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the
glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake
of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that
is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the
promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that 'many coming
from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.'

"The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of
the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the
dead."

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his
servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7)."

"Behold, I will send you EL YH [LORD God] the prophet before the coming of
the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (Mal 4:5)

"Why then say the scribes that ELYH [Elijah] must first come" (Matt 17:10)?

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom
11:25).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~

[Fred A Stover]

"Pulpitfire" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12821n2...@news.supernews.com...

> 1) Since the NT epistles were written to apply the gospel message to the
> church, as it pertains to the church, why would there not be a lot of
> instruction, especially surrounding passages like 1 Thessalonians
> 4:15-17, to warn believers of impending Tribulation trouble and how to
> deal with it?

That is the point. There are no verses warning of impending tribulation.

We are told we will have tribulation in the world (John 16:33) and to be of
good cheer because He has overcome the world. And, we are told of the worst
ever tribulation (Matt 24:21) before He gathersw His elect.

> 2) Why is there no strong warning to make sure you don't accept the mark
> of the beast and anti-christ, in the epistles? Why isn't Paul worried
> that believers will be fooled into accepting the anti-christ, and
> warning them about it?

There is a warning to Christians, the only ones, who are not appointed to
wrath, warning them that they will : "drink of the wine of the wrath of God"
if they accept the mark."And the third angel followed them, saying with a
loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark
in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the
wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his
indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb" (Rev.
14:9-10).

> 3) Where, in the epistles, do you find any instruction for the church to
> flee to the hills of Judea to avoid the persecution of the beast and
> anti-christ?

Why would Christians around the world flock to the mideast to flee to the
hills of Judaea?

Perhaps you're thinking of: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso
readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into
the mountains" (Matt 24:15-16)

Why do you assume Christians in Judaea won't flee to the hills when the
antichrist is revealed?

> 4) Why does 2 Thessalonians 2 beseech believers, by the prospect of
> being gathered to the Lord, NOT to be TROUBLED "as if" the day of the
> Lord were at hand for the church?

That doesn't tell you they were concerned about what they would endure
before it arrived if it were at hand?

> 5) Why are those who think they are Israel, and are going through the
> Tribulation in their lifetime, not moving to Judea now, and preparing a
> place in the mountains?

See above. Why would they?

> 6) Why look for the Tribulation, instead of the hope of Christ's return,
> as the NT believers apparently did?

Where do you get the idea that the NT believers thought tribulation was the
alternative to hope? The expected, accepted, and endured tribulation because
of their hope.

> 7) Why does Revelation call the church "church" 18 times in chapters
> 2-3, when it addresses the church, then never use the word "church"
> again until the Tribulation is over, in chapter 22?

See the answer to question#2. Because in the letters to the churches He is
addressing the churches, and, although the word "church" isn't used,. it is
the church which is being addressed in Rev. 14:9-10, & Rev 18:4, another
instance of the one rapture of the church coming out before His wrath.

> 8) Why is the bride (which the only bride of God identified in the NT,
> is the church), coming with Christ, from heaven, to the marriage supper
> of the lamb on earth after the Tribulation?

Read it again. His betrothed goes to the place prepared for her and descends
as His bride in the place prepared for her after the millennium. The souls
return to their incorruptible bodies at His coming, to ascend to the place
prepared for them. Who comes with Him is "the armies which were in heaven"
(Rev. 19:14), not His betrothed who was on earth: "When the Son of man shall
come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him." (Matt 25:31).
:
When He returns to tread "the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of
Almighty God" (Rev. 19:15). He isn't bringing His betrothed to His wrath.

> 9) Why would some of the church miss out on the wedding ceremony and
> time in the Father's house (John 14)?

They don't. They all go at the same moment, the same tweinkling of an eye.

> 10) When do views that deny the pre-trib rapture allow time for the
> judgment of believers works, the marriage of the church to Christ, and
> the time spent in the Father's house (John 14), before she comes to the
> marriage supper of God?

What scriptures suggest to you that there is a need for time to judge the
elect. He doesn't know who and why?

The millennium isn't enough time in His Father's house?

> These are just a few of the questions that, as far as I'm concerned,
> those who deny the pre-trib rapture don't have a convincing answer for.

That's Pastor-Dave ridiculous.

[Read The Bible]

(A general answer to the 10 questions posed in the
original post is that not only the Epistles are for
the church, but Revelation and the Gospels as well:)

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you
these things in the churches... Revelation 22:16

Take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
Mark 13:23

(Once we put aside the idea that only the Epistles
are for the church, then the scriptures themselves
can address each of the 10 questions:)

1. (Read Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, Revelation.)

2a. If any man worship the beast and his image, and

receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the
same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,
which is poured out without mixture into the cup of
his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire
and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and

in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their
torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have
no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his
image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
|
Here is the patience of the saints; here are they
that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of
Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto
me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord
from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit...
Revelation 14:9-13

2b. The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed
to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils...
1 Timothy 4:1

3. (Matthew 24:16. Compare Revelation 12:6. There, the
woman is probably the church. Just as the singular
woman is used to represent many different
individuals, so the singular "place prepared" could
represent many different places.)

Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and
shut thy doors about thee; hide thyself as it were
for a little moment, until the indignation be
overpast. Isaiah 26:20

4. (The day of the Lord begins at the second coming:)

The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also
confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless
in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 1:7-8

(Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3, there may have
been a preterist-like teaching going around saying
that Jesus had already returned, the resurrection of
the church had already happened, etc.)

Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the
resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith
of some. 2 Timothy 2:18

5. (See 3.)

6. (We look for the hope of Christ's return when He
said it would happen:)

Immediately after the tribulation . . .

they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds
of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall
send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and

they shall gather together his elect...
Matthew 24:29-31

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto
him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be
troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by
letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at

hand. Let no man deceive you by any means, for that

day shall not come, except there come a falling away
first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of

perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above
all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so

that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing

himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I
was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye
know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in
his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already
work, only he who now letteth will let, until he be
taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be
revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit
of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness
of his coming (parousia)... 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8

(Note above that the parousia must destroy the
Antichrist.)

The coming (parousia) of the Lord...
1 Thessalonians 4:15

7. (Revelation 2-3 is addressing seven specific
churches in the Roman province of Asia, while the
tribulation chapters refer to all believers who
will be on the earth at that time, and there are no
believers outside of the church:)

The church, which is his body... Ephesians 1:22-23

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are
called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one
faith... Ephesians 4:4-5

Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Revelation 13:10

Here is the patience of the saints; here are they
that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of
Jesus. Revelation 14:12

(Are there some who believe Romans 16 is about the
church because the word "church" is used five
separate times, while Romans 1-15 isn't about the
church because the word "church" is never used?)

8. (In Revelation 19:11, the Greek word for "heaven"
can be used to refer to the sky. At the second
coming, the rapture will gather the church into the
sky to be married to Christ, after which it will
descend together with Him to Jerusalem for the
marriage supper.)

9. (The wedding ceremony doesn't take place until
the second coming, after the tribulation:)

The marriage of the Lamb is come... Revelation 19:7

(It is the non-post-trib raptures that would have
only part of the church getting married to Christ in
heaven while another part of the church is suffering
in the tribulation.)

(Note that John 14:2-3 doesn't teach or require a
pre-trib rapture or that the rapture take the church
all the way into the third heaven. It only requires
that the church be where Christ is when He comes, and
that the church eventually reside in the Father's
house, which will descend to the new earth after the
millennium:)

I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away, and
there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city,

new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,

prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I
heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold,
the tabernacle of God is with men...
Revelation 21:1-3

(And if John 14:2-3 can apply to the church, why not
other parts of the Gospels?)

10. (The judgment of the church could occur in the
clouds at the second coming, before the marriage.)

He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the
earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints
together unto me... Psalms 50:4

Then shall they see the Son of man coming in the
clouds with great power and glory. Then shall he send
his angels, and shall gather together his elect from
the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth
to the uttermost part of heaven. Mark 13:26-27

The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our
gathering together unto him... 2 Thessalonians 2:1

Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the
Lord come... 1 Corinthians 4:5

(Note that with God there is no problem about not
having enough time for the judgment of the church at
the second coming, for:)

One day is with the Lord as a thousand years...
2 Peter 3:8

---

Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery
trial which is to try you, as though some strange
thing happened unto you. But rejoice, inasmuch as ye
are partakers of Christ's sufferings, that, when his
glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with
exceeding joy. 1 Peter 4:12-13

[Pastor Dave]

On 3 Jun 2006 02:03:58 -0700, "Read The Bible"
<bible...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:

>4. (The day of the Lord begins at the second coming:)
>
>The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also
>confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless
>in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 1:7-8
>
>(Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3, there may have
>been a preterist-like teaching going around saying
>that Jesus had already returned, the resurrection of
>the church had already happened, etc.)

You are about as ridiculous as it gets! You think that
God inspired all of these writings and gave them to
people they weren't for and that Jesus talked to people
He was really ignoring, because everything is all about
YOU and YOUR generation! Your approach is pitiful!
You even went so far as to try to move Daniel 9:24-27
to 1947! Please! (:

Where the futurists show their true ignorance, is when
they read words that were written in letters, to first
century churches and yet, they think that the Apostles
were actually ignoring those people, just to tell people
today something and you futurists read the Bible, as
if it was written just the day before YOU opened one
for the first time and as if the clock started ticking
the day YOU decided to read the Bible.

But hey, no vanity there, huh? (:

So you go ahead and act just as foolishly as those
generations before you, who did the same thing
as died without seeing it happening. The reality
is, that what YOU believe is NEW. It began in
1800 AD with Darby and the supposed Rapture
became popular in 1830, in the Scofield Study
Bible, which every serious scholar knows is a
piece of trash. (:

Now you go ahead and run along, little boy,
like you always do, when faced with the truth.
YOU like to make your little remarks off to
the side, but when it comes time to deal with
the issues, point by point, all we see from YOU,
is silence.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"God answers kneemail."

[pulpitfire]

Read The Bible wrote:
> (A general answer to the 10 questions posed in the
> original post is that not only the Epistles are for
> the church, but Revelation and the Gospels as well:)

The statement was not that the epistles are the only doctrine for the
church, but that they are the body of doctrine designed to interpret and
apply the gospel message, as well as the OT Scriptures to the NT church.

> I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you
> these things in the churches... Revelation 22:16
>
> Take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
> Mark 13:23
>
> (Once we put aside the idea that only the Epistles
> are for the church, then the scriptures themselves
> can address each of the 10 questions:)

And again, you are not arguing against the position I posted, but
against an exaggeration of it. I did not say that "only the epistles
are for the church". I said that the epistles were given to interpret
the gospel message and apply it to the church.

> 1. (Read Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, Revelation.)
>
> 2a. If any man worship the beast and his image, and
> receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the
> same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,
> which is poured out without mixture into the cup of
> his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire
> and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and
> in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their
> torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have
> no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his
> image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
> |
> Here is the patience of the saints; here are they
> that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of
> Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto
> me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord
> from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit...
> Revelation 14:9-13

The problem is, there isn't anyone who can prove that "all the children
of the twelve tribes of Israel" is the"church" of Revelation chapters
2-3. Especially when you consider that the "church" was identified as
the "church" 18 times, when it was referring to the "church", in
Revelation 2-3, and then not once after John was called up to heaven and
allowed to see the "things which shall be hereafter" the church,
beginning in 4:1.

The OT prophecies about the "time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7) were
given to and concerning the nation Israel (c.f. Daniel 9). The group of
people who are identified as those God seals during the Tribulation, so
that they do not receive the mark of the beast, are "all the children of
the tribes of Israel" (Rev. 7), and not the "church".

The gospel of Matthew, chapter 24, was addressing the nation Israel,
concerning "them who are in Judaea". There is no similar body of
doctrine anywhere found, that applies instruction for how to get through
the Tribulation to the NT "church", in the epistles, and in Revelation,
the group of people who are identified as fleeing to the mountains of
Judea is the "woman" who "bare the man child" (Christ). That IS the
nation Israel.

There isn't one verse of Scripture in the Bible that says "Israel" is
the NT "church", or that the NT "church" is "Israel". James was written
to Jewish christians during the transitional period of the church. He
called them the twelve tribes scattered abroad, because they were Jews,
not because they were part of the church. Galatians 6:16 says peace be
on them who follow this rule (those who don't regard circumcision as a
condition of salvation), "and" (kai) peace upon the Israel of God. This
is not saying the church "IS" the Israel of God, but that in addition to
letting peace be upon those who do not regard circumcision as meriting
salvation, let peace be on the "Israel of God". Romans 9:6 shows that
the "Israel of God" refers to Jews who are truly believers, as opposed
to Jews who are only part of national Israel.

There is, and will never be, a solid exegetical case for the contention
that "all the children of the twelve tribes of Israel" (Rev. 7), and the
woman who bare the man child, who flees into the wilderness from Satan
(Rev. 12), is the church, or any other than the nation Israel.

> 2b. The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
> times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed
> to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils...
> 1 Timothy 4:1

Oh, yes, obviously a reference to the "church" going through the
Tribulation of Revelation 4-19! How could I have overlooked that???
....NOT!

> 3. (Matthew 24:16. Compare Revelation 12:6. There, the
> woman is probably the church.

Oh yes, clearly the church is the woman who gave birth to Christ. uh,
yeah....that's it...Christ was born out of the church, and not the
nation Israel.

Just as the singular
> woman is used to represent many different
> individuals, so the singular "place prepared" could
> represent many different places.)

Yeah, that has nothing to do with the mountains around Judea, where
Christ told "them who are in Judaea" to flee to during the Tribulation.
It's really another obvious reference to the "church" living all over
the earth! Why didn't I see that before???

> Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and
> shut thy doors about thee; hide thyself as it were
> for a little moment, until the indignation be
> overpast. Isaiah 26:20

You got me again. Another clear reference to the NT "church", and not
the nation Israel....*sigh*

> 4. (The day of the Lord begins at the second coming:)
>
> The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also
> confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless
> in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 1:7-8

> (Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3, there may have
> been a preterist-like teaching going around saying
> that Jesus had already returned, the resurrection of
> the church had already happened, etc.)

> Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the
> resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith
> of some. 2 Timothy 2:18

And by what did Paul beseech them not to be troubled "as if" the day of
Christ were "at hand" (that's the present tense)? He besought them by
the prospect of being gathered to the Lord, not to be TROUBLED "as if"
the day of Christ were presently at hand. If we have not been gathered
to the Lord, then the day of Christ is not presently at hand.

> 5. (See 3.)

What kind of point is this? "See 3". Are you trying to get some extra
mileage out of this? How about this:

1) The people of God are never identified as the "church" in Revelation
4-19, but only by terms which either directly state "all the children of
the twelve tribes of Israel", or terms which have been many times
applied to the nation Israel".

2) (see 1)

3) (see 2)

4) (see 3)

5) (see 4)...is that enough?

6) (see 5)

7) (see 6)...

> 6. (We look for the hope of Christ's return when He
> said it would happen:)

> Immediately after the tribulation . . .
> they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds
> of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall
> send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and
> they shall gather together his elect...
> Matthew 24:29-31

1) No one who knows the prophecies of the book of Daniel, and who enters
the Tribulation, will have any doubt as to the exact day when Christ
will return to earth, because we are told, down to the day, how long the
seventieth week will last. The only time you can not know the day of
Christ's return, is up until the day the Tribulation begins, and
certainly after the man of sin has been revealed half way through it.

2) Christ returns for the church in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. Christ
returns with the church in Revelation 19. When does the
post-tribulation rapture position allow for the church to have become
the bride of Christ in heaven, and have spent time in the Father's
house, as promised in John 14, where Christ said He would return and
take us to dwell with Him in heaven, in the Father's house? The bride
comes to attend the marriage supper which follows the marriage, in
Revelation 19. Are you suggesting only part of the bride attended her
own wedding, and that the other part was stuck down on earth in
Tribulation, missing out on the promise of John 14, to be taken to the
Father's house, as is the custom for marriage?

3) How many times does the OT say Messiah would come? It just says He
would come. It turned out to be at least twice, even in the
post-tribulation rapture position. Why then, do people act like it is
heresy if the NT is understood to teach that Christ will come back for
the church (John 14, 1 Thess. 4:15-17), and with the church (Revelation
19)? Is there some verse I've overlooked, where it plainly states that
Christ will come back "only once"? He will come in the air for the
church (1 Thess. 4:15-17), and to the ground with the church (Revelation
19). This is a legitimate fulfillment of the concept that Christ will
come.

> Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our
> Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto
> him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be
> troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by
> letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at
> hand. Let no man deceive you by any means, for that
> day shall not come, except there come a falling away
> first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of
> perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above
> all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so
> that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing
> himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I
> was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye
> know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in
> his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already
> work, only he who now letteth will let, until he be
> taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be
> revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit
> of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness
> of his coming (parousia)... 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8
>
> (Note above that the parousia must destroy the
> Antichrist.)

ibid. Christ will come for (1 Thess. 4:15-17; John 14) and with (Rev.
19) the church. And note above that it was the prospect of being
gathered to the Lord at the time of His coming, which was supposed to
comfort the minds of the Thessalonians that they had NOT entered into
the day of the Lord, which day of the Lord includes events up to the
destruction of anti-christ. Either the Lord will come for and with the
church, or there's no sense to use the prospect of being gathered to the
Lord at his coming to comfort someone they had not entered the day of
the Lord.

> The coming (parousia) of the Lord...
> 1 Thessalonians 4:15

> 7. (Revelation 2-3 is addressing seven specific
> churches in the Roman province of Asia, while the
> tribulation chapters refer to all believers who
> will be on the earth at that time, and there are no
> believers outside of the church:)

Revelation 2-3 says to let him who has an ear hear what the Spirit says
to the "churches" (Rev. 2:11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22), not just the seven
mentioned by name. And beside, why would God call the churches in Asia
the "church", but not any churches outside of those seven?

> The church, which is his body... Ephesians 1:22-23
>
> There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are
> called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one
> faith... Ephesians 4:4-5
>
> Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
> Revelation 13:10
>
> Here is the patience of the saints; here are they
> that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of
> Jesus. Revelation 14:12

There is no term by which Revelation 4-19 addresses God's people, which
necessitates it is the "church", and not "all the children of the twelve
tribes of Israel". This is striking, considering God referred to the
church as the "church" 18 times in chapters 2-3, before John was called
up to heaven to see the things that would fall on them who dwell on the
earth, "hereafter". The church is not referred to in Revelation 4-19,
because it is not an earth dweller.

> (Are there some who believe Romans 16 is about the
> church because the word "church" is used five

> separate times, while Romans 1-15 isn't about the
> church because the word "church" is never used?)

When Romans 4 speaks about "Abraham", and Romans chapters 1, 4, and 11
refer to "David" are we understand this as a reference to the NT
"church"? No. Those passages are talking to the church about Abraham
and David. And Revelation 4-19 is talking to the church about "all the
children of the twelve tribes of Israel".

Are there some who think the "Israel" who is a blinded enemy of the
gospel during the time of the fulness of the Gentiles (Rom. 11), and who
will be saved in the future, when the fulness of the Gentiles has come
in (past), is somehow the same church that is being saved during the
time of the fulness of the Gentiles? Yes there are. So what does that
prove? It proves they are incorrect.

> 8. (In Revelation 19:11, the Greek word for "heaven"
> can be used to refer to the sky. At the second
> coming, the rapture will gather the church into the
> sky to be married to Christ, after which it will
> descend together with Him to Jerusalem for the
> marriage supper.)

Wow, a marriage that occurs in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor. 15; 1
Thess. 4:15-17), without being taken to the Father's house (John 14).
How convenient for the post-tribulation rapture position. The only
problem (almost) with that idea is that the "wife" made herself ready to
attend the marriage supper while she was still in "heaven" (Rev. 19:1-8).

>
> 9. (The wedding ceremony doesn't take place until
> the second coming, after the tribulation:)

Then how is it the "wife" made herself ready in "heaven", before she
followed Christ from heaven to the marriage supper (Rev. 19:1-8)? The
marriage "supper" doesn't take place until the second coming, but the
marriage occurs in heaven.

> The marriage of the Lamb is come... Revelation 19:7
>
> (It is the non-post-trib raptures that would have
> only part of the church getting married to Christ in
> heaven while another part of the church is suffering
> in the tribulation.)

*sigh*...the marriage is come (aorist = punctiliar (past tense)), and
the "wife" has made herself ready for the marriage "supper". The supper
occurs after the marriage. She is already the "wife" before she follows
Christ from heaven.

> (Note that John 14:2-3 doesn't teach or require a
> pre-trib rapture or that the rapture take the church
> all the way into the third heaven.

>It only requires
> that the church be where Christ is when He comes, and
> that the church eventually reside in the Father's
> house, which will descend to the new earth after the
> millennium:)

ibid. Neither the "much people in heaven", nor the 24 elders, nor God
on His throne, nor the "wife" who has made herself ready for the
marriage supper, are in the "heaven" of earth's atmosphere before the
"wife" follows Christ to the marriage supper. They are in the third
heaven.

> I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first
> heaven and the first earth were passed away, and
> there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city,
> new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,
> prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I
> heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold,
> the tabernacle of God is with men...
> Revelation 21:1-3

ibid. The "wife" is in "heaven" where God and the 24 elders and many
people are praising God, and follows Christ from this heaven to the
marriage supper (which follows the marriage), on earth. This scene from
Revelation 19:1-8 is not taking place in earth's atmosphere, but in the
heaven where God's throne is. And isn't the custom for the wife to be
in the Father's house before the marriage supper?

> (And if John 14:2-3 can apply to the church, why not
> other parts of the Gospels?)

?

> 10. (The judgment of the church could occur in the
> clouds at the second coming, before the marriage.)

ok, ok, I get it now....the throne of God, the 24 elders, the marriage,
and the judgment and reward of the church's works all takes place in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in earth's atmosphere. Sorry I
missed that before.... *sigh*. See the ridiculous things that have to
happen to maintain a post-tribulation rapture position. At least you
are honest enough to try and account for these events, though. You are
much more noble than some.

> He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the
> earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints
> together unto me... Psalms 50:4

> Then shall they see the Son of man coming in the
> clouds with great power and glory. Then shall he send
> his angels, and shall gather together his elect from
> the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth
> to the uttermost part of heaven. Mark 13:26-27
>
> The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our
> gathering together unto him... 2 Thessalonians 2:1
>
> Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the
> Lord come... 1 Corinthians 4:5

> (Note that with God there is no problem about not
> having enough time for the judgment of the church at
> the second coming, for:)

ibid.

> One day is with the Lord as a thousand years...
> 2 Peter 3:8

So "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" is a reference from God's
point of view, not ours?

> Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery
> trial which is to try you, as though some strange
> thing happened unto you. But rejoice, inasmuch as ye
> are partakers of Christ's sufferings, that, when his
> glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with
> exceeding joy. 1 Peter 4:12-13

1) "ye are partakers" = present tense. The sufferings they partook of
were occurring at the time Peter wrote to them. This was not referring
to the Tribulation that would come over 2,000 years later, but the
suffering they were then going through. This does not necessitate the
last generation of the church must suffer the Tribulation described in
Revelation 4-19, any more than it necessitated the first century
generation would.

2) The fact we will be glad when Christ is glorified on earth as He is
in heaven, does not necessitate that we go through the Tribulation, or
that the judgment of our works and our rewards, and our marriage to the
lamb all occurs in the twinkling of an eye, in earth's atmosphere, while
Christ is on His way to the battle of Armageddon.

--
=============================================
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10). www.pulpitfire.org
=============================================

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[pulpitfire]

Making an emotional response, in which you feign ridicule, does not
distract from the following facts:

The disciples asked three questions before Christ gave the address of
Matthew 24. When shall these things be (destruction of the temple), and
what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the aion
(eternity).

1) The first generation church did experience "these things" of the
temple being destroyed, so the discourse was not irrelevant to them, and
the futurist position does not require it to be so.

2) The nearest contextual occurrence of the phrase "this generation",
occurs in Matthew 23, where the "generation" that then listened to
Christ speak was identified as the one which killed all the righteous
people from Abel to Zacharias. Thus, generation is not limited to the
exact people then listening to Christ speak, but extended to their
fathers from thousands of years in the past. In the same way, "this
generation" of Matthew 24 can refer to the group of people extending
thousands of years into the future, and is not required to include only
those exact individuals who then listened to Christ speak.

3) The latter parts of Christ's discourse pertain to the sign of His
coming and the end of the aion. We are not living in eternity, the end
of the world did not come in A.D. 70, this is not the new heavens and
earth, and the seal, bowl, and trumpet judgments did not fall on
Jerusalem before A.D. 70, no matter how many times you read those events
into the news of the day from first century historians like Josephus.

4) the word "generation" can also mean "age". The phrase can mean "This
age will not pass till all these things be fulfilled", and would be a
fitting answer to the question of what would be the end of time/eternity.

While you may not agree with this interpretation,

1) It does demonstrate we are not locked into an irrefutable
interpretation that Matthew 24 can ONLY possibly refer to the exact
individuals of the generation then listening to Christ.

2) It allows us to interpret the entire book of Revelation and the rest
of the Bible literally, without spiritualizing it to oblivion at our own
discretion, as the preterist position is required to do to save it's
theology. You preterists want to interpret a few time references here
and there in the most strict, literal, absolute sense, then are prepared
to throw the entire book of Revelation and almost every other prophetic
passage to the winds of spiritualization, instead of viewing your few
time references in light of what the rest of the Bible says. And even
your few time references do not constitute an irrefutable proof that
only the first century church could have been the "generation" that
would see the fulfillment of the signs.

--
=============================================
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10). www.pulpitfire.org
=============================================

--

[pulpitfire]

At least you are honest enough to admit the Bible teaches the church
will be raptured. Although I do not agree with your conclusions about
the time of the rapture, for reasons previously stated, it is refreshing
to see someone from the post-tribulation rapture position with enough
integrity to at least admit the Bible teaches the rapture, without
having to demonize the doctrine of the rapture as a "lie of Satan". You
do a much better job of presenting a post-tribulation rapture position
than Owd.

--
=============================================
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10). www.pulpitfire.org
=============================================

--

[oldwetdog]

pulpitfire wrote:
> Fred A Stover wrote:
>> "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@yehooD0Tcom> wrote in message
>> news:12823bh...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>

clip to point

>
>
> At least you are honest enough to admit the Bible teaches the church
> will be raptured. Although I do not agree with your conclusions about
> the time of the rapture, for reasons previously stated, it is refreshing
> to see someone from the post-tribulation rapture position with enough
> integrity to at least admit the Bible teaches the rapture, without
> having to demonize the doctrine of the rapture as a "lie of Satan". You
> do a much better job of presenting a post-tribulation rapture position
> than Owd.
>

*sigh* Anyone who cares to can present a better post-tribulation
position than owd; since owd does not present a post-tribulation
position.

I have explained this to you before, but you are too stupid
stubborn to comprehend that I am able to use simple, sometimes
even one syllable, words to express my position.

*sigh* no matter, I have learned (the hard way) that you will
believe your delusion, even in the face of proof otherwise, and
attempting to correct you is equal to self abuse.

Since I have reached my tolerance level for self abuse, the
following is not your you, Randy, but is for any other reader who
may be interested.

No Living Remain On Earth
After
The Coming Of The Lord On That Day

About 3 1/2 years after Modern Rome comes to rule the Modern
World, Satan will proclaim himself to be "God," and will begin to
murder Christians who refuse to worship Him. (2 Thes 2:4, Rev
13:6-15) Those events will mark the midst of Daniel's 70'th Week.
Then, after Three and a half years of terror, war and
destruction, while God pours out the vials of His Wrath on the
Beast’s Kingdom, The End will come. Mat 24:29-31.

When the Lord comes he will bring those who were resurrected in
the First Resurrection with Him, (1 Thes 4:14-17, Rev 20:4) and
those of us who remain alive in the hills around Jerusalem will
be transformed (Mat 24:15-16, 1 Cor 15:50-54) and the dead will
be resurrected. (Rev 11:7-15, 18) We who remain and we who are
resurrected will rise (gathered) to meet the Lord and the First
Century Saints who come with him. (Mat 24:31, Rev 14:1-5) Satan
and his armies will be defeated, and, with the false prophets and
those who rejected God and His Son, will we cast into the lake of
fire. (Rev 19:11-21, 20:9-15) This earth and the physical
universe will be destroyed in fervent heat, and we the saved will
inherit the new heaven and earth. 2 Peter 3:3-12, Rev 21:1-7- and
others.

The Day of The Lord, The Day of Christ, The Day of God and THAT
DAY are the Same Day.
http://www.geocities.com/gaedhealic/beginning.html
http://www.geocities.com/gaedhealic/sequence.html

The Seventh Trumpet, The Last Trumpet, The Trump of God and A
Great Sound of a Trumpet are the same trumpet.
http://www.geocities.com/gaedhealic/seventh.html
http://www.geocities.com/gaedhealic/trumpets.html

There will be no "rapture," no "millennial reign."

This generation shall not all pass away until all the prophecy of
the coming of the Lord is finished.
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/main/about/signs.html

In the words of John, "Even so, Lord, Come."

owd
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
.

[H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.]

"Pulpitfire" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12821n2...@news.supernews.com...

> 1) Since the NT epistles were written to apply the gospel message to the
> church, as it pertains to the church, why would there not be a lot of
> instruction, especially surrounding passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17,
> to warn believers of impending Tribulation trouble and how to deal with
> it?

WHAT!?!

Apart from some minor blurbs concerning God's handling of the remnant, every
single eschatological statement in the New Testament instructs the believers
to keep the faith in the face of persecution, even to the end of the age,
even at the cost of their own lives. This was a primary doctrine of the
churches until the 19th century cultists came along and changed the truth
into a like.

What ISN'T in there is your mythology.

Ike

--
www.eickleberrybooks.com

******************************

The Tree of Life (from "The Character Map")

The Beloved
Faith Hope
Righteousness Judgment Compassion
Courage Integrity Diligence Grace
Discipline of Thought Service Desire Decision and Belief
Glory Honor Power Wisdom Riches Blessing Strength w/Thanksgiving
He Who Loves

******************************
Remove X from address to reply

[pulpitfire]

Thanks for your answers, Fred. Although I don't agree on every point,
at least you are able to present your view head on, on the basis of a
proposed exegesis of the passages and issues in question, and without
maligning people of opposing views as demonic liars. I have no problem
associating with people who differ from me on their view of the rapture,
when they can debate in this way. Grace and peace to you.

Fred A Stover wrote:
> "Pulpitfire" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:12821n2...@news.supernews.com...
>> 1) Since the NT epistles were written to apply the gospel message to the

>> church, as it pertains to the church, why would there not be a lot ofhe

>> instruction, especially surrounding passages like 1 Thessalonians
>> 4:15-17, to warn believers of impending Tribulation trouble and how to
>> deal with it?
>
> That is the point. There are no verses warning of impending tribulation.

There are verses, like the discourse in John 14-16, warning of impending
tribulation, and instruction in the epistles about dealing with the
general tribulations in life, and from the hands of men. There is none
I'm aware of preparing people for the greatest time of human Tribulation
that has ever been or will be, which is striking, considering the coming
of Christ is referred to many times without such instruction. You'd
think there would be some "Oh and by the way, you are going to
experience the worst suffering in all of time before Christ comes to get
you, so don't take the mark of the beast", or some such, wouldn't you?

> We are told we will have tribulation in the world (John 16:33) and to be of
> good cheer because He has overcome the world. And, we are told of the worst
> ever tribulation (Matt 24:21) before He gathersw His elect.

And the "elect" is the them who are in "Judea", who are told to flee to
the mountains thereabout. This is the same elect who is sealed in
Revelation 7, i.e. "all the children of the twelve tribes of Israel".
This is the same elect who received the prophecies about the time of
"Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7), in the OT, including Daniel 9:24-27. All
the prophecies were given to and pertain to the nation Israel, and
that's who Revelation identifies God's sealed people as--"Israel".
There isn't one verse of Scripture which identifies this group of people
going through the Tribulation as the "church", or which necessitates it,
as every word used to describe them, is also used to describe the
"children of the twelve tribes of Israel", throughout the OT. There
also isn't one verse of Scripture which says the NT church is "Israel",
or that "Israel" is the NT church. Galatians 6:16 is referring to Jews
who are truly believers (cf. Romans 9:6), in addition to (kai) those who
walk by the principle that circumcision avails nothing in our
justification. James literally wrote to Jews who were believers, during
the transitional days of the church, and was not referring to the church
in general, when He said "twelve tribes". Not one verse of Scripture
necessitates the "children of the twelve tribes of Israel", in
Revelation 7, or the woman who bare the man child in Revelation 12, is

any other than the nation "Israel".

>> 2) Why is there no strong warning to make sure you don't accept the mark

>> of the beast and anti-christ, in the epistles? Why isn't Paul worried
>> that believers will be fooled into accepting the anti-christ, and
>> warning them about it?
>
> There is a warning to Christians, the only ones, who are not appointed to
> wrath, warning them that they will : "drink of the wine of the wrath of God"
> if they accept the mark."And the third angel followed them, saying with a
> loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark
> in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the
> wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his
> indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
> presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb" (Rev.
> 14:9-10).

ibid. That God tells the church about events that will occur in the
Tribulation, does not necessitate the church will go through those
events, John did not see these things which shall occur "hereafter"
until he was called up into heaven, and the earth dwellers whom the
Tribulation is not once identified as the "church". Had Revelation not
identified the church as the "church" 18 times, when God was describing
things that pertain to the church, it wouldn't be as obvious that the
church was not the group entering into the Tribulation (except of course
for the fact this group is identified as the "all the children of the
twelve tribes of Israel", and not the "church").

>> 3) Where, in the epistles, do you find any instruction for the church to
>> flee to the hills of Judea to avoid the persecution of the beast and
>> anti-christ?
>
> Why would Christians around the world flock to the mideast to flee to the
> hills of Judaea?

Exactly. But what other place of refuge, on planet earth, does God
offer to "them who dwell on the earth" (Rev. 3:10), other than the hills
and wilderness of Judea ( Rev. 12). The instruction in Matthew 24,
regarding the Tribulation fits the idea He is addressing the "children
of the twelve tribes of Israel", who live in Judea, and who flee to the
mountains thereof, and who are sealed by God during the Tribulation
(Rev. 7). The idea is ridiculous, if applied to the church living
around the globe.

> Perhaps you're thinking of: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of
> desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso
> readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into
> the mountains" (Matt 24:15-16)
>
> Why do you assume Christians in Judaea won't flee to the hills when the
> antichrist is revealed?

ibid.

>> 4) Why does 2 Thessalonians 2 beseech believers, by the prospect of
>> being gathered to the Lord, NOT to be TROUBLED "as if" the day of the
>> Lord were at hand for the church?
>
> That doesn't tell you they were concerned about what they would endure
> before it arrived if it were at hand?

It tells me it is not at hand, because we have not been gathered to the
Lord, and therefore I should not be trouble "as if" it were at hand.

>> 5) Why are those who think they are Israel, and are going through the
>> Tribulation in their lifetime, not moving to Judea now, and preparing a
>> place in the mountains?
>
> See above. Why would they?

ibid. see response to point 3a above.

>> 6) Why look for the Tribulation, instead of the hope of Christ's return,
>> as the NT believers apparently did?
>
> Where do you get the idea that the NT believers thought tribulation was the
> alternative to hope? The expected, accepted, and endured tribulation because
> of their hope.

That's the best answer that can be given without accounting for the fact
they apparently didn't look forward to going through the Tribulation of
Revelation 4-19. If they did, then they were mistaken, because they
never went through it. They could only have been looking forward to
tribulation that did not occur during the Tribulation of Revelation
4-19, which the church has been going through for 2,000 years now, and
which proves you don't have to go through the Tribulation of Revelation
4-19, to go through tribulation.

>> 7) Why does Revelation call the church "church" 18 times in chapters
>> 2-3, when it addresses the church, then never use the word "church"
>> again until the Tribulation is over, in chapter 22?
>
> See the answer to question#2. Because in the letters to the churches He is
> addressing the churches, and, although the word "church" isn't used,. it is
> the church which is being addressed in Rev. 14:9-10, & Rev 18:4, another
> instance of the one rapture of the church coming out before His wrath.

1) "although the word "church" isn't used,. it is the church". Does
that sound like convincing exegetical proof that the people (e.g. the
"children of the tribes of Israel") is the "church"?

2) You have to spiritualize Babylon and coming out of it, to conclude
this is a reference to the rapture of the church from earth.

>> 8) Why is the bride (which the only bride of God identified in the NT,
>> is the church), coming with Christ, from heaven, to the marriage supper
>> of the lamb on earth after the Tribulation?
>
> Read it again. His betrothed goes to the place prepared for her and descends
> as His bride in the place prepared for her after the millennium.

How do you get the chronology that the wife descends "after" the
millennium (Revelation 20), when chapter 19 says she comes with Christ
to the battle of Armageddon, before the millennium (Revelation 19)?

> The souls
> return to their incorruptible bodies at His coming, to ascend to the place
> prepared for them. Who comes with Him is "the armies which were in heaven"
> (Rev. 19:14), not His betrothed who was on earth: "When the Son of man shall
> come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him." (Matt 25:31).

But it says the wife is preparing herself for the marriage supper, that
she is wearing fine, white linen, etc. Then, the armies that come with
Christ are dressed in the fine (for the fine linen is the righteousness
of the saints), white linen, and they are the ones who come to the
marriage supper of the Lamb (compare 19:7-9 with verse 14, and 17).

> When He returns to tread "the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of
> Almighty God" (Rev. 19:15). He isn't bringing His betrothed to His wrath.

Ibid.

>> 9) Why would some of the church miss out on the wedding ceremony and
>> time in the Father's house (John 14)?
>
> They don't. They all go at the same moment, the same tweinkling of an eye.

Ok, so this is another twinkling of an eye marriage that occurs on the
fly, while Christ is half-way to earth? The wife is already the wife,
and has already been to the marriage supper before the eternal state
mentioned in Revelation 21-22. So where is the time for the marriage
custom of being taken to the Father's house before the marriage supper
(cf. John 14)?

The bride is in heaven (Revelation 19:1-9), and follows Christ to earth,
to the battle of Armageddon. She is already married, has been in the
Father's house, and is on her way to the marriage supper on earth.

>> 10) When do views that deny the pre-trib rapture allow time for the
>> judgment of believers works, the marriage of the church to Christ, and
>> the time spent in the Father's house (John 14), before she comes to the
>> marriage supper of God?
>
> What scriptures suggest to you that there is a need for time to judge the
> elect. He doesn't know who and why?

2 Cor. 5:8-10

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the
body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be
accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that
every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he
hath done, whether it be good or bad.

> The millennium isn't enough time in His Father's house?

The millennium isn't in heaven (for it says the saints are resurrected,
and the camp from which they reign with Christ will be surrounded by the
nations of the four quarters of the earth at the end of the
Tribulation), and the New Jerusalem doesn't descend until the eternal
state, after the millennium (Revelation 20).

>> These are just a few of the questions that, as far as I'm concerned,
>> those who deny the pre-trib rapture don't have a convincing answer for.
>
> That's Pastor-Dave ridiculous.

Well, thanks for your answers. I appreciate the way you took it head
on, and gave a proposed exegesis of the passages and questions given.
You are much more noble than those who go about to malign anyone who
doesn't agree with their dogmatic contentions.

--
=============================================
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10). www.pulpitfire.org
=============================================

--

[Read The Bible]

> Dave posted:

> You think that God inspired all of these writings
> and gave them to people they weren't for and that

> Jesus talked to people He was really ignoring...

(Note that all believers of all times can be
considered as one: "That they all may be one..." John
17:21, so that scriptures spoken in the hearing of, or
writings sent to, specific believers in one time, can,
but do not have to, be fulfilled in their time.)

(While Revelation 2:10 was sent to the first-century
church of Smyrna and was probably fulfilled by them
under Domitian's persecution, Matthew 24 was spoken in
the hearing of the original twelve apostles, but none
of them saw the tribulation and second coming events
of Matthew 24 fulfilled, just as the first-century
Smyrnans never saw the tribulation and second coming
events of Revelation 6-19 fulfilled. Indeed, the
detailed tribulation and second coming events of
Matthew 24 and Revelation 6-19 still have not been
fulfilled, but they will all be fulfilled while
some believers are still alive on the earth.)

Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not
since the beginning of the world to this time, no,
nor ever shall be. And except those days should be
shortened, there should no flesh be saved, but for
the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Matthew 24:21-22

(The full-preterist view that the tribulation has
already happened doesn't square with history, and,
more importantly, it would leave believers unprepared
to face the worst time ever, thinking "Oh, no, that's
not for me; I don't have to go through that; that was
for those other guys long ago", making everything
all about them as it makes them feel good that they
won't have to face the coming tribulation.)

(Full-preterism also makes a mockery of all the
scriptures most dear to Christians, such as the
hope of the second coming of Christ and the
resurrection of the church into immortality.)

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when
he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall
see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope
in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
1 John 3:2-3

We look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who
shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned
like unto his glorious body... Philippians 3:20-21

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself.
Handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have. Luke 24:39

The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised

incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal

must put on immortality. So when this corruptible

shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall
have put on immortality, then shall be brought to
pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed

up in victory. 1 Corinthians 15:52-54

(What a blessed hope!)

In hope of eternal life... Titus 1:2

That blessed hope... Titus 2:13

The hope of eternal life. Titus 3:7

(Full preterism would rob us of this hope, would
keep our bodies rotting in their graves, would keep
us in suffering and misery in a world where Jesus
has not returned, has not resurrected us, has not
swallowed up death in victory. Full preterism would
attempt to overthrow our very faith:)

Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the
resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith
of some. 2 Timothy 2:18

(The resurrection cannot be past because the bodies
of the dead believers are still in their graves.)

Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and

cause you to come up out of your graves...
Ezekiel 37:12

Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
John 5:28-29

The sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death
and hell delivered up the dead which were in them,
and they were judged every man according to their
works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of
fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was
not found written in the book of life was cast into
the lake of fire. Revelation 20:11-15

(The resurrection cannot be past because believers
still marry and are given in marriage.)

In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given
in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Matthew 22:30

(The resurrection cannot be past because believers
are still suffering and crying and dying.)

God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and
there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor
crying, neither shall there be any more pain, for the
former things are passed away. Revelation 21:4

(Full preterism would throw all these promises away
just so that its adherents won't have to consciously
worry about facing the coming tribulation. But its
fanatical adherents do subconciously worry about
that, and greatly so. But instead of trying to push
through the fear into detachment from this life and
into attachment to God alone, they would instead try
to bury their fear under an intellectual pile of
arguments. Nevertheless the desperate fear remains,
festering underneath them all.)

(May God deliver us all from all fear of the coming
tribulation. In Jesus' name, Amen.)

Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be
removed, and though the mountains be carried into the
midst of the sea... Psalms 46:2

There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and
in the stars, and upon the earth distress of nations,
with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men's
hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after
those things which are coming on the earth, for the
powers of heaven shall be shaken. Luke 21:25-26

He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I
will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the
fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and
idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in
the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which
is the second death. Revelation 21:7-8

(May we not fear, may we not lie about the scriptures,
may we not strive to no end about this particular word
or that particular word.)

Strive not about words to no profit, but to the
subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself
approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun
profane and vain babblings, for they will increase unto
more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a
canker, of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, who

concerning the truth have erred, saying that the
resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith

of some. 2 Timothy 2:14-18

> Dave posted:
> ...everything is all about YOU and YOUR generation

(If by everything you mean every scripture about the
coming tribulation and second coming, then no, for I
could die at any moment and not live to see the
tribulation, and then none of the tribulation
scriptures would have anything to do with me; but,
yes, this present generation could possibly live to
enter the coming tribulation, for it witnessed the
reestablishment of the nation of Israel after its
being non-existent for almost two thousand years.)

> Dave posted:
> ...You even went so far as to try to move Daniel
> 9:24-27 to 1947

(Parts of Daniel 9:24-27 could have been fulfilled by
Jesus' first coming. But this would not negate the
possibility that all of Daniel 9:24-27 could be
fulfilled in relation to His second coming, just as
the fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 by Israel in the Exodus
didn't negate its subsequent fulfillment by Jesus
Himself in His childhood -- Matthew 2:15.)

[Fred A Stover]

"pulpitfire" <altb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44818f31$0$26786$8826...@free.teranews.com...

The rapture is in scripture, but it isn't post-trib. It has nothing to do
with "the tribulation." There is tribulation before the rapture and there
is tribulation after the rapture. And there is "the tribulation", the
decption which blinds most peple who interpret scriptures to fit the
rapture in before "the tribulation", in the midst of "the tribulation," or
after "the tribulation." There is no period toward the end in scripture of
"the tribulation."

Throw away "the tribulation," an extra-scriptural construct of an imaginery
end-time period, and see what scripture has to say.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his
servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7)."

"Behold, I will send you EL YH [LORD God] the prophet before the coming of
the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (Mal 4:5)

"Why then say the scribes that ELYH [Elijah] must first come" (Matt 17:10)?

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,

lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom

11:25).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~

[Fred A Stover]

"pulpitfire" <altb...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4481beaa$0$26863$8826...@free.teranews.com...

> Thanks for your answers, Fred. Although I don't agree on every point,
> at least you are able to present your view head on, on the basis of a
> proposed exegesis of the passages and issues in question, and without
> maligning people of opposing views as demonic liars. I have no problem
> associating with people who differ from me on their view of the rapture,
> when they can debate in this way. Grace and peace to you.

One way to respond to it differently is to realize they're throwing at you
what would intimidate them, and have a shoot-out with them. It's fun because
they've given you real ammo and they're shooting blanks.

> >> 1) Since the NT epistles were written to apply the gospel message to
the
> >> church, as it pertains to the church, why would there not be a lot ofhe
> >> instruction, especially surrounding passages like 1 Thessalonians
> >> 4:15-17, to warn believers of impending Tribulation trouble and how to
> >> deal with it?
> >
> > That is the point. There are no verses warning of impending tribulation.
>
> There are verses, like the discourse in John 14-16, warning of impending
> tribulation, and instruction in the epistles about dealing with the
> general tribulations in life, and from the hands of men. There is none
> I'm aware of preparing people for the greatest time of human Tribulation
> that has ever been or will be, which is striking, considering the coming
> of Christ is referred to many times without such instruction. You'd
> think there would be some "Oh and by the way, you are going to
> experience the worst suffering in all of time before Christ comes to get
> you, so don't take the mark of the beast", or some such, wouldn't you?

He's pretty much addressing the tribulation we have in the world, which
includes the most severe tribulation. He summarizes with "In the world ye
shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world"
(John 16:33).

What I'm noticing is that you are equating the most severe tribulation,
which precedes the gathering of His elect, with the "the great tribulation"
[tes thlipseos tes megales] of Rev 7:14. They are not the same. One precedes
the gathering of His elect and the innumerable multitude that had come out
of the other is after the rapture. The rapture is the gathering of the few
chosen of the many called church elect.

Matthew 24:29-31
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun 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 in the

clouds of heaven with power and great glory. [31] And he shall send 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.

Rev. 7:9-14
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could
number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before
the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in
their hands; [10] And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God
which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. [11] And all the angels
stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and
fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, [12] Saying,
Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and
power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. [13] And one of
the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in
white robes? and whence came they? [14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou
knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great
tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood
of the Lamb.

> > We are told we will have tribulation in the world (John 16:33) and to be
of
> > good cheer because He has overcome the world. And, we are told of the
worst
> > ever tribulation (Matt 24:21) before He gathersw His elect.
>
> And the "elect" is the them who are in "Judea", who are told to flee to
> the mountains thereabout. This is the same elect who is sealed in
> Revelation 7, i.e. "all the children of the twelve tribes of Israel".

The advice to the elect in Judaea to flee is irrelevant. However, the
144,000 sealed in Rev 7 are the firstfruits of the enemy of the gospel elect
(Rom 11:28), and Ephraim is sealed in his father Joseph's name because
Ephraim isn't in Judaea when the sealing occurs, which is a different topic.
The elect are both the church and the enemy of the gospel elect.

> This is the same elect who received the prophecies about the time of
> "Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7), in the OT, including Daniel 9:24-27. All
> the prophecies were given to and pertain to the nation Israel, and
> that's who Revelation identifies God's sealed people as--"Israel".

It's still irrelevant. Prophecies to Israel are always for Israel; however,
the prophecy is of Jacob's trouble, not Israel's. There is a difference
between Jacob and Israel, as there is a difference between Simon and Peter.
And, Revelation does not identify the sealed as Israel. See above.

> There isn't one verse of Scripture which identifies this group of people
> going through the Tribulation as the "church", or which necessitates it,
> as every word used to describe them, is also used to describe the
> "children of the twelve tribes of Israel", throughout the OT.

That's because there is no end-time period in scripture called "the
tribulation," and, as noted before, the warning in (Rev. 14:9-10) addresses
the church, who are not appointed to wrath if they remain in the faith to
the end. It isn't idle words to folks who who are going to drink the wine of
the wrath of God whether they take the mark or not.

Rev. 14:9-10

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man
worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in

his hand, [10] The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which

is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall
be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and

in the presence of the Lamb:

>There
> also isn't one verse of Scripture which says the NT church is "Israel",
> or that "Israel" is the NT church. Galatians 6:16 is referring to Jews
> who are truly believers (cf. Romans 9:6), in addition to (kai) those who
> walk by the principle that circumcision avails nothing in our
> justification. James literally wrote to Jews who were believers, during
> the transitional days of the church, and was not referring to the church
> in general, when He said "twelve tribes". Not one verse of Scripture
> necessitates the "children of the twelve tribes of Israel", in
> Revelation 7, or the woman who bare the man child in Revelation 12, is
> any other than the nation "Israel".

No argument, except their being a subset of Israel. The church is already
sealed, and Rev 7:4 does not identify the sealed as "the tribes of Israel,"
but "of all the tribes of the children of Israel."

> >> 2) Why is there no strong warning to make sure you don't accept the
mark
> >> of the beast and anti-christ, in the epistles? Why isn't Paul worried
> >> that believers will be fooled into accepting the anti-christ, and
> >> warning them about it?
> >
> > There is a warning to Christians, the only ones, who are not appointed
to
> > wrath, warning them that they will : "drink of the wine of the wrath of
God"
> > if they accept the mark."And the third angel followed them, saying with
a
> > loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his
mark
> > in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the
> > wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his
> > indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
> > presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb" (Rev.
> > 14:9-10).
>
> ibid. That God tells the church about events that will occur in the
> Tribulation, does not necessitate the church will go through those
> events,

Did you read the scripture? Everyone but the church is already appointed to
wrath: to drink the wine of the wrath of God. It isn't a warning to the ones
already appointed to wrath. It is a warning to the one not appointed to
wrath that, if they want to remain His, they are not to receive the mark.

>John did not see these things which shall occur "hereafter"
> until he was called up into heaven,

That's irrelevant.

>and the earth dwellers whom the
> Tribulation is not once identified as the "church". Had Revelation not
> identified the church as the "church" 18 times, when God was describing
> things that pertain to the church, it wouldn't be as obvious that the
> church was not the group entering into the Tribulation (except of course
> for the fact this group is identified as the "all the children of the
> twelve tribes of Israel", and not the "church").

You keep going back to "the tribulation" period and there is no such period
in scripture, the closest thing to it is a period where it worsens, but it
is still part of the tribulation we have in the world.

> >> 3) Where, in the epistles, do you find any instruction for the church
to
> >> flee to the hills of Judea to avoid the persecution of the beast and
> >> anti-christ?
> >
> > Why would Christians around the world flock to the mideast to flee to
the
> > hills of Judaea?
>
> Exactly. But what other place of refuge, on planet earth, does God
> offer to "them who dwell on the earth" (Rev. 3:10), other than the hills
> and wilderness of Judea ( Rev. 12).

You're off on a tangent. The instructions were to the people in Judaea, and
it does not exclude anyone in Judaea who would heed Him. When the AC
declares himself god, more than a few islamics might be heading for the
hills too.

> The instruction in Matthew 24,
> regarding the Tribulation fits the idea He is addressing the "children
> of the twelve tribes of Israel", who live in Judea, and who flee to the
> mountains thereof, and who are sealed by God during the Tribulation
> (Rev. 7). The idea is ridiculous, if applied to the church living
> around the globe.

It is, therefore it is?

> > Perhaps you're thinking of: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination
of
> > desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,
(whoso
> > readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee
into
> > the mountains" (Matt 24:15-16)
> >
> > Why do you assume Christians in Judaea won't flee to the hills when the
> > antichrist is revealed?
>
> ibid.
>
> >> 4) Why does 2 Thessalonians 2 beseech believers, by the prospect of
> >> being gathered to the Lord, NOT to be TROUBLED "as if" the day of the
> >> Lord were at hand for the church?
> >
> > That doesn't tell you they were concerned about what they would endure
> > before it arrived if it were at hand?
>
> It tells me it is not at hand, because we have not been gathered to the
> Lord, and therefore I should not be trouble "as if" it were at hand.

Of course it wasn't at hand, but their worry was that it was at hand..

> >> 5) Why are those who think they are Israel, and are going through the
> >> Tribulation in their lifetime, not moving to Judea now, and preparing a
> >> place in the mountains?
> >
> > See above. Why would they?
>
> ibid. see response to point 3a above.
>
> >> 6) Why look for the Tribulation, instead of the hope of Christ's
return,
> >> as the NT believers apparently did?
> >
> > Where do you get the idea that the NT believers thought tribulation was
the
> > alternative to hope? The expected, accepted, and endured tribulation
because
> > of their hope.
>
> That's the best answer that can be given without accounting for the fact
> they apparently didn't look forward to going through the Tribulation of
> Revelation 4-19.

Isn't that what was worrying the Thessalonias?

> If they did, then they were mistaken, because they
> never went through it. They could only have been looking forward to
> tribulation that did not occur during the Tribulation of Revelation
> 4-19, which the church has been going through for 2,000 years now, and
> which proves you don't have to go through the Tribulation of Revelation
> 4-19, to go through tribulation.

??????????? The church has been going through tribulation and will continue
to go through tribulation until He comes.

>
> >> 7) Why does Revelation call the church "church" 18 times in chapters
> >> 2-3, when it addresses the church, then never use the word "church"
> >> again until the Tribulation is over, in chapter 22?
> >
> > See the answer to question#2. Because in the letters to the churches He
is
> > addressing the churches, and, although the word "church" isn't used,. it
is
> > the church which is being addressed in Rev. 14:9-10, & Rev 18:4, another
> > instance of the one rapture of the church coming out before His wrath.
>
> 1) "although the word "church" isn't used,. it is the church". Does
> that sound like convincing exegetical proof that the people (e.g. the
> "children of the tribes of Israel") is the "church"?

??????????????

??????????????

> 2) You have to spiritualize Babylon and coming out of it, to conclude
> this is a reference to the rapture of the church from earth.

???????????????? A culture is bounded by imaginery lines? If you'd read the
scriptures you would find that the church is not appointed to wrath (1 Thess
5::9) and appointed to tribulation (John 16:33), And you would note that His
wrath is in the vials of wrath: "And I saw another sign in heaven, great and
marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is
filled up the wrath of God" (Rev. 15:1), and you would note that He is
calling out the ones who will not receive her plagues: "And I heard another
voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" (Rev. 18:4).

> >> 8) Why is the bride (which the only bride of God identified in the NT,
> >> is the church), coming with Christ, from heaven, to the marriage supper
> >> of the lamb on earth after the Tribulation?
> >
> > Read it again. His betrothed goes to the place prepared for her and
descends
> > as His bride in the place prepared for her after the millennium.
>
> How do you get the chronology that the wife descends "after" the
> millennium (Revelation 20), when chapter 19 says she comes with Christ
> to the battle of Armageddon, before the millennium (Revelation 19)?

Chapter 19 says nothing of the sort. It says He is accompanied by the armies
which were in heaven. You read "His betrothed who was on earth" into it. His
wrath comes when He comes, and that's when the church departs. And their
descending in the place prepared is in Rev 21

Rev. 21:1-2

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the

first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. [2] And I John saw

the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared

as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev. 21:9-10
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials
full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I
will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. [10] And he carried me away in
the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

There are references to the armies which were in heaven elsewhere in
scripture:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with

him" (Matt 25:31).
"He comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38).
"He shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy
angels" (Luke 9:26).
.

> > The souls
> > return to their incorruptible bodies at His coming, to ascend to the
place
> > prepared for them. Who comes with Him is "the armies which were in
heaven"
> > (Rev. 19:14), not His betrothed who was on earth: "When the Son of man
shall
> > come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him." (Matt 25:31).
>
> But it says the wife is preparing herself for the marriage supper, that
> she is wearing fine, white linen, etc. Then, the armies that come with
> Christ are dressed in the fine (for the fine linen is the righteousness
> of the saints), white linen, and they are the ones who come to the
> marriage supper of the Lamb (compare 19:7-9 with verse 14, and 17).

White is a symbol for holy.

>
> > When He returns to tread "the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of
> > Almighty God" (Rev. 19:15). He isn't bringing His betrothed to His
wrath.
>
> Ibid.
>
> >> 9) Why would some of the church miss out on the wedding ceremony and
> >> time in the Father's house (John 14)?
> >
> > They don't. They all go at the same moment, the same tweinkling of an
eye.
>
> Ok, so this is another twinkling of an eye marriage that occurs on the
> fly, while Christ is half-way to earth? The wife is already the wife,
> and has already been to the marriage supper before the eternal state
> mentioned in Revelation 21-22. So where is the time for the marriage
> custom of being taken to the Father's house before the marriage supper
> (cf. John 14)?

There is one rapture of His at His coming: "Christ the firstfruits;
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming" (1 Cor. 15:23), and they all
go at that momernt, in that twinkling of an eye. And He makes it really
simple to see when it is by showing us two of the all rising from the dead
and ascending into heaven.

You seem to be adding something else into scripture that you aren't
revealing, for in scripture it is after His coming and over before His bride
descends. In the Jewish wedding the bride does not attend the wedding
supper, but is revealed to the guests when it's over.

> The bride is in heaven (Revelation 19:1-9), and follows Christ to earth,
> to the battle of Armageddon. She is already married, has been in the
> Father's house, and is on her way to the marriage supper on earth.

Not in my Bible.

>
> >> 10) When do views that deny the pre-trib rapture allow time for the
> >> judgment of believers works, the marriage of the church to Christ, and
> >> the time spent in the Father's house (John 14), before she comes to the
> >> marriage supper of God?
> >
> > What scriptures suggest to you that there is a need for time to judge
the
> > elect. He doesn't know who and why?
>
> 2 Cor. 5:8-10
>
> 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the
> body, and to be present with the Lord.
> 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be
> accepted of him.
> 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that
> every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he
> hath done, whether it be good or bad.

That says we are rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ, the judgment is
rendered. We are be judged as we live.

>
> > The millennium isn't enough time in His Father's house?
>
> The millennium isn't in heaven (for it says the saints are resurrected,
> and the camp from which they reign with Christ will be surrounded by the
> nations of the four quarters of the earth at the end of the
> Tribulation), and the New Jerusalem doesn't descend until the eternal
> state, after the millennium (Revelation 20).

????????? The millennium is a period of a thousand years whether in heaven
or on earth, and His wrath is in the vials which extend from the last trump
to the judgment. The church reigns with Him in heaven, "as the angels of God
in heaven" (Matt 22:30)

>
> >> These are just a few of the questions that, as far as I'm concerned,
> >> those who deny the pre-trib rapture don't have a convincing answer for.
> >
> > That's Pastor-Dave ridiculous.
>
> Well, thanks for your answers. I appreciate the way you took it head
> on, and gave a proposed exegesis of the passages and questions given.
> You are much more noble than those who go about to malign anyone who
> doesn't agree with their dogmatic contentions.
>

--

[Dore]

"Pulpitfire" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12821n2...@news.supernews.com...

> 1) Since the NT epistles were written to apply the gospel message to the
> church, as it pertains to the church, why would there not be a lot of
> instruction, especially surrounding passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17,
> to warn believers of impending Tribulation trouble and how to deal with
> it?

ALL of the instructions in the gospels is basically how to deal with the
tribulation and every other aspect of this life. The tribulation is merely a
greater troublesome times that was is normally on the earth. The fact that
you were told that the tribulation would be a time of trouble that has never
before been on the earth nor ever will be, is adequate warning of it's
trouble.

cont

>
> 2) Why is there no strong warning to make sure you don't accept the mark
> of the beast and anti-christ, in the epistles? Why isn't Paul worried
> that believers will be fooled into accepting the anti-christ, and warning
> them about it?

There is strong warning NOT to take the mark of the beast. Isn't the warning
of having the wrath of God being poured out upon you, as well as tormenting
of fire and brimstone adequate warning? Why do you limit the warning to the
epistles? Isn't the revelation of John good enough for you? The epistles
were given to give you information on the requirements, commands, and
demands of God, with some prophetic warnings sprinkled in. The book of
Revelation was a vast book of warning for these end times, as well as
Zechariah, Isaiah, Daniel etc.

Rev 14:9-10
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man

worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in
his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out
without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented
with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the
presence of the Lamb:

KJV

cont

>
> 3) Where, in the epistles, do you find any instruction for the church to
> flee to the hills of Judea to avoid the persecution of the beast and
> anti-christ?

Matt 24:16-21
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of
his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath
day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning

of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

KJV

This was NOT just a warning to those in Judea, but symbolic for all who
witness the abomination of desolation being set. You are NOT to avoid the
persecution of the beast and anti-christ, but because of your faith, you are
to endure it.

Matt 10:22
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth
to the end shall be saved.
KJV

Rev 2:10
10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil
shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have
tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a
crown of life.
KJV

Rev 13:10
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth
with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the
faith of the saints.
KJV

cont

>
> 4) Why does 2 Thessalonians 2 beseech believers, by the prospect of being
> gathered to the Lord, NOT to be TROUBLED "as if" the day of the Lord were
> at hand for the church?

Because the power of God, your faith and strength being empowered by the
Holy Spirit will provide wisdom, knowledge, and endurance to withstand any
trials and tribulations on the earth. If God be with you, who could be
against you?

cont

>
> 5) Why are those who think they are Israel, and are going through the
> Tribulation in their lifetime, not moving to Judea now, and preparing a
> place in the mountains?

That was NOT to be taken literally but symbolically. It was a warning for
ALL people who can see where the tribulations are occurring, so that they
flee to the mountains. It has NOTHING specific to do with Israel, but for
the whole earth, because the whole earth is going through the tribulation.
Using Isreal, Judea etc was an example.

cont

>
> 6) Why look for the Tribulation, instead of the hope of Christ's return,
> as the NT believers apparently did?

You should always have the hope of Christ's return, but certainly being in
the times of the tribulation should provide you with the inspiration to be
prepared, through faith, obedience and commitment and NOT complacent, for
what is about to come upon the earth.

cont

>
> 7) Why does Revelation call the church "church" 18 times in chapters 2-3,
> when it addresses the church, then never use the word "church" again until
> the Tribulation is over, in chapter 22?

Church is just another symbolic term for the faithful and righteous. The
term itself is inconsequential.

cont

>
> 8) Why is the bride (which the only bride of God identified in the NT, is
> the church), coming with Christ, from heaven, to the marriage supper of
> the lamb on earth after the Tribulation?

The marriage supper of the Lamb is after the old earth and heavens pass
away. The New Jerusalem is heaven and is long after the old earth and
heavens have passed away.

cont

>
> 9) Why would some of the church miss out on the wedding ceremony and time
> in the Father's house (John 14)?

Because they are hypocrites who believe in the false prophet lies of a
rapture.

cont

>
> 10) When do views that deny the pre-trib rapture allow time for the
> judgment of believers works, the marriage of the church to Christ, and the
> time spent in the Father's house (John 14), before she comes to the
> marriage supper of God?

There is NO rapture of any kind. The judgment of mankind comes before the
great tribulation, determining who will endure it and who will be destroyed
in it, as in the days of Noah. The second judgment comes after the millennia
of the government of God is finished, whenthe earth ends. The bride,
marriage supper of the Lamb and being in the Father's house comes after all
of these things.

cont

>
> These are just a few of the questions that, as far as I'm concerned, those
> who deny the pre-trib rapture don't have a convincing answer for.
>

Why would God remove the saints from off the earth, when the wicked are to
be destroyed, and the righteous are to inherit it to live and reign in the
millennium of the government of God? If the saints are raptured and the
wicked and sinners destroyed, there is NO ONE LEFT ON THE EARTH for the
millennia of peace. The rapture myth makes no sense whatsoever.

--
Dore

www.dorewilliamson.com

"Pulpitfire" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12821n2...@news.supernews.com...

[Read The Bible]

> Pulpitfire posted:

> The statement was not that the epistles are the
> only doctrine for the church, but that they are the
> body of doctrine designed to interpret and apply
> the gospel message, as well as the OT Scriptures to
> the NT church.

(But in the pre-trib doctrine, the latter argument
ends up partially stating the former argument, i.e. it
ends up saying that the tribulation scriptures don't
apply to the church, something which is nowhere stated
in the Epistles or anywhere else in the Bible, but is
even contradicted in verses such as Revelation 22:16
and Mark 13:23.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> ...there isn't anyone who can prove that "all the

> children of the twelve tribes of Israel" is the
> "church" of Revelation chapters 2-3.

(I'm not aware of anyone who has made that claim, for
Revelation 2-3 was addressed to and fulfilled by
seven first-century churches in the Roman province of
Asia, while Revelation 6-18 will involve believers who
will be on the earth at the time of the tribulation.)

(The 144,000 are part of the church, for they are
believers.)

These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he
goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the
firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
Revelation 14:4

(And Ephesians 4:4-5 makes clear there can be no
believers outside of the church.)

(But the 144,000 are not the only believers who will
be in the tribulation.)

I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man
could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and

people, and tongues... Revelation 7:9

|
These are they which came out of great tribulation,
and have washed their robes, and made them white in

the blood of the Lamb. Revelation 7:14

(So no believers can make the claim that because
they aren't included in the 144,000 they can't
possibly go into the tribulation.)

> Pulpitfire posted:

> John was called up to heaven and allowed to see the
> "things which shall be hereafter" the church,
> beginning in 4:1.

(Be very careful about adding words to Revelation.)

-For I testify unto every man that heareth the words
of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues
that are written in this book... Revelation 22:18

(Revelation 4:1 in no way says or even implies that
it's referring to "after the church", for the church
is forever.)

Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Ephesians 3:21

> Pulpitfire posted:

> The gospel of Matthew, chapter 24, was addressing
> the nation Israel

(Matthew 24 is addressing the church.)

Ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
Matthew 24:9

> Pulpitfire posted:
> ..."them who are in Judaea"...

(Today there are many churches in Judaea, just as
there always have been.)

The churches of Judaea... Galatians 1:22

The churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ
Jesus... 1 Thessalonians 2:14

(But Matthew 24 is addressed to more than those
believers who will be in Judaea when the abomination
of desolation occurs, for the tribulation will be
worldwide.)

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom
against kingdom, and there shall be famines, and
pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Matthew 24:7

(So no believers can say that because they aren't
living in Judaea they can't possibly go into the
tribulatiom.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> ...the group of people who are identified as

> fleeing to the mountains of Judea is the "woman"
> who "bare the man child" (Christ). That IS the
> nation Israel.

(Note that in Revelation 12:5 the woman could be
interpreted as the church and the man child as the
144,000, who could be translated into heaven sometime
after the fifth trumpet, for we see them in heaven
in Revelation 14. But the church will have other
members who will remain on the earth throughout the
tribulation, and these will be the ones who it says
will be persecuted by the enemy.)

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

> Pulpitfire posted:
> (Re: 1 Timothy 4:1)

> Oh, yes, obviously a reference to the "church"
> going through the Tribulation of Revelation 4-19!
> How could I have overlooked that??? ....NOT!

(Note that 1 Timothy 4:1 does refer to those who
have faith, for they depart from it, and it does
refer to what will happen in the latter times, so it
very well could apply to believers during the
tribulation.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> (Re: Revelation 12:6)
> ...Christ told "them who are in Judaea" to flee to

> during the Tribulation. It's really another obvious
> reference to the "church" living all over the
> earth! Why didn't I see that before???

(Note that Revelation 12:6 makes no reference to
Judaea, so it could apply to believers around the
world.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> (Re: Isaiah 26:20)

> Another clear reference to the NT "church", and not
> the nation Israel....*sigh*

(Note that Isaiah 26:20 refers to the people of God,
and the people of God includes all believers, whether
Jew or Gentile.)

-For ye are the temple of the living God, as God hath
said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I
will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2 Corinthians 6:16

> Pulpitfire posted:
> ...by what did Paul beseech them not to be troubled

> "as if" the day of Christ were "at hand" (that's
> the present tense)?

(Paul beseeches them by the coming of Christ and our
gathering together to Him -- 2 Thessalonians 2:1;
compare Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27.)

(The day of Christ begins at the second coming
-- 1 Corinthians 1:7-8, so that Paul could be telling
them not to be troubled by any preterist-like
teaching that claimed that the second coming had
already occurred. They would be troubled because
where was Jesus then? Where were their immortal
resurrection bodies? Why were they still suffering
and dying? Such a teaching could trouble them to the
point where it could overthrew their faith --
2 Timothy 2:18.)

> Pulpitfire posted:

> If we have not been gathered to the Lord, then the
> day of Christ is not presently at hand.

(Tell that to full-preterists. They can spiritualize
away the gathering together just as they can
spiritualize away the second coming of Christ and the
resurrection of the church.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> (Re: 5. See 3.)

> What kind of point is this?

(It means that Question 5 could also be answered by
the answer already given to Question 3.)

[Read The Bible]

> Pulpitfire posted:

> The people of God are never identified as the
> "church" in Revelation 4-19

(Just as they aren't in Romans 1-15. But that means
nothing, for the church is nevertheless referred to
in many parts of Romans 1-15, just as it is in many
parts of Revelation 6-19. And regarding the inclusion
of Revelation 19 in the comment above, does the
pre-trib view even deny that the church is referred to
in parts of Revelation 19? And if it doesn't, by what
argument can it say that the word "church" has to be
used in Revelation 6-18 in order for parts of those
chapters to be referring to the church, but that the
word "church" doesn't have to be used in Revelation 19
in order for parts of that chapter to be referring to
the church?)

> Pulpitfire posted:

> The only time you can not know the day of Christ's
> return, is up until the day the Tribulation begins

(Actually, no scripture expressly indicates the day
that Christ will return in relation to the beginning
of the tribulation. Daniel 12:11-12 may indicate the
day in relation to the abomination of desolation. If
it does, then we can know the day. Note the parallel
between the "knoweth no man" in Matthew 24:36 and
1 Corinthians 2:11, the latter indicating that now we
can know things known only to God, through His
Spirit, as confirmed by John 16:13; 1 John 2:20;
Amos 3:7.)

> Pulpitfire posted:

> Christ returns for the church in 1 Thessalonians
> 4:15-17.

(The church on the earth waits for His return with the
church that's in the third heaven.)

Even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring
with him. 1 Thessalonians 4:14

I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be
preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:23

To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in
holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
1 Thessalonians 3:13

> Pulpitfire posted:

> Christ returns with the church in Revelation 19.

(After we who are alive and remain on the earth are
caught up to meet Him in the clouds, then we too
will descend with Him to Jerusalem.)

> Pulpitfire posted:

> He will come in the air

(Yes, we will meet Him in the air and then descend
with Him to the earth. Note that no scripture says
that He or the church will go back into the third
heaven, and then years later come back a third time.
There's no third coming of Christ.)

> Pulpitfire posted:

> Wow, a marriage that occurs in the twinkling of an

> eye...

(Note that no scripture says that the marriage
ceremony will occur in the twinkling of an eye. It
could possibly take about as long as a marriage
ceremony does today.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> ...without being taken to the Father's house
> (John 14).

(Note that it doesn't say we are taken to the Father's
house, for the Father's house will come down to us --
Revelation 21:2-3.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> ...the "wife" made herself ready to attend the

> marriage supper while she was still in "heaven"
> (Rev. 19:1-8).

(Note that it doesn't say that all believers "made
themselves ready in heaven". Those believers who
will have died and entered the third heaven could
make themselves ready in the third heaven, while
those believers who will be alive and remain on the
earth could make themselves ready on the earth --
1 John 3:2-3.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> ...the marriage occurs in heaven.

(Note that no scripture says or requires that the
marriage occurs in the third heaven. It could happen
in the clouds at the second coming, when all
believers in heaven and earth are gathered together
to Christ -- Mark 13:27.)

> Pulpitfire posted:

> She is already the "wife" before she follows Christ

> from heaven...

(Not necessarily the third heaven. "Heaven",
"ouranos" in the Greek, can also mean the first
heaven, the sky -- Matthew 16:2-3, Luke 12:56 --
the air -- Matthew 6:26, 8:20, 13:32; Mark 4:4,32;
Luke 8:5, 9:58, 13:19; Acts 10:12, 11:6.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> ...the "much people in heaven"...

(The people of Revelation 19:1 could be in the third
heaven by having died. Then, they could have
descended with Christ into the sky and been joined by
the raptured saints by the time Revelation 19:7 is
announced. Nothing says or requires that no time has
elapsed between Revelation 19:1 and Revelation 19:7.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> The "wife" is in "heaven"...

(Not necessarily the third heaven by the time
Revelation 19:7 occurs.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> ...isn't the custom for the wife to be in the

> Father's house before the marriage supper?

(Not necessarily. Beware of customs not required
by the Bible -- Titus 1:14. A wife doesn't have to
be taken to a father's house -- Genesis 24:67.)

> Pulpitfire posted:
> [sarcastic:] ...the 24 elders, the marriage, and the

> judgment and reward of the church's works all takes
> place in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in
> earth's atmosphere.

(The 24 elders may be taking place now, and note that
no scripture says that they, or the judgment and
the marriage of the church, take place in the
twinkling of an eye. The judgment and the marriage of
the church could possibly take some hours.)

> Pulpitfire posted:

> See the ridiculous things that have to happen to
> maintain a post-tribulation rapture position.

(Actually, no, I don't see anything ridiculous in the
post-trib position.)

> Pulpitfire posted: (Re: 2 Peter 3:8)

> So "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" is a
> reference from God's point of view, not ours?

(Not necessarily. The transformation of the living
believers into immortal bodies could take place
instantaneously from our point of view. But nothing
requires that the descent of Christ from the third
heaven, and the shout, and the sounding of the trumpet,
and the resurrection of the bodies of the dead
believers, and the sending forth of the angels, and
the gathering together of all the resurrected and
transformed believers from heaven and earth into the
one place above Jerusalem where Jesus will be, and
then the judgment and the marriage of the church --
nothing says or requires that any of these things have
to happen instantaneously from our point of view.)

> Pulpitfire posted: (Re: 1 Peter 4:12-13)
> This was not referring to the Tribulation...

(Note that 1 Peter 4:12-13 is referring to a fiery
trial "which is to try you," that it, it's warning
believers about something that will happen to them
in the future, at which time they will be partakers
of Christ's sufferings, and in which suffering they
will nevertheless still be able to hope to rejoice at
His second coming. So this could very well apply to
believers during the coming tribulation, for whom the
hope of Christ's coming and our gathering together
unto Him will in no way be diminished.)

> Pulpitfire posted:

> This does not necessitate the last generation of
> the church must suffer the Tribulation

(Matthew 24; 2 Thessalonians 2; and Revelation 6-18
do necessitate that the church will go through the
coming tribulation.)

[Pastor Dave]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:21:04 -0500, pulpitfire
<altb...@gmail.com> spake thusly:

Distraction is what you are doing right now,
by claiming that I "feigned ridicule" and by
ignoring what I actually responded to and
trying to change the subject to Matthew 24.
I don't see that in my comments above.
Do you? No, of course you don't.

You love to begin your messages with an insult
directed at me and then, later, you try to play
the martyr, the wounded innocent. Please! (:

First off, you are a liar. You always lie, when you
respond to me, because you know that you cannot
refute what I say and that really gets to you. So
you figure that if you start off with an insult, that
you can get me angry and then maybe, just maybe,
I won't be able to deal with your nonsense, that
you call truth.

You deserve no respect, because you are a liar
and you know you're a liar and so, I will not
show you any respect.

>The disciples asked three questions before Christ
>gave the address of Matthew 24.

I responded to 1 Cor and 2 Thess, not Mat 24.

>When shall these things be (destruction of the temple),
>and what will be the sign of your coming, and of the
>end of the aion (eternity).

I won't argue with you, since I have already given you
multiple whoopings on Mat 24. :)

I will say three things, one of which I already said
above, one of which I will say now and one which
is noted further down (split up across two of your
statements).

So secondly, the truth is, that you know damn well
that "aion" doesn't mean "eternity". You try to find
things like Thayer's, that add definitions to a dead
language, which is impossible btw, so any word can
mean anything you want it to. (:

"Aion" means, "an age" and eternity can't have an end.
That's why it's called, "eternity". It is "eternal".

DUUUHHH! (:

The disciples asked about the end of the age and nothing
more and it was the Mosaic age that was about to come
to an end and all Rabbi's agree, that Biblical Judaism
ended in 70 AD. Coincidence? I think not.

>1) The first generation church did experience
>"these things" of the temple being destroyed,
>so the discourse was not irrelevant to them, and
>the futurist position does not require it to be so.

Thirdly:

Fact: Jesus never said "this part of my return now
and that part of my return later".

Fact: Since the Temple would be destroyed at
His return and you know that, you are
now, by default, saying that Jesus began
His return in 70 AD and is still up there,
on a cloud and has been floating up there,
"returning" for almost 2,000 years now!
That's ridiculous!

Fact: You are waiting for what you now admit
happened in 70 AD and you are trying
to put off part of His return for thousands
of years. And if you say that He's not
still stuck up there floating on a cloud,
then you are saying that He judges at
His "Third Coming" and not at His
"Second Coming". Of course, you
believe in four comings of Jesus anyway
(Earthly ministry, Rapture, 1,000 yr reign,
Judgment) anyway, so what's the problem
with adding another one and calling it five,
right? Please! (:

Fact: You did not even know about what happened
in 70 AD, until I educated you and also put
forth such strong evidence that His words
were fulfilled, that you can now no longer
deny it. So instead of being honest and
questioning the rest of your doctrine, what
do you do? You choose to hang on to your
doctrine and then try to twist the Scriptures
and break up His return into pieces, so that
your doctrine will still stand for you. That's
because your doctrine is more important
to you than the truth and when truth is
shown to you, that you cannot refuse, you
take it as an opportunity to twist that truth
so that it somehow wraps around your doctrine.
And what will you do about what I just said,
which shows that it won't work that way and
is a real problem for you, since you have to
choose either Jesus on a cloud for all this
time, or add another return to your list?
Simple, you will, once again, make up
something on the fly, that won't be found
in Scripture, because your doctrine is the
all important thing to you, Scripture be
damned!

Fact: You know as well as I do, that you were
previously waiting for a third Temple
to be built, because you were waiting
for the Temple to be torn down, stone
by stone. Now that you know that it
already happened, what does that do
to the "third Temple required, so it
can be torn down, stone by stone"
part of your futurist doctrine, Randy,
now that this "third Temple" is no
longer needed for that, hmmmm???

Fact: In Luke 21:20-22, Jesus states very clearly
that when Jerusalem was desolated, that
all things written would be fulfilled. You
lamely try to respond with a passage from
Acts, but every time I respond to that and
show you how foolish you are acting, what
do you do? You ignore it and run away
from the discussion and then keep repeating
that same action every time! (: And that
is why I say that you are acting foolishly.
Because you keep repeating that same
action! My response to it, is at the following
link: http://tinyurl.com/ompsb

>2) The nearest contextual occurrence of the phrase
>"this generation", occurs in Matthew 23, where the
>"generation" that then listened to Christ speak was
>identified as the one which killed all the righteous
>people from Abel to Zacharias.

You can whine all you want. Thank you for proving my
point. 23 times, you futurist have no problem with the
phrase, "this generation" and yet, with this ONE INSTANCE
you work as hard as you can, to claim it "really means"
something other than what it says. And now you are
going even further and attacking other passages in which
this phrase is used, twisting and bending many passages
now, to try to suit your doctrine! And the fact is, that
even futurist translators still translate it as what
Randy??? Hmmm??? How do they STILL translate it?

That's right, you guessed it, Randy boy! They translate
it as, "THIS GENERATION", because they KNOW
that's what Jesus said! If it "really meant" something
else, then it would be translated that way, yet it isn't!

So why do they keep translating it that way, if it
doesn't mean that, Randy?

>Thus, generation is not limited to the exact people
>then listening to Christ speak, but extended to their
>fathers from thousands of years in the past.

No, that's not true. He didn't pile them all into that
"generation". He said that what all of those people
throughout time did, would be judged in the generation
He was speaking to. You can't read and yet, you try to
correct me?

He told the generation He was speaking to, to "fill up
the measure". So the generation He was speaking to
would be the generation that would "fill up the measure".
Now how can many, many more generations go by,
before His return, if that generation "filled up the
measure"? It can't get any more full, than full.

And they would "fill up the measure", by killing
the Son, which was the point of the parable that
Jesus told, in Matthew 21:33-41. He stated clearly
that it was the people who killed the son, that
vengeance was taken out on. He did not say,
"And thousands of years later, vengeance was
meted out". Please, Randy! Abandon this
foolishness of yours and believe in the truth
of God's word!

To continue with Matthew 23... Then He said,
after listing those things that were done...

"All these things shall come upon this generation."

Now if He meant them all as the same generation,
which that word doesn't even mean there, so they
wouldn't have understood Him if He used it that
way, but anyway, He would have said, "this people".

But no, He spoke of the generation He was speaking
to and this is further proved, when He said....

Luke 23:26-28

26) And as they led him away, they laid hold upon
one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country,
and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear
it after Jesus.
27) And there followed him a great company of
people, and of women, which also bewailed and
lamented him.
28) But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of
Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for YOURSELVES,
and for YOUR children.

Now if He was saying multiple generations spanning
thousands of years, and they were all compiled into
one generation, then He would not have said...
"yourselves and your children", since that notes
only two generations right there. But He used it
as a single generation of people, which were alive
at the time and simply noted that the children that
were there would obviously also grow up and see it
happen as well. And in 70 AD, there were people left
of the generation that crucified Him, as well as those
who were children when He said it, now grown up,
since a Biblical generation is 40 years.

"And the LORD's anger was kindled against Israel,
and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years,
until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight
of the LORD, was consumed." - Numbers 32:13

Thus, when He said, "this generation", He meant,
"this generation" and it was that same generation
that saw the events of 70 AD.

You can't read! And you are not serving God by
twisting and bending and tearing out and adding
to His word, just so you can make the Bible all
about YOU! (:

And let it be noted that you did not respond to
what I had noted to the other poster, because
you knew I was right and that you could not
refute what I said! (:

And let it be noted, as I said, that "eternity"
doesn't have an end, as you tried to imply
that it does!

But that shows us just how desperate you are
to hang on to your doctrine, which you KNOW
I have torn to shreds on many occasions and
THAT is why you keep beginning your posts
to me, with insults! To distract from the
actual issues and then you respond with
something that's not even related to what
I had said! You are transparent, Randy!

Wake up and believe God, Randy! BELIEVE GOD!

And no, I will not continue in this discussion with you,
unless you are seeking to learn. I am tired of refuting
your claims, only to have you immediately turn to
insults and ignore what I actually said.

Make God open your eyes to the truth! He has
already started, since you now know things that
you cannot refute about 70 AD. I am hoping and
will be praying, that he brings you to a point in
which you will stop twisting His word, to hang
on to your "me, me, me" doctrine, which you
already know you are doing. But it's getting
harder and harder for you to do it Randy and
we both know that.

Later.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

WARNING: Exposure to the Son may prevent burning!

[Pastor Dave]

On 3 Jun 2006 19:48:31 -0700, "Read The Bible"
<bible...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:

>> Dave posted:
>> You think that God inspired all of these writings
>> and gave them to people they weren't for and that
>> Jesus talked to people He was really ignoring...
>
>(Note that all believers of all times can be
>considered as one: "That they all may be one..."

John was talking about the church as a whole.
Jesus was noting a specific generation. John
did not use the phrase, "this generation".
Jesus did.

Your lame attempts to get around the truth
will always fail. (:

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

Patience is a virtue which carries a lot of wait.

[Pastor Dave]

On 3 Jun 2006 19:48:31 -0700, "Read The Bible"
<bible...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:

>(The full-preterist view that the tribulation has
>already happened doesn't square with history,

Actually, yes it does and I have proved that
and John even said in Revelation, that the
tribulation was already happening.

Your ignorance of history, does not mean
that it didn't happen in history and let's
face it, you make this claim, because you
read another futurist saying it and not
because you researched it. No one who
does an honest study of that period,
would post what you just did.

The truth is, you aren't happy if it isn't
all about you and those that Jesus spoke
to about His coming, would never have
gotten the idea that it may be thousands
of years off into the future and I have
proved, even to OWD/Glenn, that the
disciples absolutely did believe in
His coming within their generation.
Of course, his response, just like that
of everyone else I prove this to, is that
they were wrong about that, but it doesn't
matter and it's not important. This,
after he spends all of his time posting
about Jesus' return. And how can
we trust any of the NT, if they were
wrong about His return and our resurrection,
when as Paul said, that was the hope of
the church? So if they were wrong about
"the hope of the church", how can we
trust anything else they say?

So you have two options.

1) Believe the Bible. All of it.

2) Throw it away, because if they were wrong
about that, then the Bible has a huge error in it,
which is repeated multiple times and we can't
trust it to be true and accurate.

As for me, I choose option 1.

Which one do you choose?

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"The only place you find chaos in the universe
is in mans' heart." - Vume

[Mike Bugal]

"Pulpitfire" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12821n2...@news.supernews.com...

> These are just a few of the questions that, as far as I'm concerned, those
> who deny the pre-trib rapture don't have a convincing answer for.

You know, I almost got suckered into this one. I even had already prepared
responses to the first several questions, but decided to give it a couple of
days to see how it would go. The sentence above stuck in my mind as the
stopping point. Years of experience told me that when anyone says that the
opponents of as unbiblical a teaching as the Pre-Tribulation Rapture "don't
have a convincing answer" for the points raised by you it speaks volumes...
and my intuition was right again. The problem isn't that you CAN'T be shown
convincing evidence... you just WON'T be convinced by it. I've particularly
been watching your discourse with Read The Bible. He has made some very
valid points and all you have done in responses is be sarcastic or twist the
position of your opponent to create strawmen which you knock down
sarcasticly. I noted that you did some of that in your original questions
too... attributing teachings and doctrines to those who oppose the
Pre-Tribulation Rapture teaching that they don't believe. A good example is
your willingness paint any and all with the "the church is Israel" brush as
if we ALL teach such a thing. That is more common among the amillennialists
and some preterists. I know of few (if any) Mid or Post-Trib teachers who
espouse that... yet you paint us all with that and then shoot down your
strawman and claim victory.

Watching this thread reminded me once again of Paul's words that have become
my guide in posting to Usenet at all over the last year: "But foolish and
unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strifes." (2
Timothy 2:23)

"Foolish questions" are those which are asked with no real answer desired.
"Unlearned questions" are those from which the asker never intends to profit
and learn from. This thread fits both. Praise God I didn't waste any of His
time foling with it!

His and Yours,

Mike Bugal
Heartland Christian Ministries
http://www.hcm2.org/

[oldwetdog]

Mike, even though I disagree with you on one or two points of
scripture, over the last couple of years I have come to respect
your stand for the Word of God.

This is an excellent post.

May God bless you and use you in His service
owd

[Pulpitfire]

And the reader will note, that in all of the above, there wasn't one
exegetical proof or attempt to prove either that my statements about the
timing of the rapture, or what ReadtheBible said about it, were
incorrect. There is no noble basis for agreeing with someone who bases
their claims on "years of experience", and say so. One must see for
himself whether a doctrine is taught in Scripture or not (Acts 17:11).
If you let your reply rest on your "years of experience" and say so, you
are not giving people who may be still forming their convictions any
noble basis for agreeing with the post-tribulation rapture position, or
a source of assurance regarding the objections they will surely
encounter by others, as they attempt to defend the truth.

Questions like, "Can God make a rock so big He can't move it?" are
foolish and unlearned questions. Questions like "How does the
post-tribulation rapture position account for the bride coming back to
earth with Christ in Revelation 19?", are not. My theology books answer
objections raised by opposing positions, and I've spent hours answering
those raised by the post-tribulation position.

If you've had years of experience in your theology, you should already
have answers to the questions in my post, as a lot of them came right
out of decades old theology books, and are common to those who know,
defend, and refute the various positions about the timing of the
rapture. If you've gone on this long without dealing with these
objections, this suggests to me that perhaps you formed your convictions
in the fear of someone who told you they have "years of experience", or
are simply relying on your years of experience instead of an
understanding of the Bible that comes from iron sharpening iron.
Whatever the case, trying to slap a label of "foolish" on someone's
objections to the pre-trib rapture, and let that stand as your
refutation, is what I would call a "copout".

[Bible John]

Hey PulpitFire. I updated CERM. Thanks for your work. Perhaps I could use
your help some more, but if not I appreciate your work.

Regarding the rest of this. Sorry but I'm not an eschatology scholar.

"Pulpitfire" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12821n2...@news.supernews.com...

> judgment of believers works, the marriage of the church to Christ, and the
> time spent in the Father's house (John 14), before she comes to the
> marriage supper of God?
>

> These are just a few of the questions that, as far as I'm concerned, those
> who deny the pre-trib rapture don't have a convincing answer for.
>
>

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149411688....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > Pulpitfire posted:
> > The statement was not that the epistles are the
> > only doctrine for the church, but that they are the
> > body of doctrine designed to interpret and apply
> > the gospel message, as well as the OT Scriptures to
> > the NT church.
>
> (But in the pre-trib doctrine, the latter argument
> ends up partially stating the former argument, i.e. it
> ends up saying that the tribulation scriptures don't
> apply to the church, something which is nowhere stated
> in the Epistles or anywhere else in the Bible, but is
> even contradicted in verses such as Revelation 22:16
> and Mark 13:23.)
>
> > Pulpitfire posted:
> > ...there isn't anyone who can prove that "all the
> > children of the twelve tribes of Israel" is the
> > "church" of Revelation chapters 2-3.
>
> (I'm not aware of anyone who has made that claim, for
> Revelation 2-3 was addressed to and fulfilled by
> seven first-century churches in the Roman province of
> Asia, while Revelation 6-18 will involve believers who
> will be on the earth at the time of the tribulation.)

?????? Has Read the Bible read the Bible? The end-time period you also call
"the tribulation" isn't in scripture. The great (greater) tribulation of Rev
7:14 is the tribulation through out the ages, not a period at the end, and
the worst ever tribulation is part of it. When He says "In the world you
will have tribulation," the tribulation period is when we are in the world.

>
> (The 144,000 are part of the church, for they are
> believers.)

I guess he hasn't, for you missed most of it.. If the 144,000 were
Christians, they would not need to be sealed in Rev 7. They are sealed for
identification (Rev 7:3, Rev 9:4), and as the sons of Sceva discovered,
Christians are already seqled and known:

Acts 19:13-16
Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call
over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We
adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. [14] And there were seven sons of
one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. [15] And the evil
spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
[16] And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame
them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked
and wounded.

Further more the Author made it clear that they weren't the church, by not
not referring to them as "the tribes of Israel," but as "the tribes of the
children of Israel."

> These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he

> goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the
> firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
> Revelation 14:4

Read the Bible, you need to read the Bible. When the day of the Lord comes
there are two resurrections: "And shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of judgment" (John 5:29). The first resurrection is the church
at the beginning of the millennial day of the Lord, and "the rest of the
dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" (Rev. 20:5).

The firstfruits of the first resurrection, the resurrection of the church,
is Christ: "Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his
coming" (1 Cor. 15:23).

The 144,000 Jews are the firstfruits of the reurrection of
enemy-of-the-gospel-elect (Rom 11:28), among the rest of the dead at the end
of the millennium. They needed to be sealed in Rev 7m because they don't
accept Christ until He returns: "And I will pour upon the house of David,

and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they
shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in

bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zech.
12:10).

> (And Ephesians 4:4-5 makes clear there can be no
> believers outside of the church.)

???????? You need to read the book. Most believers are not in the church.
The church is the few chosen of the many called, a small part of the
believers comprising the innumerab;le multitude in RevThe verses address
their all being one in the body of Christ, which should have been obvious
when He spoke of one baptism, the one unique to the church instead of "the
doctrine of baptisms" (Heb 6:2): "baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19). It doesn't suggest
that the enemy-of-the-gospel-elect (Rom 11:28) aren't believers.

> (But the 144,000 are not the only believers who will
> be in the tribulation.)

You've switched to pre-trib? They are with Christ on Mt Zion in your
imaginery "the tribulation" because He has returned, which also tells you
they are not Christians, because Christians go to the place prepared for
them when He comes: "Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou
shalt follow me afterwards" (John 13:36): "In my Father's house are many
mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place
for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and
receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also" (John
14:2-3).
.

> I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man
> could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and
> people, and tongues... Revelation 7:9
> |
> These are they which came out of great tribulation,
> and have washed their robes, and made them white in
> the blood of the Lamb. Revelation 7:14
>
> (So no believers can make the claim that because
> they aren't included in the 144,000 they can't
> possibly go into the tribulation.)

??????????????????????????????

> > Pulpitfire posted:
> > John was called up to heaven and allowed to see the
> > "things which shall be hereafter" the church,
> > beginning in 4:1.
>
> (Be very careful about adding words to Revelation.)
>
> -For I testify unto every man that heareth the words
> of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add
> unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues
> that are written in this book... Revelation 22:18

?????????? You have read that?

<SNIP>

> > Pulpitfire posted:
> > ...the group of people who are identified as
> > fleeing to the mountains of Judea is the "woman"
> > who "bare the man child" (Christ). That IS the
> > nation Israel.
>
> (Note that in Revelation 12:5 the woman could be
> interpreted as the church and the man child as the
> 144,000, who could be translated into heaven sometime
> after the fifth trumpet, for we see them in heaven
> in Revelation 14. But the church will have other
> members who will remain on the earth throughout the
> tribulation, and these will be the ones who it says
> will be persecuted by the enemy.)

Not without a few barrels of screetch. You're still confusing yourself with
your imaginery end time period, "the tribulation." The woman is Israel, and
the sun, moon, and stars are explained by Jacob (Gen 37:10). The man child
is the body of Christ, the church. First the head, then the rest: "Christ

the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming" (1 Cor.

15:23)..

The 144,000 are not in heaven. They can't go where He went "Ye shall seek
me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come" (John
7:34). You can read about them in Obadiah:
.
Obadiah 1:17-21
But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness;
and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. [18] And the house
of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of
Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there
shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the Lord hath spoken
it. [19] And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of
the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and
the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. [20] And the
captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the
Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in
Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south. [21] And saviours shall
come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be
the Lord's.

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

Which identifies them as Jews, whose faith in Jesus needs to be complemented
by doing the commandments of God: "For I testify again to every man that is
circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal 5:3).
.
,Snip>

[Read The Bible]

> Dave posted:
> ...the Temple would be destroyed at His return

(Actually, no scripture says this. The temple itself
could be destroyed before His return. But in fact the
temple complex was never destroyed completely to the
point where not one stone was left upon another --
Matthew 24:2, for one of its key retaining walls, the
Wailing Wall, still stands. Moreover, Jesus said that
the entire city of Jerusalem would have to be
destroyed to the point where not one stone was left
upon another -- Luke 19:41-44, and this hasn't
happened yet. The stones of the Wailing Wall are still
standing one upon another in the Old City of
Jerusalem.)

> Dave posted:
> ...you are saying that He judges at His "Third

> Coming" and not at His "Second Coming".

(Note that there's no 3rd coming, and the 2nd coming
-- Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:11-21, Zechariah
14:3-21 -- hasn't happened yet. Jesus can make
particular judgments without having to return --
1 Corinthians 11:32, and the final judgment of all
believers won't occur until the second coming --
1 Corinthians 4:5, Romans 14:10-12; 2 Corinthians 5:10.
The final judgment of all people won't occur until
sometime after the millennium and the battle of Gog
and Magog -- Revelation 20:1-15. None of these things
have happened yet.)

> Dave posted:
> ...you believe in four comings of Jesus anyway

> (Earthly ministry, Rapture, 1,000 yr reign,
> Judgment)

(Actually, the latter three events are all subsequent
to His 2nd coming. He returns, raptures the believers
into the clouds to meet Him in the air, judges the
believers in the clouds, descends with the believers
to Jerusalem, reigns on the earth with the believers
for a thousand years, and then resurrects and judges
all people of all times. None of these things have
happened yet.)

> Dave posted:

> You did not even know about what happened in 70 AD

(I know enough about 70 AD to know what didn't happen
then: Revelation Chapters 6-22, Matthew 24, Zechariah
14, Daniel 11:13-12:3, Isaiah 11:6-16, Isaiah 19:1-25.
If you feel these passages did happen then, please
give a verse by verse fulfillment from Josephus or
Schaff or some other history. And please don't skip
over most of these passages by saying nobody
understands what they mean, for if nobody understands
what they mean, how can anyone claim to know that
they've been fulfilled?)

> Dave posted:
> ...your doctrine is the all important thing to
> you, Scripture be damned!

(To the contrary, scripture is all important -- every
last verse of it -- so that any doctrine that claims
everything is fulfilled but can't show from historical
sources how every last verse of it has been fulfilled
-- that doctrine be damned.)

> Dave posted:
> ...you were previously waiting for a third Temple
> to be built...

(Still waiting, for 2 Thessalonians 2:4 has not been
fulfilled yet. And Jesus said in Matthew 24:15 that
Daniel 11:31 had yet to be fulfilled, and Daniel
11:31 is performed by the same man whose career and
whose times are described in great detail in Daniel
11:21-12:3. None of these things have happened yet.)

> Dave posted:

> In Luke 21:20-22, Jesus states very clearly that
> when Jerusalem was desolated, that all things
> written would be fulfilled.

(But the desolation of Jerusalem referred to by
Luke 21:20-22 hasn't happened yet, for it is the same
desolation described in Zechariah 14:1-2, the one right
before the second coming and subsequent events of
Zechariah 14:3-21, and none of these things have
happened yet. And "all things which are written" in
Luke 21:22 applies only to all things written about
the final destruction of Jerusalem, just as "all
things written of him" in Acts 13:29 and "all things
were now accomplished, that the scripture might be
fulfilled" in John 19:28 apply only to all things
written of His crucifixion.)

> Dave posted:
> ...you futurist have no problem with the phrase,

> "this generation" and yet, with this ONE INSTANCE
> you work as hard as you can, to claim it "really
> means" something other than what it says.

(Actually, no, for, in the Bible, "generation" has
more than one meaning. Matthew 24:34 might mean the
generation of the righteous elect of all times --
Psalms 14:5; 1 Peter 2:9, Psalms 22:30, Psalms 24:6,
Psalms 112:2, for whose sake the tribulation will be
shortened -- Matthew 24:22. The generation of the
righteous elect of all times hasn't yet passed away,
and the tribulation and second coming haven't yet
happened.)

(If Matthew 24:34 also refers to the passing away of a
single, temporal generation, it might refer to the
passing away of the temporal generation that sees the
rebudding of the fig tree -- Matthew 24:32-33. The fig
tree might represent the nation of Israel --
Hosea 9:10, and the rebudding of the fig tree might
represent the reestablishment of the nation of Israel
in 1947. A temporal generation might not pass away
until 70 years have elapsed -- Psalms 90:10, and 70
years haven't yet elapsed, and the tribulation and
second coming haven't yet happened.)

> Dave posted:

> He said that what all of those people throughout
> time did, would be judged in the generation He was
> speaking to.

(Note that Luke 11:51 isn't necessarily referring
solely to that temporal generation, for the "ye" that
slew everyone from Abel to Zacharias -- "whom YE slew"
Matthew 23:35, can only be the generation of the
wicked of all temporal generations -- Luke 16:8,
Proverbs 30:11-14, which has not yet been judged.)

> Dave posted:
> ...that generation "filled up the measure"?

(Matthew 23:32 could be addressing not only that
temporal generation, but also all succeeding temporal
generations of the generation of the wicked of all
times, until all the wicked are finally destroyed --
Revelation 20:15.)

> Dave posted:

> It can't get any more full, than full.

(Each temporal generation can fill to the full the
wickedness of each of the preceding temporal
generations. And couldn't they even exceed the prior
wickedness so that they overflow the prior measure,
resulting in a "superfluity of naughtiness"? --
James 1:21.)

> Dave posted:
> ...they would "fill up the measure", by killing
> the Son...

(The temporal generation of Jesus' time not only
filled up, they exceeded all prior wickedness by
killing the Son, for prior generations had killed
only servants -- Mark 12:1-8.)

> Dave posted:

> He stated clearly that it was the people who killed
> the son, that vengeance was taken out on.

(Not necessarily, if by "the people" you mean the
temporal generation of Jesus' time, for all He says is
"he will come and destroy the husbandmen" --
Mark 12:9. Just as "the husbandmen" could include past
temporal generations who had killed servants such as
Abel and Zacharias, so it could include future temporal
generations who would kill future servants, so that
"the husbandmen", the generation of the wicked of all
times, continues on still today -- it has not yet been
destroyed. Christ has not yet returned to destroy it,
even though its coming destruction was expressly
determined after they killed the Son.)

> Dave posted:

> He did not say, "And thousands of years later,
> vengeance was meted out".

(He didn't have to. He had already described a sequence
of past persecutorial events that could have stretched
over thousands of years. So "the husbandmen" themselves
could stretch over thousands of years. Indeed, here
they are, still flourishing two thousand years later;
they still are not destroyed. The owner of the
vineyard still has not returned to destroy them; he
has mercifully waited a couple of days hoping that
some of them might repent and be forgiven --
2 Peter 3:8-9).

[Read The Bible]

> Dave posted:

> "All these things shall come upon this generation."

(Matthew 23:36 could be referring to the generation of
the wicked of all times, which slew everyone from Abel
and Zacharias -- "whom YE slew" -- Matthew 23:35.)

> Dave posted:
> He would have said, "this people"...

(Not necessarily, if you mean by "this people" the
Jews, for the Jewish people aren't responsible for
killing "all the righteous blood shed upon the earth"
throughout history. Surely the Babylonian people also
shed some righteous blood -- Psalms 137:8-9, and
surely the Egyptian people also shed some righteous
blood -- 2 Kings 23:29, and surely the Assyrian
people also shed some righteous blood -- Nahum 3:19,
etc.)

(In Matthew 23:35, Jesus can only be referring to the
generation of the wicked made up of all peoples of
all times, all past and future temporal generations.
The Jews who heard his words spoken were merely a
representative handful of that vast generation, the
generation of "the children of this world" who have
always slain and will always slay the generation of
"the children of light" -- Luke 16:8, until Christ
returns to resurrect and once-and-for-all eternally
destroy all the wicked of all nations --
Matthew 25:31-46, Revelation 20:11-15).

> Dave posted:
> ...Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but
> weep for YOURSELVES, and for YOUR children...

(Luke 23:28-31 could be referring to the suffering of
70 AD, but this doesn't require that that suffering
was the fulfillment of Revelation Chapters 6-18. And
even if Luke 23:28-31 is referring to the fulfillment
of Revelation Chapters 6-18, it still would not
require that this happened in 70 AD, for the daughters
of Jerusalem can include all believers of all times
and places -- Galatians 4:26, including those who have
yet to suffer through Revelation Chapters 6-18 with
their children. At the same time, these sufferers
could be called the children of those who suffered
through 70 AD, even though they were born many
temporal generations later, just as believers born
many temporal generations beyond Abraham's immediate
children can still be called the children of Abraham
-- Galatians 3:7. Therefore, Luke 23:28 could have
many layers of meaning which are all true at the same
time, and none of which requires in any way that
Revelation Chapters 6-18 occurred in 70 AD.)

> Dave posted:
> ...you are not serving God by twisting and bending

> and tearing out and adding to His word, just so you
> can make the Bible all about YOU!

(There is no twisting or bending or tearing or adding
of scriptures here; there is only the comparing of
scriptures with scriptures, so that we might understand
all of their possible meanings, and not put them in
straitjackets of our own devising, and say "THIS --
THIS is the ONLY meaning this verse can have!" in
order to support a doctrine that's all about us as it
makes us feel good that we won't have to suffer the
coming tribulation.)

*******

> Dave posted in the subsequent post to the one above:
> (Re: John 17:21)

> John was talking about the church as a whole.
> Jesus was noting a specific generation.

(Note that in John 17:21 it is Jesus who is talking
about the church as a whole, just as in Matthew 24:34
and Matthew 24:22 He could be talking about the church
as a whole, i.e. He could be saying that the generation
of the righteous elect of all times will not perish
from the earth before He returns. It hasn't yet
perished, and He hasn't yet returned.)

*******

> Dave posted in the subsequent post to the one above:

> John even said in Revelation, that the tribulation
> was already happening.

(Yes, but in Revelation 1:9, John was referring to the
general tribulation that every temporal generation of
the church must endure -- Acts 14:22, not the final
unprecedented tribulation -- Matthew 24:21, which
would be "hereafter" -- Revelation 4:1, which would be
described in great detail in Revelation Chapters 6-18,
and which will not be found in any history book until
after it has actually happened.)

> Dave posted:

> No one who does an honest study of that period,
> would post what you just did.

(I have studied enough history to know that the great
and myriad events of Revelation Chapters 6-18 are
nowhere to be found in any history of the first
century, or any other time.)

> Dave posted:
> ...you aren't happy if it isn't all about you

(Actually, no, I hope I die a faithful death before
the terrible tribulation of Revelation Chapters 6-18
starts. I don't want it to be about me at all. I want
no part of it, "neither have I desired the woeful
day" -- Jeremiah 17:16. But whether I go through the
coming tribulation or not isn't about me; its about
what God wants, and if God wants me to go through
that time I pray that He will give me the strength to
endure it unto the end -- Matthew 24:13.)

> Dave posted:
> ...those that Jesus spoke to about His coming, would

> never have gotten the idea that it may be thousands
> of years off into the future

(Whether that's true or not can never be known without
asking every last one of them. And it's a moot point
anyway, for we don't interpret scripture according to
how this person or that person might have interpreted
it: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the
scripture is of any private interpretation" --
2 Peter 1:20. Rather, we must come to all prophecies
of scripture with the Holy Spirit's own interpretation
-- John 16:13.)

> Dave posted:
> ...the disciples absolutely did believe in His
> coming within their generation.

(Whether some may have or not is irrelevant to what
the scripture itself says, for none of the disciples
wrote the scriptures merely from their own
understanding: "For the prophecy came not in old time
by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost" -- 2 Peter 1:21. And no
Holy-Ghost-written scripture ever says or requires
that the tribulation and return of Christ described in
Revelation Chapters 6-19 had to occur within the
lifetime of the original disciples. Indeed, the
tribulation and return of Christ described in
Revelation Chapters 6-19 still have not occurred.)

> Dave posted:

> Believe the Bible. All of it.

(Amen. I do, precisely because it was written by the
Holy Ghost and not by any men -- 1 Thessalonians 2:13;
2 Timothy 3:16.)

> Dave posted:

> "The only place you find chaos in the universe
> is in mans' heart." - Vume

(I don't know about that, but I do know that the only
place you will find preterism is in mans' heart.)

Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils,
for wherein is he to be accounted of? Isaiah 2:22

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not
according to this word, it is because there is no
light in them. Isaiah 8:20

[Read The Bible]

> Fred posted: The end-time period you also call "the

> tribulation" isn't in scripture.

(By "the tribulation" I often mean that coming series
of events described in Matthew 24:5-26 and Revelation
Chapters 6-18.)

> Fred posted: The great (greater) tribulation of

> Rev 7:14 is the tribulation through out the ages

(Not necessarily, for it's "hereafter" in relation to
John's time -- Revelation 4:1, and Revelation 7
occurs after Revelation 6, which hasn't yet occurred.)

> Fred posted: If the 144,000 were Christians...

(They are definitely Christians -- Revelation 14:4.)

> Fred posted: If the 144,000 were Christians, they

> would not need to be sealed in Rev 7.

(Not necessarily. One reason for the seal in their
foreheads may be for the benefit of the locusts of
Revelation 9:4, who may not have the same level of
spiritual knowledge as the powerful demon in
Acts 19:15, and even then, would even that powerful
demon have necessarily recognized or even submitted
to any Christian not of the authority of Paul? Can
just any Christian cast out demons?)

> Fred posted: ...the Author made it clear that they

> weren't the church, by not not referring to them as
> "the tribes of Israel," but as "the tribes of the
> children of Israel."

(Note that those in the church can at the same time be
in the twelve tribes of the children of Israel --
James 1:1, Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5, Acts 4:36).

> Fred posted: The 144,000 Jews are the firstfruits of
> the resurrection of enemy-of-the-gospel-elect

> (Rom 11:28), among the rest of the dead at the end
> of the millennium.

(Actually, no scripture says or requires that the
144,000 aren't resurrected with the rest of the
church at the second coming, for they are Christ's --
Revelation 14:4, and they that are Christ's will
be resurrected at His coming -- 1 Corinthians 15:23.)

(Note that the 144,000 are in no way enemies of the
gospel -- Revelation 14:5).

> Fred posted: They needed to be sealed in Rev 7m
> because they don't accept Christ until He returns...

(The 144,000 must have accepted Christ before they are
sealed because they are the servants of God before
they are sealed -- Revelation 7:3. No one who rejects
Christ is the servant of God. Indeed, all those who
reject Christ are antichrists, without the Father or
the Son -- 1 John 2:22-23; 2 John 1:7; John 14:6).

> Fred posted: Zech. 12:10

(Zechariah 12:10 refers to those Jews who will accept
Jesus at His second coming, not to the 144,000 who
will all have have accepted Christ at the latest by
the time the sixth seal of the tribulation is
completed -- Revelation 6:12-7:3, which will be
before the seventh seal of the tribulation with its
seven trumpets is unsealed -- Revelation 8:1-2.)

> Fred posted: Most believers are not in the church.

(If by "believers" you mean self-proclaimed believers,
then I may have to agree with you -- Luke 13:23-27,
Matthew 7:21-23. But the 144,000 are true believers
-- Revelation 7:3, 14:3-5, and there are no true
believers outside of the church -- Ephesians 4:4-5.)

> Fred posted: (Re: The 144,000 aren't the only
> believers in the tribulation.)
> -

> You've switched to pre-trib?

(No. I'm curious why you feel that a person saying
that the 144,000 aren't the only believers in the
tribulation must make that person pre-trib.)

> Fred posted: They are with Christ on Mt Zion in your
> imaginary "the tribulation" because He has returned

(Note that the events of Revelation Chapters 6-18
aren't imaginary, and that Revelation 14:1 refers to
the heavenly Mount Sion -- compare Hebrews 12:22,
where the 144,000 are before the throne of God --
Revelation 14:2-5. So the 144,000 somehow get into
heaven sometime after the fifth trumpet --
Revelation 9:4 -- and before the reign of the
Antichrist is over -- Revelation 14:9-13. They could
get into heaven either by dying -- 2 Corinthians 5:8,
or by being translated -- Revelation 12:5.)

> Fred posted: Christians go to the place prepared for
> them when He comes

(Actually, no scripture says or requires that.
Jn.14:2-3 requires first that all Christians be where
Jesus is when He returns, i.e. raptured into the
clouds to meet Him in the air -- 1Thess.4:17. All
Christians will then remain in His presence as He
descends to Jerusalem - Zech.14:4, Act.1:11-12 - and
begins His millennial reign on earth - Rev.20:6.
Jn.14:2-3 also requires that all Christians eventually
live in a place prepared for them in the Father's
house. But they probably won't live there until after
the millennium, when the Father's house will descend
to the new earth - Rev.21:1-3, for after the 2nd
coming all Christians will be living on this old earth
with Jesus until His millennial reign ends - Rev.20:6.)

> Fred posted: Jn.13:36

(Note that Jn.13:36 refers to the death of Peter,
by which he was taken into the presence of the Lord
in the third heaven -- 2Cor.5:8.)

> Fred posted: (Re: Rev.12:5)
> The woman is Israel...

(Not necessarily. She might be the church.)

> Fred posted: ...the sun, moon, and stars are

> explained by Jacob (Gen 37:10).

(Note that the sun, moon, and stars in Rev.12:1 don't
have to have the same symbolic meaning as the sun,
moon, and stars in Gen.37:9-10. There is no necessity
that the woman of Rev.12:1 has to be clothed with the
man Jacob, or have the woman Rachel under her feet.
The sun with which the woman in Rev.12:1 is clothed
could be the sun of righteousness -- Mal.4:2, i.e.
Jesus. Or, the sun and the moon could be the sun and
the moon of the woman of Song.6:10, who could also
represent the Bride of Christ. In this case the 12
stars of Rev.12:1 might represent the 12 Apostles.)

> Fred posted: The man child is the body of Christ

(I'm glad that, within your view, you agree that the
church came from Israel, for indeed our salvation is
of the Jews - Jn.4:22, but the man child who is caught
up to the throne of God in the 3rd heaven - Rev.12:5 -
might be only part of the church, i.e. the 144,000,
who appear before the throne of God in the 3rd heaven
in Rev.14:1-4. They could be caught up into the 3rd
heaven either with their bodies or without them -
cf. 2Cor.12:2, that is, either by being translated or
by dying. The man child can't be the whole church
because after he is caught up into the 3rd heaven
there are still other parts of the church that remain
on the earth throughout the tribulation - Rev.12:17.)

> Fred posted: Jn.7:34

(Note that Jn.7:34 was probably addressed to the
unbelieving Jews - contrast Jn.13:36. I don't see how
Jn.7:34 would apply to believers like the 144,000,
especially in light of Rev.14:1-5.)

> Fred posted: Obad.1:17-21

(Note that Obad.1:17-21 doesn't have to be the same as
Rev.14:1-5, for the former probably refers to the
earthly Jerusalem after the 2nd coming, while the
latter refers to the heavenly Jerusalem before the
2nd coming.)

> Fred posted: (Re: Rev.12:17)

> Which identifies them as Jews, whose faith in
> Jesus needs to be complemented by doing the

> commandments of God...

(That requirement isn't only for believing Jews,
but is for all believers, Jew or Gentile - Mt.5:19,
7:21-29; Jn.14:15,21, 15:10; Acts 1:2; 1 Cor.7:19,
14:37; 1Thess.4:2; Titus 1:16; Heb.5:9; Jas.2:14-26;
1Jn.2:3-4, 3:22-24, 5:2-3; 2Jn.1:6; Rev.14:12, 22:14.)

> Fred posted: Gal.5:3

(Note that none of the verses I listed in the
paragraph above need refer to the commandments of the
Old Mosaic Covenant which has been abolished -
Eph.2:15; 2Cor.3:6-16. All of the verses I listed in
the paragraph above can be referring to the
commandments of the New Covenant - 2Cor.3:6, e.g.
those commandments given by Jesus in Mt.5:19-7:27.)

[Pulpitfire]

You can't win an argument...especially with someone who is a legend in
their own mind. The preterist position thinks they have a handful of
time passages that irrefutable prove the time of Christ's coming must
have been in A.D. 70. They insist on a narrow and strict, literal
interpretation of a few verses here and there, and reject the
possibility there can be any other legitimate interpretation of the
passage. Then, like category 10 hypocrites, they throw entire books,
like Revelation to the winds of spiritualization, at their own
discretion, to maintain their A.D. 70 dating.

"Near" means next. "Soon" means the events will occur quickly once
they begin. "This generation" could refer to the age, or to the people
ranging from the time Christ spoke till the events will be fulfilled in
the future, etc. The time verses of the Preterists are not
irrefutable, and they are hypocritical in their manner of
interpretation, insisting that their time passages are only to be
interpreted in the narrowest, literal sense, while they spiritualize
the vast majority of Bible prophecy to maintain their theory, and
desparately search through the first century news to try and find some
event they can read the prophecies of Revelation into.

The safe system of interpretation is to allow the overwhelming mass of
Bible prophecy (e.g. the book of Revelation), mean what it says, and
find a legitimate interpretation of Matthew 24 that fits with that,
rather than vise-versa. There's no way anything like the seal
judgments fell on Jerusalem and the world before A.D. 70, except in the
spiritualized minds of Preterists.

[pulpitfire]

Pulpitfire wrote:

<clip>

And one more thing: I regret now, that I ever dignified the Preterist
position with a response. Anyone who can spiritualize the Bible to the
degree they conclude we are now living in the new heavens and earth
described in Revelation 21-22, is on par with evolution in their ability
to walk in the imagination of their own hearts. I don't debate
evolution, and Preterism is about as big a self-evident lie as that
false doctrine, or that a person can believe while remaining a Christian.

[Pastor Dave]

On 5 Jun 2006 02:18:49 -0700, "Read The Bible"
<bible...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:

>> Dave posted:
>> ...the Temple would be destroyed at His return
>
>(Actually, no scripture says this. The temple itself
>could be destroyed before His return.

You can whine all you want, but we both know
what Jesus said. And even if it was before His
return, it still happened already.

>But in fact the
>temple complex was never destroyed completely to the
>point where not one stone was left upon another --
>Matthew 24:2, for one of its key retaining walls, the
>Wailing Wall, still stands.

This is stupidity and a very weak attempt to get
around what Jesus said.

You have to be pretty brainwashed, to think that
when the Romans came in and torn the entire
Temple down, stone by stone, that we need to
wait for the Temple to be torn down, stone by
stone. (:

As for the Western Wall, that was part of the
FOUNDATION and not part of the buildings.
The Temple was built ON TOP OF that wall.
They built a very tall foundation, is all.

They could have built anything on that foundation,
because that's all it was. A foundation. And Jesus
specified the BUILDINGS of the Temple. How do
we know this? Simple. Scripture interprets Scripture.
His disciples showed Him the BUILDINGS of the
Temple and THEN He said "not one stone upon
another".

What you're saying, is like claiming that someone's
house wasn't leveled by Hurricane Andrew, because
hey, look, the foundation and basement is still there!

YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THIS!!!

You just don't WANT to accept it!

>Moreover, Jesus said that
>the entire city of Jerusalem would have to be
>destroyed to the point where not one stone was left
>upon another -- Luke 19:41-44, and this hasn't
>happened yet. The stones of the Wailing Wall are still
>standing one upon another in the Old City of
>Jerusalem.)

Actually son, you need to do two things.

1) Learn how to read as a Jewish 1st century person
would read it.

Jesus saying "not one stone" applied to the Temple.
How do we know this? Because Scripture interprets
Scripture and other Scriptures, which Him speaking
AFTER those passages, show Him specifying what
He was saying. Jesus did NOT invent new things
as He went and He did NOT contradict Himself.
And He clearly said later, that the Temple would
be torn down, stone by stone AND IT WAS and
He said that Jerusalem would be surrounded
and desolated AND IT WAS (Luke 21:20-22).

2) Learn some history. Stop being ignorant
and all the while, pretending that you're going
to play teacher. (:

Read up on what happened there and how Jerusalem
looked after the devastation. Maybe you'll learn
something for a change, instead of your ignorant
hit & run tactics, in which you snip my posts down
to almost nothing and then act like you did something,
when you're actually just showing your ignorance.

Fact: You refuse to study what happened and how
it compares to Scripture.

Fact: You pretend that you're teaching me something
about that period.

Please! (:

>> Dave posted:
>> ...you are saying that He judges at His "Third
>> Coming" and not at His "Second Coming".
>
>(Note that there's no 3rd coming, and the 2nd coming
>-- Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:11-21, Zechariah
>14:3-21 -- hasn't happened yet.

That's a claim, not fact. The fact is, you believe in
multiple comings of the Lord.

1) Earthly ministry.
2) Rapture.
3) 1,000 year reign.
4) Judgment.

There is no way you're going to get around that.

I CAN COUNT TO FOUR!!!

>Jesus can make
>particular judgments without having to return --

That's an excuse. You're trying to relabel the "returns"
that WE BOTH KNOW you believe in as something
other than a return.

Look, I'm not the one who has to invent new things
on the fly, because I had a hole punched in my
doctrine. YOU ARE and we both know that you
just came up with this garbage, when you were
shown that you do not believe in just one return,
as you claim to.

>1 Corinthians 11:32, and the final judgment of all
>believers won't occur until the second coming --
>1 Corinthians 4:5, Romans 14:10-12; 2 Corinthians 5:10.
>The final judgment of all people won't occur until
>sometime after the millennium and the battle of Gog
>and Magog -- Revelation 20:1-15. None of these things
>have happened yet.)

Oh, wait, I get it now... IF YOU SAY IT, THAT PROVES IT!

Yea, that's how it works! Yippee!

Okay, that's it. I'm not going to read my Bible any
more, because now I have YOU to tell me what to
think, because if YOU say it, then it is true!

>> Dave posted:
>> ...you believe in four comings of Jesus anyway
>> (Earthly ministry, Rapture, 1,000 yr reign,
>> Judgment)
>
>(Actually, the latter three events are all subsequent
>to His 2nd coming. He returns, raptures the believers
>into the clouds to meet Him in the air, judges the
>believers in the clouds, descends with the believers
>to Jerusalem, reigns on the earth with the believers
>for a thousand years, and then resurrects and judges
>all people of all times. None of these things have
>happened yet.)

Sorry stupid, that isn't how it goes and we both know it!

YOU JUST INVENTED THAT ON THE FLY!!!

You know damn well that you believe in a Rapture
and that He doesn't show up visibly and bodily.
Then you're stupid enough to have the nerve
to claim that I'm off the wall, because I said
Jesus returned in 70 AD and He wasn't physically
and bodily visible. Do you hypocrites have any
idea how dumb you sound?!

You also believe that Jesus comes and reigns
physically and bodily on Earth for 1,000 years,
even though the Bible doesn't teach that and
don't bother quoting Rev 20:4, because it
does not say that, as I have proved many times.

Then HE LEAVES HIS THRONE and Satan
is loosed for a while. WE BOTH KNOW that
you believe that!

Then He returns again and judgment takes place.

You DO believe this is how it happens and
we BOTH know it! So you're dishonest,
"invented on the fly, because you couldn't
refute what I said" doctrine won't work!

It amazes me that you idiots never seem to
realize that if you have to make this crap
up as you go, to deal with the facts I post,
that you should question your doctrine,
instead of trying to rewrite what you claimed
previously, as if I wouldn't notice! (:

And with that, I'm, done with you,
since all you do, is post the same thing
over and over again, while making up
new doctrine as you go. (: I won't waste
my time with someone who isn't going
to deal honestly and acknowledge when
the doctrine they doesn't work out on
something Scriptural. But the important
thing to you, is your vain doctrine and
not God's word. If God's word were what
is important to you, you would not have
just tried to squeeze all three events into
one, when we both know you just
realized there was a problem, but you
didn't care, because you love your
doctrine that says it's all abut you.

I have refuted the crap you call Godly doctrine
many times, which again, is evidenced by the
fact that you just had to invent a "three comings
in one" addition for your doctrine. Yet, you
give the exact same responses. (:

You may now resume telling people that
"Jesus is coming soon, because that word
'soon' means 'soon', except for when it was
written and then it means thousands of years,
because it's all about us."

Yes, the clock started ticking the day you
first opened the Bible. (:

Goodbye.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

www.drdino.com

[Pastor Dave]

On 5 Jun 2006 02:21:08 -0700, "Read The Bible"
<bible...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:

>> Dave posted:
>> "All these things shall come upon this generation."
>
>(Matthew 23:36 could be referring to the generation of
>the wicked of all times, which slew everyone from Abel
>and Zacharias -- "whom YE slew" -- Matthew 23:35.)

No, it doesn't and we both know it. And when you
have to invent, "maybe" garbage and then claim
to know what's going to happen, then you just made
yourself into an idiot who doesn't know what he's
talking about, yet claims to know what he's talking
about. (:

Every translator translates it as "this generation",
because that is what the Greek calls for and that
is what it means.

Believe it, or don't believe it, you're choice, but don't
you dare tell me that I shouldn't believe it!

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one
species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a
single species has changed): nor can we prove that
the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the
groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why
some species have changed and others have not.
The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult
to understand precisely and in detail than the former
case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

[Pastor Dave]

On 5 Jun 2006 05:23:41 -0700, "Read The Bible"
<bible...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:

>> Fred posted: The end-time period you also call "the
>> tribulation" isn't in scripture.
>
>(By "the tribulation" I often mean that coming series
>of events described in Matthew 24:5-26 and Revelation
>Chapters 6-18.)

It isn't there. And John said specifically in Rev 1:9
that they were already in the tribulation.

But of course, no one could have went through anything
bad enough, if it wasn't you going through it, right?

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

Evolution =

Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...

Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced...

Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but
could through...

Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an..

Unknown atmospheric composition...in an...

Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an...

Unknown time and place.

Dr. Henry Morris

[Pastor Dave]

On 3 Jun 2006 02:03:58 -0700, "Read The Bible"
<bible...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"Cause when you're with me, I'm free, I'm careless,
I believe. Above any others, we'll fly. This brings
tears, to my eyes." - Creed: My Sacrifice

[Pastor Dave]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:21:04 -0500, pulpitfire
<altb...@gmail.com> spake thusly:

DUUUHHH! (:

Thirdly:

then you are saying that He judges at

His "Third Coming" and not at His

"Second Coming". Of course, you

believe in four comings of Jesus anyway
(Earthly ministry, Rapture, 1,000 yr reign,

for the Temple to be torn down, stone

"All these things shall come upon this generation."

Now if He meant them all as the same generation,

Luke 23:26-28

Later.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

http://www.geocities.com/dpatrickwood/evolution2.html

[pulpitfire]

Pastor Dave wrote:
<clip>

One further note, Dave...my e-mail address is now pulpitfire@...,
instead of altbible@..., in case you want to update your kill-file. I
don't want to be accused of trying to get in under your radar, and have
enjoyed not being the victim of your slander campaigns. I'm sorry you
got caught up in a lie as big as Preterism (on par with evolution in its
ability to walk in the imagination of it's heart), and can't now even
see that you are not living in the new heavens and earth described in
Revelation. That's what you get when you go whoring with books by
heretics. If you keep trying to convince evolutionists, and debating
them, you'll probably believe their lie next.

[Pastor Dave]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:46:50 -0500, pulpitfire
<pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:

>Pulpitfire wrote:
>
><clip>
>
>And one more thing: I regret now, that I ever dignified the Preterist
>position with a response.

Face it, you have not been able to deal with the facts
presented and you have been on nothing more than
a smear campaign, as you're proving now, with your
attempt to weasel out of having to deal with the facts,
as if it is somehow below your dignity, while throwing
insults around.

All that shows, is that you're desperate.

>Anyone who can spiritualize the Bible to the
>degree they conclude we are now living in the new heavens and earth
>described in Revelation 21-22, is on par with evolution in their ability
>to walk in the imagination of their own hearts. I don't debate
>evolution, and Preterism is about as big a self-evident lie as that
>false doctrine, or that a person can believe while remaining a Christian.

Once again, stupid, you refuse to deal with the facts.
I have presented solid Scriptural proof of my position
that cannot be refuted and what was your response?

Insults.

You don't want it to be true. That's the problem.
You seem to forget that Revelation is a book of
visions with symbolism. And nothing you say is
going to change that. It is to stretch Revelation
to the level of stupidity, to try to claim that you're
going to see locusts with men's faces and two guys
breathing fire.

Duuuhhh, no Davey, it cannut be symbowism! Duuuhhh!

Please! <chuckle>

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

GODISNOWHERE (now read it again)

[Pastor Dave]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:26:23 -0500, pulpitfire
<pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:

>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
><clip>
>
>One further note, Dave...my e-mail address is now pulpitfire@...,
>instead of altbible@..., in case you want to update your kill-file. I
>don't want to be accused of trying to get in under your radar, and have
>enjoyed not being the victim of your slander campaigns. I'm sorry you
>got caught up in a lie as big as Preterism (on par with evolution in its
>ability to walk in the imagination of it's heart), and can't now even
>see that you are not living in the new heavens and earth described in
>Revelation. That's what you get when you go whoring with books by
>heretics. If you keep trying to convince evolutionists, and debating
>them, you'll probably believe their lie next.

Face it, you have not been able to deal with the facts

presented and you have been on nothing more than
a smear campaign, as you're proving now, with your
attempt to weasel out of having to deal with the facts,
as if it is somehow below your dignity, while throwing
insults around.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"The only place you find chaos in the universe

[pulpitfire]

Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:46:50 -0500, pulpitfire
> <pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>> Pulpitfire wrote:
>>
>> <clip>
>>
>> And one more thing: I regret now, that I ever dignified the Preterist
>> position with a response.
>
> Face it, you have not been able to deal with the facts
> presented and you have been on nothing more than
> a smear campaign, as you're proving now, with your
> attempt to weasel out of having to deal with the facts,
> as if it is somehow below your dignity, while throwing
> insults around.
>
> All that shows, is that you're desperate.
>
>
>> Anyone who can spiritualize the Bible to the
>> degree they conclude we are now living in the new heavens and earth
>> described in Revelation 21-22, is on par with evolution in their ability
>> to walk in the imagination of their own hearts. I don't debate
>> evolution, and Preterism is about as big a self-evident lie as that
>> false doctrine, or that a person can believe while remaining a Christian.
>
> Once again, stupid, you refuse to deal with the facts.
> I have presented solid Scriptural proof of my position
> that cannot be refuted and what was your response?

As far as I'm concerned, the "facts" you claim, have been getting their
ass handed to them on a regular basis, by solid exegesis from many
sources. The problem is, you can't win an argument, especially with
someone who is a legend in their own mind. You Preterists think your
time passages are irrefutable, but I've seen half a dozen legitimate
explanations for Matthew 24:34, that also allow the book of Revelation
to mean what it says. You want a strict, narrow interpretation of your
time passages that only allows for your Preterist position, then you are
prepared to spiritualize the entire book of Revelation to oblivion, at
your discretion, to maintain your Preterist dates.

> Insults.

> You don't want it to be true. That's the problem.
> You seem to forget that Revelation is a book of
> visions with symbolism. And nothing you say is
> going to change that. It is to stretch Revelation
> to the level of stupidity, to try to claim that you're
> going to see locusts with men's faces and two guys
> breathing fire.

You want to spiritualize the book of Revelation into oblivion, to the
degree you can convince yourself you are now walking around in the new
heavens and earth (a.k.a. walk in the imagination of your heart). For
those who may be deceived by this attempt to dismiss Revelation into
spiritual oblivion, let me give an example of how you can interpret
Revelation literally, while allowing for it's symbolic language:

Revelation 1

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Ok, here, Christ says He is the Alpha and Omega. This is a symbolic
reference. So what does it mean? Does th literal system of
interpretation say it mean Christ is the first and last letters of the
Greek alphabet? No. It says right in the text that follows. It means
He is the "Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come...".
Thus, the symbolism means that the Lord is eternal, Almighty God. The
plain statement of the text qualifies what the symbol means.

Now, let's move on to the next symbol:

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a
great voice, as of a trumpet,

Now, it says John heard a great voice, as of a trumpet. Does the
literal system of interpretation think that means John heard a literal
trumpet playing? No. It says he heard a great voice "as" of a
trumpet. By using the word "as", the text is plainly identifying that
"trumpet" is a symbol to show what the voice sounded like.

The great majority of the symbols in the book of Revelation, are like
this. They tell us that something is "like", or "as" something else,
then use a symbol to describe what it is like. Thus, you can interpret
according to the plain meaning of the text, while allowing for symbols.

Now, let's move on to a different example:

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned,
I saw seven golden candlesticks;

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went
a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in
his strength.

Here, it refers to candlesticks and stars, but doesn't say "as" a star,
or "like" a candlestick. So must we now resort to some
spiritualization to understand what this means? No. Why? Because the
text plainly tells us what these symbols are:

20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand,
and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of
the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are
the seven churches.

The stars are the messengers of the seven churches, and the
candlesticks are the seven churches. Then, further on, in chapter 2,
the text gives us even more explanation:

1 ś Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith
he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the
midst of the seven golden candlesticks;...
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do
the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove
thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

The Lord holds the stars (messengers) in His hand, and can remove the
candlestick (the church, with it's light bearing testimony).

How about the sword that goes out of the Lord's mouth? "and out of his
mouth went a sharp twoedged sword:" Does the literal system of
interpretation conclude Christ must be walking around with a sword
coming out of His mouth? No. Then how do we know what the sword is?
Because the Bible plainly tells us:

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the
Spirit, which is the word of God:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than
any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart.

2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall
consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the
brightness of his coming:

Thus, the "two-edged sword", is the "word of God".

Yes, there are many symbols used in the book of Revelation, but almost
all of them fit into these categories. Either they are simply symbolic
comparisons (feet "like" brass) to tell us what something is "like", or
"as", or the text plainly tells us what the mystery is, or the Bible
elsewhere gives us a clear definition of what it means. Thus, you can
safely interpret the book of Revelation, according to a literal system
of interpretation that does not ascribe a non-sensical meaning to the
text (such as that Christ is walking around with a literal sword coming
out of His mouth), and which safeguards against wild and variant
spiritualizations that basically allow you to read whatever meaning you
want into the text.

Basically, the literal system of interpretation just says that the text
means what it plainly says, unless it indicates it is using symbols, or
figures of speech. And even these, as we have seen, are explained by
the text itself. Otherwise, anyone can spiritualize the text into
oblivion, and basically make it mean whatever they want.

> Duuuhhh, no Davey, it cannut be symbowism! Duuuhhh!
>
> Please! <chuckle>

*stares at Dave for 20 seconds*

[pulpitfire]

Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:26:23 -0500, pulpitfire
> <pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>> <clip>
>>
>> One further note, Dave...my e-mail address is now pulpitfire@...,
>> instead of altbible@..., in case you want to update your kill-file. I
>> don't want to be accused of trying to get in under your radar, and have
>> enjoyed not being the victim of your slander campaigns. I'm sorry you
>> got caught up in a lie as big as Preterism (on par with evolution in its
>> ability to walk in the imagination of it's heart), and can't now even
>> see that you are not living in the new heavens and earth described in
>> Revelation. That's what you get when you go whoring with books by
>> heretics. If you keep trying to convince evolutionists, and debating
>> them, you'll probably believe their lie next.
>
> Face it, you have not been able to deal with the facts
> presented and you have been on nothing more than
> a smear campaign, as you're proving now, with your
> attempt to weasel out of having to deal with the facts,
> as if it is somehow below your dignity, while throwing
> insults around.
>
>

It doesn't surprise me that someone who is deluded enough that they can
no longer discern they are not walking around in the New Heavens and
earth, does not also see that they are holding a bag with their ass in it.

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149510221.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

> > Fred posted: The end-time period you also call "the
> > tribulation" isn't in scripture.
>
> (By "the tribulation" I often mean that coming series
> of events described in Matthew 24:5-26 and Revelation
> Chapters 6-18.)

As opposed to the seven yeasr period? Okay. I avoid the word because folks
have different preconceived for the word.

> > Fred posted: The great (greater) tribulation of
> > Rev 7:14 is the tribulation through out the ages
>
> (Not necessarily, for it's "hereafter" in relation to
> John's time -- Revelation 4:1, and Revelation 7
> occurs after Revelation 6, which hasn't yet occurred.)

Yes, necessarily, for, when the Author tells us "tribulation" as the trouble
we have in the world,. He is telling us what He means with the word. It is
difficult to understand what the Author is saying if we don't pay attention
to what He is saying

> > Fred posted: If the 144,000 were Christians...
>
> (They are definitely Christians -- Revelation 14:4.)

Don't refer to verses as though they say what you say when you're saying
something different.you're citing them and then say what they're not saying.
The Christians are the church, who receive Him before He returns. The folks
who receive Christ after He returns are not Christians (Zech 12:10), and the
verse makes it clear that they are not Christians. They are firstfruits.
Jesus is the firstfruits of the church resurrection: "For since by man came
death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own
order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his
coming" (1 Cor. 15:21-23)
.

> > Fred posted: If the 144,000 were Christians, they
> > would not need to be sealed in Rev 7.
>
> (Not necessarily. One reason for the seal in their
> foreheads may be for the benefit of the locusts of
> Revelation 9:4, who may not have the same level of
> spiritual knowledge as the powerful demon in
> Acts 19:15, and even then, would even that powerful
> demon have necessarily recognized or even submitted
> to any Christian not of the authority of Paul? Can
> just any Christian cast out demons?)

Again, yes, necessarily: "And they had a king over them, which is the angel
of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in
the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon" (Rev. 9:11), and all Christians are
sealed with the same Holy Spirit: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye
heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after
that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" (Ephes.
1:13), and have authority over demons: "And these signs shall follow them
that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with
new tongues" (Mark 16:17).

> > Fred posted: ...the Author made it clear that they
> > weren't the church, by not not referring to them as
> > "the tribes of Israel," but as "the tribes of the
> > children of Israel."
>
> (Note that those in the church can at the same time be
> in the twelve tribes of the children of Israel --
> James 1:1, Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5, Acts 4:36).

There can be children of the children of Israel in the church when Jews
become Christians, but gentiles can are adopted children of Israel, not
children or tribes of the children of Israel.

> Fred posted: The 144,000 Jews are the firstfruits of
> > the resurrection of enemy-of-the-gospel-elect
> > (Rom 11:28), among the rest of the dead at the end
> > of the millennium.
>
> (Actually, no scripture says or requires that the
> 144,000 aren't resurrected with the rest of the
> church at the second coming, for they are Christ's --
> Revelation 14:4, and they that are Christ's will
> be resurrected at His coming -- 1 Corinthians 15:23.)

Many scriptures do, including the Rev 4:4 verse you cited.
They are Christ's after His coming, after the church has been resurrected..

> (Note that the 144,000 are in no way enemies of the
> gospel -- Revelation 14:5).

Yes they are. The enemy-of-the-gospel-elect (Rom 11:28) are His after He
arrives (Zech 12:10), but the gospel elect are His at His coming. You don't
seem to pay much attention to anything He says.

> > Fred posted: They needed to be sealed in Rev 7m
> > because they don't accept Christ until He returns...
>
> (The 144,000 must have accepted Christ before they are
> sealed because they are the servants of God before
> they are sealed -- Revelation 7:3. No one who rejects
> Christ is the servant of God. Indeed, all those who
> reject Christ are antichrists, without the Father or
> the Son -- 1 John 2:22-23; 2 John 1:7; John 14:6).

Again, everyone who has accepted Christ is already sealed: "And grieve not
the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption"
(Ephes. 4:30).

.
> > Fred posted: Zech. 12:10
>
> (Zechariah 12:10 refers to those Jews who will accept
> Jesus at His second coming, not to the 144,000 who
> will all have have accepted Christ at the latest by
> the time the sixth seal of the tribulation is
> completed -- Revelation 6:12-7:3, which will be
> before the seventh seal of the tribulation with its
> seven trumpets is unsealed -- Revelation 8:1-2.)

They have not accepted Christ before He returns or they would be in the
first resurrection of which Christ is the firstfruits, they would not be
first fruits of the other resurrection.

> > Fred posted: Most believers are not in the church.
>
> (If by "believers" you mean self-proclaimed believers,
> then I may have to agree with you -- Luke 13:23-27,
> Matthew 7:21-23. But the 144,000 are true believers
> -- Revelation 7:3, 14:3-5, and there are no true
> believers outside of the church -- Ephesians 4:4-5.)

As usual, your verses say one thing and you say another. Haven't you read
the book? Do you not know that it is the believers who are saved? Do you not
know that the innumerable multitude of Rev 7 are the saved? Do you not know
that the church is the few chosen of the many called? The church is greatly
out numbered by the rest of the multitude, who are not church. All who run
are grafted-in, but it is those who are conformed to the image of Christ who
obtain.

>
> > Fred posted: (Re: The 144,000 aren't the only
> > believers in the tribulation.)
> > -
> > You've switched to pre-trib?
>
> (No. I'm curious why you feel that a person saying
> that the 144,000 aren't the only believers in the
> tribulation must make that person pre-trib.)
>
> > Fred posted: They are with Christ on Mt Zion in your
> > imaginary "the tribulation" because He has returned
>
> (Note that the events of Revelation Chapters 6-18
> aren't imaginary, and that Revelation 14:1 refers to
> the heavenly Mount Sion -- compare Hebrews 12:22,
> where the 144,000 are before the throne of God --
> Revelation 14:2-5. So the 144,000 somehow get into
> heaven sometime after the fifth trumpet --
> Revelation 9:4 -- and before the reign of the
> Antichrist is over -- Revelation 14:9-13. They could
> get into heaven either by dying -- 2 Corinthians 5:8,
> or by being translated -- Revelation 12:5.)

Your "the tribulation" is imaginary, and Rev 14::1 refers to the Mt. Zion on
earth: "I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an
hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their
foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven." And the lamb and the 144,000
are the national saviors on Mt Zion in Obadiah:

Obadiah 1:17-21
But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness;
and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. [18] And the house
of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of
Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there
shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the Lord hath spoken
it. [19] And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of
the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and
the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. [20] And the
captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the
Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in
Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south. [21] And saviours shall
come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be
the Lord's.

> > Fred posted: Christians go to the place prepared for

> > them when He comes
>
> (Actually, no scripture says or requires that.
> Jn.14:2-3 requires first that all Christians be where
> Jesus is when He returns, i.e. raptured into the
> clouds to meet Him in the air -- 1Thess.4:17.

(You seem to be confused. Nothing was said of everyone having to be where
Jesus is when He returns). Many scriptures show that we all go at once.. 1
Cor 15:51-54 & 1 Thess $:15-17, 1 Thess 5:9 & Rev 15:1 & Heb 4:4 for
example, show it is all together in a moment, a twinkling of an eye.

> All
> Christians will then remain in His presence as He
> descends to Jerusalem - Zech.14:4, Act.1:11-12 - and
> begins His millennial reign on earth - Rev.20:6.

A direct contradiction of scripture. You say exactly the opposite of what He
says.
He says: "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by
our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thes. 5:9), and He says He returns and "treadeth
the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God" (Rev. 19:15). And
He says we will reign with Him like the angels in heaven: "but are as the
angels of God in heaven" (Matt 22:30).

> Jn.14:2-3 also requires that all Christians eventually
> live in a place prepared for them in the Father's
> house. But they probably won't live there until after
> the millennium, when the Father's house will descend
> to the new earth - Rev.21:1-3, for after the 2nd
> coming all Christians will be living on this old earth
> with Jesus until His millennial reign ends - Rev.20:6.)

You can't read? They are the bride descending in the place prepared for
them, and they go there at His coming: (John 14:2-3). They are the
resurrection at the beginning of the millennial day of the Lord (2 Pet
3:10), "but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years
were finished" (rEV 20:5). The church spends the day of the Lord in heaven,
because the day of the Lord is the day of His wrath, and the church is not
appointed to wrath.

Isaiah 13:9-13
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce
anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof
out of it. [10] For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall
not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the
moon shall not cause her light to shine. [11] And I will punish the world
for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the
arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the
terrible. [12] I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man
than the golden wedge of Ophir. [13] Therefore I will shake the heavens, and
the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts,
and in the day of his fierce anger.

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

> > Fred posted: Jn.13:36
>
> (Note that Jn.13:36 refers to the death of Peter,
> by which he was taken into the presence of the Lord
> in the third heaven -- 2Cor.5:8.)

Read the Bible needs to read the Bible.

John 13:33-38
Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and
as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
[34] A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have
loved you, that ye also love one another. [35] By this shall all men know
that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
[36] Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered
him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me
afterwards. [37] Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I
will lay down my life for thy sake. [38] Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay
down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall
not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

2 Cor. 5:8
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body,
and to be present with the Lord.

> > Fred posted: (Re: Rev.12:5)
> > The woman is Israel...
>
> (Not necessarily. She might be the church.)

Bo, the church is the body of Christ, the manchild who ascends to heaven.

> > Fred posted: ...the sun, moon, and stars are
> > explained by Jacob (Gen 37:10).
>
> (Note that the sun, moon, and stars in Rev.12:1 don't
> have to have the same symbolic meaning as the sun,
> moon, and stars in Gen.37:9-10. There is no necessity
> that the woman of Rev.12:1 has to be clothed with the
> man Jacob, or have the woman Rachel under her feet.
> The sun with which the woman in Rev.12:1 is clothed
> could be the sun of righteousness -- Mal.4:2, i.e.
> Jesus. Or, the sun and the moon could be the sun and
> the moon of the woman of Song.6:10, who could also
> represent the Bride of Christ. In this case the 12
> stars of Rev.12:1 might represent the 12 Apostles.)

Not if you read your verses.

> > Fred posted: The man child is the body of Christ
>
> (I'm glad that, within your view, you agree that the
> church came from Israel, for indeed our salvation is
> of the Jews - Jn.4:22, but the man child who is caught
> up to the throne of God in the 3rd heaven - Rev.12:5 -
> might be only part of the church, i.e. the 144,000,
> who appear before the throne of God in the 3rd heaven
> in Rev.14:1-4. They could be caught up into the 3rd
> heaven either with their bodies or without them -
> cf. 2Cor.12:2, that is, either by being translated or
> by dying. The man child can't be the whole church
> because after he is caught up into the 3rd heaven
> there are still other parts of the church that remain
> on the earth throughout the tribulation - Rev.12:17.)

Do you know our salvation is of the Jews? When you grasp that, you will no
longer hold much of what you profess.

Read the related verses, and it puts the church in heaven reigning with
Christ.

> > Fred posted: Jn.7:34
>
> (Note that Jn.7:34 was probably addressed to the
> unbelieving Jews - contrast Jn.13:36. I don't see how
> Jn.7:34 would apply to believers like the 144,000,
> especially in light of Rev.14:1-5.)

Because they are Jews not Christians.

> > Fred posted: Obad.1:17-21
>
> (Note that Obad.1:17-21 doesn't have to be the same as
> Rev.14:1-5, for the former probably refers to the
> earthly Jerusalem after the 2nd coming, while the
> latter refers to the heavenly Jerusalem before the
> 2nd coming.)

They both refer to the earthly Mt Zion: "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood
on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having
his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from
heaven" (Rev. 14:1-2).

> > Fred posted: (Re: Rev.12:17)
> > Which identifies them as Jews, whose faith in
> > Jesus needs to be complemented by doing the
> > commandments of God...
>
> (That requirement isn't only for believing Jews,
> but is for all believers, Jew or Gentile - Mt.5:19,
> 7:21-29; Jn.14:15,21, 15:10; Acts 1:2; 1 Cor.7:19,
> 14:37; 1Thess.4:2; Titus 1:16; Heb.5:9; Jas.2:14-26;
> 1Jn.2:3-4, 3:22-24, 5:2-3; 2Jn.1:6; Rev.14:12, 22:14.)

You're confused again, and again your verses don't say what you say. . The
church is free from the condemnation of the law: "There is therefore now no
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom 8:1-2). But, it
is the circumcision, the enemy-of-the-gospel (Rom 11:28) elect: "For I

testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do
the whole law" (Gal 5:3).

It is the enemy-of-the-gospel-elect, who have both the faith of Jesus and do
the commandments. Christians can be and will be saved without keeping thge
commandments. And, saying that Christians are not required to keep the
commandments is not telling them to sin. It is simply saying what the
scripyures say.
.

>
> > Fred posted: Gal.5:3
>
> (Note that none of the verses I listed in the
> paragraph above need refer to the commandments of the
> Old Mosaic Covenant which has been abolished -
> Eph.2:15; 2Cor.3:6-16. All of the verses I listed in
> the paragraph above can be referring to the
> commandments of the New Covenant - 2Cor.3:6, e.g.
> those commandments given by Jesus in Mt.5:19-7:27.)

When you speak of the commandments of God you are speaking of the
commandments of God, not just the ones you want to pick. And directly
contradict the Lord again: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled" (Matt 5:18), while citing verses that do not say what you say.

Early Church Father Tertullian"

"But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although
before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be
after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of
Jerusalem, 'let down from heaven,'"

Early Church Father Justin Martyr:

"We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is
as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was
a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ,
who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who
believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that
thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment
of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They
shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the
angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.'"

Early Church Father Irenaeus:

"For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall
it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: Thus the heaven and
the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a
conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested
upon the seventh day from all His works.' This is an account of the things
formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day
of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were
completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the
sixth thousand year.

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he
will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at
Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the
glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake
of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that
is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the
promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that 'many coming
from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.'

"The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of
the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the
dead."

.

[Read The Bible]

> Dave posted:
> (Re: No scripture says temple destroyed at
> 2nd coming)
> -
> ...we both know what Jesus said.

(Can you indicate a verse where Jesus says something
to the effect of "the temple will be destroyed at my
return"? I can't think of any such verse.)

> Dave posted:
> ...even if it was before His return, it still
> happened already.

(Then is your view that the temple WASN'T destroyed at
His return, but before His return? If so, how long
before?)

(Because of the Wailing Wall, I still don't think the
destruction of the second temple in 70 AD necessarily
fulfilled Jesus' stipulation that not one stone would
be left upon another.)

> Dave posted:

> As for the Western Wall, that was part of the
> FOUNDATION and not part of the buildings.

(Wouldn't this view that foundations aren't part of
buildings make the apostles and prophets not part of
the church, which is "built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner stone, in whom all the building
fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple..."?
Ephesians 2:20-21.

> Dave posted:
> (Re: Wailing Wall)
> They built a very tall foundation...

(Yes, one so clearly visible that it might have been
included when Jesus asked "See ye not all these
things? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be
left here one stone upon another..." -- Matthew 24:2.
Yet there the Wailing Wall stands.

> Dave posted:
> (Re: Luke 19:41-44)

> Learn how to read as a Jewish 1st century person
> would read it.

(I don't think we should ever interpret a passage by

how this person or that person might have interpreted

it, for no scripture is of any private interpretation
-- 2 Peter 1:20. Nevertheless, I don't see how anyone
would even need the Holy Spirit to properly interpret
Luke 19:41-44, in which Jesus so clearly addresses the
entire city of Jerusalem, not just the temple, and in
which He so clearly says to the entire city, "They
shall not leave in thee one stone upon another..." --
Luke 19:44. Yet there the Wailing Wall stands.)

> Dave posted:

> He did NOT contradict Himself.

(Amen. Note that Luke 19:41-44 and Matthew 24:2 don't
contradict each other, for the former refers to the
city and the latter to the temple complex, and they
both require that not one stone be left upon another.
Yet in both cases, there the Wailing Wall stands.)

> Dave posted:

> He said that Jerusalem would be surrounded and
> desolated AND IT WAS (Luke 21:20-22).

(Nevertheless, Luke 21:20-22 wasn't fulfilled in 70
AD because Zechariah 14:1-21 wasn't fulfilled in
70 AD.)

> Dave posted:
> Learn some history.

(Can you indicate the history book which describes the
fulfillment of Zechariah 14:1-21 in 70 AD? And while
I'm asking, is there a history book which describes
the fulfillment of Revelation 6-18 in 70 AD?)

> Dave posted:
> ...you believe in multiple comings of the Lord.

> 1) Earthly ministry.
> 2) Rapture.
> 3) 1,000 year reign.
> 4) Judgment.

(Actually, as I showed before, I believe in only two
comings, because the rapture, judgment of the saints,
millennial reign, and judgment of all people, all
occur after the second coming with no subsequent
comings being involved. Jesus never leaves after
the second coming.)

> Dave posted:
> ...WE BOTH KNOW you believe in as something other
> than a return.

(Can you be more specific? I understand a return as
the bodily return of Jesus from heaven to the earth.)

> Dave posted:
> ...you do not believe in just one return, as you
> claim to.

(Can you specifically indicate why you feel that I
don't believe in just one return?)

> Dave posted:

> You know damn well that you believe in a Rapture
> and that He doesn't show up visibly and bodily.

(Actually, in my post-tribulation rapture view, the
rapture occurs at the second coming, when Jesus will
appear both visibly and bodily -- Revelation 1:7,
Matthew 24:30, Acts 1:11-12, Zechariah 14:4;
1 Thessalonians 4:16.)

> Dave posted:

> Jesus returned in 70 AD and He wasn't physically
> and bodily visible.

(Note that an invisible, disembodied second coming is
found nowhere in the scriptures. In fact, the
scriptures I referenced in the paragraph above
directly refute any such idea.)

> Dave posted:

> You also believe that Jesus comes and reigns
> physically and bodily on Earth for 1,000 years,
> even though the Bible doesn't teach that and don't
> bother quoting Rev 20:4, because it does not say

> that...

(It doesn't have to, for Jesus' visible and bodily
second coming to the earth had just occurred in the
prior chapter, Revelation 19. No verse says he goes
back into heaven again. "We shall reign on the earth"
-- Revelation 5:10. "And they lived and reigned with
Christ a thousand years" -- Revelation 20:4.)

> Dave posted:

> Then HE LEAVES HIS THRONE and Satan is loosed for
> a while. WE BOTH KNOW that you believe that!

(Actually, I don't believe that Jesus leaves His
throne in Jerusalem after the millennium is over. He
could stay there throughout the battle of Gog and
Magog, for while Jerusalem is surrounded it's
never taken; fire falls from heaven and destroys
all the besiegers -- Revelation 20:9.)

(By the way, when was this fulfilled in your view? And
regarding Revelation 19-20 taken all together, how do
you have the second coming, and then have the binding
of Satan for a thousand years, and then "after the
thousand years are expired" have Satan released to
cause the battle of Gog and Magog -- how do you have
all of this fulfilled in 70 AD?)

> Dave posted:
> ....Then He returns again and judgment takes place.

> You DO believe this is how it happens

(Actually, that isn't what I believe, for Jesus never
leaves. Sometime after the battle of Gog and Magog,
heaven and earth disappear before the the great white
throne, and then the judgment of all people begins.
Note that Jesus never has to even leave His throne;
instead, everything around Him changes --
Revelation 20:11-15.)

> Dave posted:
> ...trying to rewrite what you claimed previously

(Maybe you have me confused with someone else. Can
you specifically indicate where you feel Read The
Bible claimed something different previously?)

> Dave posted:
> ...your vain doctrine and not God's word.

(Can you indicate specifically how you feel my
doctrine contradicts the Bible?)

[Read The Bible]

> Dave posted: You may now resume telling people that

> "Jesus is coming soon, because that word 'soon'
> means 'soon', except for when it was written and
> then it means thousands of years, because it's all
> about us."

(I don't remember ever saying "Jesus is coming soon",
precisely because today someone would think that means
in a few days, when in fact He might not come for ten
years, which is in no way "soon" to today's culture.
Peter had to specifically warn us that we are not to
judge the seeming-delay of Christ's return by how man
counts time, but must look at it by how God counts
time - 2Pet.3:8-9.)

(Just a side note: I think you may be replying to
people thinking you're replying to other people, and
in this way many false accusations are laid by
mistake. I hope that's all it is. But I can find no
way to account for how you treat people verbally in
your posts. You may want to reconsider that, for your
own sake and your readers' sake - 2Tim.2:24-26;
Jas.3:13-18. No hard feelings here, by the way. That
is, I hope I have no hard feelings - Jer.17:9;
Mt.6:14-15.)

(Back to your comment above, note that futurism
doesn't have to be all about us because we could die
at any time, and then the tribulation would have
nothing to do with us. And I don't think any of us are
ever to desire to go into the tribulation; instead, we
should be praying "Deliver us from evil" - Lk.11:4.)

> Dave posted: [sarcastic:] ...the clock started

> ticking the day you first opened the Bible.

(I don't think so. I think God's second-coming clock
started ticking about 2000 years ago, nay, probably
at the foundation of the world, in the sense that
just as "the Lamb (was) slain from the foundation of
the world" - Rev.13:8, so the day and the hour of His
second coming was probably also foreordained from the
foundation of the world.)

*******
(A subsequent post)
> Dave posted: Every translator translates it as "this

> generation", because that is what the Greek calls
> for and that is what it means.

(Yes, but "generation" has more than one meaning. It
can refer to a temporal generation or to a generation
by type (genos), e.g. the generation of the righteous
elect of all times - Ps.22:30, or the generation of
the wicked of all times - Lk.16:8.)

*******
(A subsequent post)
> Dave posted: John said specifically in Rev 1:9 that

> they were already in the tribulation.

(Yes, the ongoing tribulation of Jn.16:33, not the
unprecedented tribulation of Mt.24:21-22 and Rev.6-18,
which Rev.4:1 said would not be until "hereafter".)

> Dave posted: ...no one could have went through

> anything bad enough, if it wasn't you going through
> it, right?

(No, that's not it. I never want to go through the
tribulation of Rev.6-18. I hope that I don't have to
experience any of it. So it's not about me at all.
It's all about what Rev.6-18 says must happen, and
which hasn't happened yet.)

*******
(A subsequent post)
> Dave posted: You think that God inspired all of

> these writings and gave them to people they weren't
> for and that Jesus talked to people He was really

> ignoring...

(Actually, no, I don't think about it like that at
all. For example, when Jesus gave specific comments
that applied to each of 7 first-century churches -
Rev.2-3, when I read those comments I don't think
Jesus is ignoring me, for He's still teaching me by
what He's telling someone else. All scripture is
profitable for all - 2Tim.3:16.)

(Similarly, in the case of Mt.24, I doubt the Apostles
would have had any hard feelings even if they had
known that what Jesus was speaking in their hearing
wouldn't happen to them. If they had known, no doubt
they would have been relieved that they didn't have to
go through the unprecedented tribulation He was
describing; and they would no doubt have still
listened with rapt attention because they could have
still learned something from every word, just as I
still hang onto every written word of Mt.24 even
though none of them might happen in my lifetime. So
it's not all about us at all; it's all about both them
and us living by every word of God - Mt.4:4, even
those that weren't fulfilled in their lifetimes and
may not be fulfilled in ours.)

(Therefore, I would say, instead of your comment
above, that God inspired all of these writings and
gives them to all believers of all times and they are
for all believers of all times, and that Jesus talks
to all believers of all times and ignores none of
them: "He that hath an ear, let him hear" - Rev.2:7.)

> Dave posted: You even went so far as to try to move

> Daniel 9:24-27 to 1947

(Did you see my answer to this the last time you
posted it? It's in a prior post in this thread. Do
you have a response to my answer?)

*******
(A subsequent post)

> Dave posted: In Luke 21:20-22, Jesus states very
> clearly that when Jerusalem was desolated, that all
> things written would be fulfilled.

(I remember answering this also already. Note that
you've copied and pasted a long post that you'd
already posted in this thread. I answered many of its
paragraphs in a prior post in this thread. Did you
post them again because you want me to answer them
again? Or, do you want to first respond to how I
answered them the first time?)

*******
(A subsequent post)
> Dave posted: It is to stretch Revelation to the

> level of stupidity, to try to claim that you're
> going to see locusts with men's faces and two guys
> breathing fire.

(Why? Regarding Rev. 9:7, note that the locusts whose
faces are as the faces of men come out of the
bottomless pit and have the angel of the bottomless pit
over them - Rev.9:2,11 - so they could be some sort of
demonic creature. Why does it seem incredible to you
that some types of demons might have faces like men,
when some types of the non-human creatures in heaven
also have faces like men? - Ezek.1:10, Rev.4:7. Why
can't all of these creatures be literal?)

(Regarding Rev.11:5, note that people are literally
killed by the miraculous fire from the mouths of the
2 witnesses, just as the 2 witnesses themselves are
literally killed and their bodies allowed to remain
unburied in the street - Rev.11:8-9. Besides the fire
from their mouths, the 2 witnesses will perform other
miracles like stopping the rain and turning water into
blood - Rev.11:6, things which were literally
performed by Moses and Elijah - Ex.7:20, Jas.5:17. So
why can't the miracles of the 2 witnesses be literal
as well?)

*******
(A different poster)
> Bud posted: (Re: Wailing Wall vs. Mt.24:2)
> ...just MORE evidence (like there isn't enough
> already) that Jesus WASN'T God, and DIDN'T know
> everything.

(Actually, there is no evidence that Jesus was wrong
about His prophecy in Mt.24:2, especially when it
could happen in the future. And there is no evidence
that Jesus isn't God, especially when the scriptures
say plainly that He is - Jn.1:1, Heb.1:8, 1Tim.3:16,
Jn.20:28, Col.2:9.)

(But there is evidence that Jesus didn't know
everything before His death, for at that time He
didn't know when He would return - Mk.13:32. But this
doesn't deny His divinity; it only shows an example of
how in His incarnation He became like us -- fully
human - Heb.2:16-18, Philip.2:6-8. And even after His
death and resurrection, while He remains fully human
- Lk.24:39, in His immortal state He has reclaimed His
divine omniscience - Col.2:3.)

> Bud posted: Christianity is wholly based on lies.

(To the contrary; Christianity is based on eyewitness
accounts and divinely-inspired prophecies --
2Pet.1:16-21; 1Jn.1:1-4.)

(There is no reason to discount these, unless one
allows the devil to blind one's eye to them with his
lies - 2Cor.4:4, Lk.8:12, Jn.8:43-47. But thank God
this blindness need not be permanent - Act.26:18;
2Tim.2:25-26; Rom.10:17; for if it were permanent,
none of us could have become believers - Eph.2:2-5.)

[Pastor Dave]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:40:32 -0500, pulpitfire
<pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:

...should be ignored.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"Christians, keep the faith -- but not from others!"

[pulpitfire]

...when they are Dave's "facts".

[Pastor Dave]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:40:32 -0500, pulpitfire
<pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:

I am going to try one more time, to reach you with this.

<snip what we mostly don't disagree on anyway>

You like to forget that Revelation was *A VISION*.
And it USED *SYMBOLS*.

John tells us that he was, "in the spirit on the
Lord's day". Hello??? :)

He also said that it... must shortly come to pass".
But that, to you, means "thousands of years and
still counting" and you are telling ME, that I am
the one, "spiritualizing the book into oblivion"?

I am not the one claiming that "MUST SHORTLY"
means, "a long, long time from now".

John wrote this to seven churches that actually existed
and said that's who he was addressing it to. And John
had no idea that it would be read 2,000 years later.

And contrary to your desire to "late date" it, the
historical reality is, that there were nine churches
there, before there was a massive earthquake, just
as Jesus predicted that earthquakes would come
and there is only a small amount of time in which
they were rebuilding and only seven of them stood
and that time was in the mid/late 60's AD.

Therefore, Revelation was written just prior to 70 AD.

And John also said in Rev 1:9, that he was
"a companion in the tribulation", which means
that the tribulation that was to occur just before
Jesus' return, was already taking place.

>Basically, the literal system of interpretation
>just says that the text means what it plainly says,

No, it doesn't. It tries to make literal what is
symbolic and make symbolic, all simple and
clear time references that would mean that it
isn't all about them. (:

In the passages that you seem to have implied that
I would disagree with you on, an explanation is given
anyway.

However, you reject said explanations, when you don't
like them. This "new heaven and earth" for example.

Scripture interprets Scripture. Not Randy.

You want to believe in a physical new heaven and earth,
on which only the saved, who now have regenerated
bodies live and there is no more physical death.

Yet you reject it when Scripture interprets Scripture
and tells you that it is symbolism.

Isaiah also speaks of this "new heaven and earth" and
he said that *after* this new heaven and earth arrived,
that there would still be death! He also noted that life
would still go on. There would be farming, building
houses, death, etc.. And I showed you where these
passages are, more than once. Yet you have mostly
ignored them and when you have addressed them,
you tried to explain them away, by using a method
that is the opposite of what you use with Revelation,
yet what we see in Revelation, is borrowed from Isaiah.

You don't seem to understand, that Revelation does
not give us an "all new" thing. It borrows heavily
from Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea, Zechariah, etc.. God
was not giving a vision that contradicted the OT.
Jesus came to fulfill the OT and the OT also speaks
of what happens when He returns, such as Zech 14:1-2,
where it shows that Jerusalem is not saved by Jesus
riding the clouds like today's church claims, but rather,
it is desolated! The city is taken, it is plundered,
the women are raped, etc..

Isaiah says death. Revelation says no more death.

So which is it Randy?

Does the Bible contradict itself?

Or is the "new heaven and earth" symbolism?

The truth is, this "new heaven and earth" is the
Kingdom of God and the old Mosaic system
destroyed, as I proved to you more than once,
in another lengthy post, which you refused
to even read. (:

To quote Josephus, who, as a Jew, understood this
type of symbolism and how Jews viewed the Temple
of the Mosaic system...

"As for the inside, Moses parted its length into three
partitions. At the distance of ten cubits from the most
secret end, Moses placed four pillars, the workmanship
of which was the very same with that of the rest; and
they stood upon the like bases with them, each a small
matter distant from his fellow. Now the room within
those pillars was the most holy place; but the rest of
the room was the tabernacle, which was open for the
priests. However, this proportion of the measures of
the tabernacle proved to be an imitation OF THE
SYSTEM OF THE WORLD; for that third part thereof
which was within the four pillars, to which the priests
were not admitted, is, as it were, A HEAVEN PECULIAR
TO GOD. - Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book III,
Chapter 6, Par 4

Note that it represented both heaven and earth. But you,
as a 21st century Gentile, aren't happy with that and so,
you claim that it is physically literal and that it's all
about us today. (:

You also want to believe that a literal, physical,
New Jerusalem appears and comes down onto
this supposedly physical "new heaven and earth".

Yet, when it is pointed out to you that there are sinners
outside the gates of what you think is a physical "New
Jerusalem", you come up with some, "they could be
anywhere and not necessarily right outside the gates"
claim and your "outer space lake of fire" theory, to
try to explain away the fact that Scripture says that
they're outside the gates, which it would not say, if
they weren't there, outside the gates. Rather, it would
say that they were off in outer space, if that's where
they were. You try to make God into a babbling idiot! (:

If you said to me that you are in Ohio, I would
NEVER SAY that you are "outside my door".

And if the sinners are somewhere way far away,
God would not say, that they're outside the gates.

The fact is, that they would not be outside the gates
of this New Jerusalem, when all of the sinners,
according to your doctrine, are gone. In fact, they
wouldn't be around, AT ALL! They wouldn't be
anywhere!

Jesus said...

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are
not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which
is able to DESTROY both SOUL and body in hell."
- Matthew 10:28

And in Revelation, we read about what happens
to these sinners and it happens BEFORE the
"new heaven and earth", which is obviously
before the New Jerusalem comes down.

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of
life was cast into the lake of fire." - Revelation 20:15

Now if this means what your doctrine claims, which
is that all people both living and dead are judged
and the old earth is destroyed and a new earth appears,
upon which only the saved live, in their "regenerated,
live forever bodies", then the above verse was "Adios!"
to all sinners! Bye Bye now! See ya! Gone, gone, gone!

They would be destroyed. You wouldn't have to worry
about where they are and the Bible wouldn't say where
they are after that, because they would have been
destroyed.

As Jesus said, BOTH their bodies AND their souls,
would have been destroyed and so, according to
your doctrine, there should be no sinners left in
existence, to be anywhere, let alone in outer space,
or wherever you want to put them. Yet there they
are, Randy! Outside the gates of the New Jerusalem!

Your doctrine has failed. It has fallen apart under
Revelation's own explanation.

And you flat out ignore it when I prove to you that this
"New Jerusalem" cannot possibly be a literal, physical
city. You try to get around it and play word games and
invent, on the fly, new pieces for your doctrine, as I
smash it apart, piece by piece. And we both know that
this has happened and we both know that you, Glenn
and Chuck have had to reinvent their doctrines, trying
desperately to somehow make their doctrine still work,
in light of the facts that I have presented to you. (:

It is sad to watch you guys squirm and try to wiggle
your way out of the mess that you create for yourselves,
with your dishonesty and unwillingness to admit to
the truth that's right in front of your faces. (:

The truth is, that Revelation does EXPLAIN THIS to you
and yet, YOU REJECT the explanation, as I said you do,
when you DON'T WANT it to be symbolic! (:

Here is, once again, the Scriptural proof that this
New Jerusalem cannot be a literal, physical city ...

The Lamb is Christ.

The bride of Christ is the church.

These two things are without question, Biblical fact!

And just like you showed, with the "sword" passage,
we do not have to find the bride defined as the church
in Revelation, as long as Scripture teaches it elsewhere
(see 2 Cor 11:2, for an example).

Now let's take a look and see what the explanation
is, that REVELATION GIVES for the New Jerusalem,
which is a SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION of
something else and it will tell us exactly what
that something else is, given what the two facts
listed above, that we know are indisputable, state.

Revelation 21:9-10

9) Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls
filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked
with me, saying, Come, I will show you the bride, the
Lamb’s wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and
high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy
Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God

Now let's look at what the above passages say...

1) The angel tells John that he will show John
"the bride, the Lamb's wife" (v9).

2) The Lamb is Christ. Therefore, the angel
is going to show John the bride of Christ.

3) The bride of Christ, as we know, is the church.

4) The angel shows John the New Jerusalem (v10).

5) Conclusion: The New Jerusalem is the church
and not a literal city.

Now what is it going to be Randy?

Are you going to admit that Revelation has explained
the symbolism of this "New Jerusalem" and that
Revelation itself tells you that this New Jerusalem
is the bride of Christ, which we know is the church?

Or will you insist that Christ married a literal city? (:

Those are your only two options.

Or will you pretend there's a third option and do as
you always do and add your words to Scripture, or
twist it up like a pretzel and then claim that the Bible
says it and once again, claim that I'm "spiritualizing
everything"?

I have shown you this TIME AND TIME AGAIN
and EVERY TIME you refuse to acknowledge it
as the truth that is so obviously is!

And you claim that I'm the one who is not being
honest about what Scripture is saying? Huh?!

You do not seem to get the rest of the description
of the city either, Randy.

It is a fact that the plan started with the Jews.
And it is a fact that it would end with the Jews,
although Gentiles would be part of the church
(see Rev 7:9).

Even in your futurist doctrine, you believe this.

Now look at the city and see the symbolism in
the description of it the building of it...

There are 12 gates. They have the names of
the 12 tribes of Israel on them and the Gospel
went out to the Jew first. And Jesus was a Jew.

The city has 12 foundations, upon which are
the names of the Apostles.

Each wall is 144,000 cubits. And 144,000
symbolically represents the fullness of the Jews
coming in (12,000 for each of 12 tribes, as shown
in Rev 7:4-8, which once again shows you that
the term "thousand" represents "fullness",
especially in a book of symbols, like Revelation).

And of course, we know that Christ is the chief
corner stone.

Now let's compare Scripture to Scripture, instead
of trying to assume that man's doctrine is correct
and forcing Scripture to fit into that doctrine.

What do you see here, Randy? Go ahead, read it.

Ephesians 2:19-22

19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints,
and of the household of God;
20) And are built upon the foundation of the

apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself

being the chief corner stone;
21) In whom all the building fitly framed together
groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord:
22) In whom ye also are builded together for
a habitation of God through the Spirit.

Hmmm...

Let's lay the verses out here, together...

Ephesians 2:19-22

19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints,
and of the household of God;

"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down from God out of heaven, prepared
as a bride adorned for her husband." - Rev 21:2

20) And are built upon the foundation of the

apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself

being the chief corner stone;

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,
and in them the names of the twelve apostles of
the Lamb." - Rev 21:14

21) In whom all the building fitly framed together
groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord:
22) In whom ye also are builded together for
a habitation of God through the Spirit.

"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
- Rev 21:22

Now what do you say Randy? Scripture is interpreting
Scripture here. Can you now admit that it all fits
together this way? Or will your stubbornness and vanity
win out again? That's a serious question, not an attack.

It is "through the Spirit" Randy, as it says above.
Not "through the body", as you believe.

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God."
- 1 Cor 15:50

Luke 17:20-21

20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
them and said, The kingdom of God cometh NOT
with observation:
21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there!
for, behold, the kingdom of God is WITHIN you.

What you are waiting for physically isn't going
to happen, Randy. And what you are waiting for
spiritually, has already happened, if you would
only accept it and partake of it. "Taste and see
that the Lord is good".

Now one day, you're going to have to stand before
Him and He's going to ask you why you didn't
believe Him and instead, waited for what already
happened. And we both know that you won't be
able to lie to Him and cover it up anymore and
you're going to have to say, "Because Lord, I
believed that if the Bible wasn't all about my time,
that it was useless.".

And we both know that He will not be happy that
you called His word useless, because He kept His
Promise and fulfilled it. (:

"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of
the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did
lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And
the nations of them which are saved shall walk in
the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring
their glory and honor into it. And the gates of it
shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be
no night there." - Rev 21:23-25

"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever
believeth on me should not abide in darkness."
- John 12:46

Tell me Randy...

Do you still find it so easy to dismiss my view?

Can you honestly say that it is without merit,
especially given the fact that I have proved to
you that these things aren't physically literal
and that "Jesus riding a cloud" isn't physically,
bodily literal also and neither is the "Sun and
Moon" language, whether you admit it or not?

Can you tell us how you are going to get around
your "new heaven and earth" problem, considering
that it forces Isaiah and Revelation, which borrowed
from Isaiah, to contradict each other?

Can you tell us how you are going to make that
bride of Christ into a literal city, which would
mean that Jesus married a city?

I think we both know that can't be done. And if this
message doesn't get through to you, then I don't know
what will.

I hope and pray that you are honest enough to admit
that the neither the new heaven and earth, nor the
new Jerusalem, are literal, physical places. They are,
as Jesus said and as is described even within Revelation,
symbolic representations of a spiritual truth, written
down in a book which contains visions and symbols.

There are places that Revelation refers to real events.
But it does so with symbolism. Or do you really think
that locusts with men's faces are coming, Randy?
After all, it doesn't tell you what they really are and
you claimed that the symbols have an explanation,
when they are symbols. Uh, oh Randy! Oops! I guess
your theory failed! (:

I guess these locusts are really coming Randy, because
it never says that they are anything but locusts and
I am quoting the whole part about them here!...

Revelation 9:3-11

3) And there came out of the smoke locusts upon
the earth: and unto them was given power, as the
scorpions of the earth have power.
4) And it was commanded them that they should
not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green
thing, neither any tree; but only those men which
have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5) And to them it was given that they should not
kill them, but that they should be tormented five
months: and their torment was the torment of a
scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6) And in those days shall men seek death, and
shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death
shall flee from them.
7) And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses
prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it
were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the
faces of men.
8) And they had hair as the hair of women, and their
teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9) And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates
of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound
of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10) And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there
were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt
men five months.
11) And they had a king over them, which is the angel

of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue
is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name

Apollyon.

And don't bother pointing out the word "as". It only
says "as" regarding the various parts of the locusts.
But it never says "as" regarding the locusts themselves.
It never says that they're anything but locusts.

So there's no description there and yet, I don't think
even you would be foolish enough to think that these
are actual locusts, with breastplates that remind you
of iron, nor hair that reminds you of a woman's hair,
nor teeth like a lion's.

So there it is Randy. Symbolism without an explanation.
Gee, imagine that!

You do what you want Randy. Go ahead and insult me
some more and ignore the points you know I have made.
All that will say about you, is that you are dishonest.
That you know what happened here and that you know
that your doctrine does not hold water, but you refuse
to acknowledge it and that is pure pride, ego and vanity!

So go ahead snip it to shreds and throw some insults
and pretend it never happened, as you usually do. (:

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c036.html

[pulpitfire]

Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:40:32 -0500, pulpitfire
> <pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> I am going to try one more time, to reach you with this.
>
> <snip what we mostly don't disagree on anyway>
>
> You like to forget that Revelation was *A VISION*.
> And it USED *SYMBOLS*.
>
> John tells us that he was, "in the spirit on the
> Lord's day". Hello??? :)

First, you snipped every single point in my post. Why should I now give
careful consideration to every line of your rebuttal, and respond point
for point? If you don't have to answer my objections, why do you expect
I should have to answer yours? But to show that you are the one who has
to have special conditions set up before you are willing to discuss
something...

What do you want him to say, that he was in the "flesh" on the Lord's
day, or that he was on the "phone" on the Lord's day? That just means
he was receiving revelation from God.

> He also said that it... must shortly come to pass".
> But that, to you, means "thousands of years and
> still counting" and you are telling ME, that I am
> the one, "spiritualizing the book into oblivion"?

Once the events begin, they will occur speedily.

Lu 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night
unto him, though he bear long with them?
Lu 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily <5034>.
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

God will avenge the elect (in the future) "speedily", "though he bear
long with them". God makes the elect wait a long time, but He will
avenge them speedily, once He avenges them.

You clipped every one of my points, and then below, you brace yourself,
as if you expect I'm going to clip every one of yours. Did you read
what I wrote, or assume you have already refuted it before, and that it
couldn't possibly contain anything different? I already answered this
point in the post you are responding to.

> I am not the one claiming that "MUST SHORTLY"
> means, "a long, long time from now".

ibid.

> John wrote this to seven churches that actually existed
> and said that's who he was addressing it to. And John
> had no idea that it would be read 2,000 years later.

That's your speculation about what John thought. It says "He that hath
an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" (Rev. 2:7,
11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). This means it wasn't just for the church to
whom it was addressed, and you cannot limit it to the first century
churches on the basis of exegesis.

> And contrary to your desire to "late date" it, the
> historical reality is, that there were nine churches
> there, before there was a massive earthquake, just
> as Jesus predicted that earthquakes would come
> and there is only a small amount of time in which
> they were rebuilding and only seven of them stood
> and that time was in the mid/late 60's AD.

And Laodicea did not even mint more than a couple coins until the 80's
or 90's, because they rejected Roman money and rebuilt on their own.
They were not in a condition of wealth during the 60's, when the city
was leveled by the earthquake, and didn't even mint more than a couple
coins during that period. The 90's is when they finished their
rebuilding projects, and began minting coins again, which fits better
with what Revelation says about them saying they have need of nothing,
and being wealthy.

Further, while you claim the catastrophes of Revelation were limited to
the land of Jerusalem, some of these Gentile churches were hundreds of
miles away. If you think the events of Revelation were only local to
Jerusalem and Judea, and not global, how do you account for that?

And let it be noted, that while you make fools people for trying to read
the days news into the prophecies of Revelation, that's exactly what the
Preterist position does, except they try to read the seal judgments of
Revelation into the news of the day from first century historians like
Josephus.

> Therefore, Revelation was written just prior to 70 AD.

Not...

> And John also said in Rev 1:9, that he was
> "a companion in the tribulation", which means
> that the tribulation that was to occur just before
> Jesus' return, was already taking place.

I'll agree that the Tribulation John faced was current to his day. He
was banished, not executed, which fits Domitian's reign more than
Nero's. All this proves to me is that you don't have to go through the
Tribulation of Revelation 4-19 to go through tribulation.

>> Basically, the literal system of interpretation
>> just says that the text means what it plainly says,
>

> No, it doesn't. It tries to make literal what is
> symbolic and make symbolic, all simple and
> clear time references that would mean that it
> isn't all about them. (:

That is not correct:

That Revelation uses symbols no more authorizes us to spiritualize it to
oblivion than any other passage that does. The literal system of
interpretation allows for the use of symbols. For example:

Revelation 1

1 ¶ Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith

Basically, the literal system of interpretation just says that the text

means what it plainly says, unless it indicates it is using symbols, or
figures of speech. And even these, as we have seen, are explained by
the text itself. Otherwise, anyone can spiritualize the text into
oblivion, and basically make it mean whatever they want.

> In the passages that you seem to have implied that

> I would disagree with you on, an explanation is given
> anyway.
>
> However, you reject said explanations, when you don't
> like them. This "new heaven and earth" for example.
>
> Scripture interprets Scripture. Not Randy.

> You want to believe in a physical new heaven and earth,
> on which only the saved, who now have regenerated
> bodies live and there is no more physical death.
>
> Yet you reject it when Scripture interprets Scripture
> and tells you that it is symbolism.

> Isaiah also speaks of this "new heaven and earth" and
> he said that *after* this new heaven and earth arrived,
> that there would still be death! He also noted that life
> would still go on. There would be farming, building
> houses, death, etc.. And I showed you where these
> passages are, more than once. Yet you have mostly
> ignored them and when you have addressed them,
> you tried to explain them away, by using a method
> that is the opposite of what you use with Revelation,
> yet what we see in Revelation, is borrowed from Isaiah.

Your interpretation requires us to believe that Christ has exercised His
perfect will on earth since A.D. 70, and that this included the worst
persecution the church has seen to date, as well as the dark ages etc.
This age doesn't even qualify for the millennial reign of Christ, let
alone the eternal state, and to contend otherwise is blasphemous, given
the corruption and chaos and persecution that is in the world.

You are filtering the more progressive revelation through the less
progressive, instead of vise-versa. Revelation gives the correct
chronology and most detail. Isaiah apparently introduced the final
condition (eternal state), then the events that led up to it (millennial
kingdom). That is a safer and more legitimate conclusion than the
blasphemous lie that what we are now experiencing is either the
millennial or eternal reign of Christ on earth.

> You don't seem to understand, that Revelation does
> not give us an "all new" thing. It borrows heavily
> from Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea, Zechariah, etc.. God
> was not giving a vision that contradicted the OT.

ibid.

> Jesus came to fulfill the OT and the OT also speaks
> of what happens when He returns, such as Zech 14:1-2,
> where it shows that Jerusalem is not saved by Jesus
> riding the clouds like today's church claims, but rather,
> it is desolated! The city is taken, it is plundered,
> the women are raped, etc..

Your view of Daniel and the OT prophecies has Christ being the prince of
His people the Romans, breaking the peace treaty with Israel, and
desolating the temple! This is what 2 Thessalonians 2 says applies to
the "man of sin". Your theology is right in line with what the
anti-christ will be claiming during the Tribulation. And let's think of
a few others who have held this twisted view of righteousness. How
about Hitler? Didn't he also think he was doing God a favor by killing
Jews?

Romans 11:25ff makes it plain and clear that God's covenant with the
"Israel" which is currently a blinded enemy of the gospel, until the
fulness of the Gentiles comes in, will be saved in keeping with God's
gifts and calling, which are without repentance.

There's not one verse in the Bible that says the church is "Israel", or
that "Israel" is the church. Galatians 6:16 shows that in addition to
(kai) those who walk according to the principal that circumcision avails
nothing in justification, peace be on the Israel of God. Romans 9:6
identifies this group as those of the nation Israel who are truly
believers in God, not the church at large. Galatians 6:16 shows Paul is
not anti-semitic. James was written to Jewish Christians during the
transitional days of the church, and not directly to the whole church,
when he called them the "twelve tribes". Romans 11 makes a clear and
continual distinction, throughout the chapter, between the Israel which
is a blind enemy of the gospel, and the church, which is the "fulness of
the gentiles". There are jews and gentiles coming together as one body
called the church, in this time of the fulness of the gentiles (Eph.
2-3), but once it's come in (past), all Israel (the one that is a
blinded enemy of the gospel, and which God has temporarily set aside)
shall be saved, in keeping with God's covenant to Israel (e.g. Jer. 30-33).

> Isaiah says death. Revelation says no more death.

Revelation makes a clear distinction between the millennial and eternal
reigns of Christ. The millennial will include death, the eternal will not.

> So which is it Randy?
>
> Does the Bible contradict itself?
>
> Or is the "new heaven and earth" symbolism?

This is a false dichotomy. See above.

> The truth is, this "new heaven and earth" is the
> Kingdom of God and the old Mosaic system
> destroyed, as I proved to you more than once,
> in another lengthy post, which you refused
> to even read. (:

You proved nothing. And now, after I've read and responded to you line
by line, when you did not do the same for my post, but snipped every
single point of it, you will probably again pretend that I snipped all
your vital arguments, as if, had they only been left in, it would have
clearly refuted my position. You don't have the discernment to see that
you are not walking around in either the millennial or eternal kingdoms
of God, that we still have a sun and moon, that Christ's will is not
being done on earth as it is in heaven, etc., so it doesn't surprise me
that you don't see the ass of your view in the bag hanging around your
neck, and that you will instead boast like him who puts on his armor.

> To quote Josephus, who, as a Jew, understood this
> type of symbolism and how Jews viewed the Temple
> of the Mosaic system...

I don't base my theology on Josephus, as your theology is required to do.

> "As for the inside, Moses parted its length into three
> partitions. At the distance of ten cubits from the most
> secret end, Moses placed four pillars, the workmanship
> of which was the very same with that of the rest; and
> they stood upon the like bases with them, each a small
> matter distant from his fellow. Now the room within
> those pillars was the most holy place; but the rest of
> the room was the tabernacle, which was open for the
> priests. However, this proportion of the measures of
> the tabernacle proved to be an imitation OF THE
> SYSTEM OF THE WORLD; for that third part thereof
> which was within the four pillars, to which the priests
> were not admitted, is, as it were, A HEAVEN PECULIAR
> TO GOD. - Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book III,
> Chapter 6, Par 4

ibid.

Here we go, newspaper prophet. Everything you accuse Owd of doing is
exactly what you do, except you don't look in today's news, you look in
the news around A.D. 70.

> Note that it represented both heaven and earth. But you,
> as a 21st century Gentile, aren't happy with that and so,
> you claim that it is physically literal and that it's all
> about us today. (:

ibid. YOUR position is the one that makes the new heavens and earth and
Jerusalem and hell all about YOU, and the HERE and NOW. YOU are the one
who thinks YOU are now experiencing the eternal state, not us, and that
we're living side by side with Hell here and now.

> You also want to believe that a literal, physical,
> New Jerusalem appears and comes down onto
> this supposedly physical "new heaven and earth".

> Yet, when it is pointed out to you that there are sinners
> outside the gates of what you think is a physical "New
> Jerusalem", you come up with some, "they could be
> anywhere and not necessarily right outside the gates"
> claim and your "outer space lake of fire" theory, to
> try to explain away the fact that Scripture says that
> they're outside the gates, which it would not say, if
> they weren't there, outside the gates. Rather, it would
> say that they were off in outer space, if that's where
> they were. You try to make God into a babbling idiot! (:

Right outside the gates is "without". 100 miles away from the gates is
"without". Another dimension is "without".
They are not in the city. You can't pinpoint their location based on
the word "without", other than to say they are not in the city. I see
absolutely no convincing reason, why "without" must mean pressing up
against the outside of the city gates, or even anywhere on the planet.

And think about this. If you are spiritualizing the new heavens and
earth to the degree you can think you are now walking around in the
eternal state, in the new heavens and earth, what is to stop an unsaved
person from concluding they are now walking around in hell? Nothing.
Your interpretation makes a blasphemous mockery both of the terrible
condition of hell as well as the exalted condition of the millennial and
eternal kingdoms of Christ (given the chaotic and sinful condition of
the nations and governments, etc), by claiming it is all about YOUR
condition HERE and NOW.

> If you said to me that you are in Ohio, I would
> NEVER SAY that you are "outside my door".

And thank God, YOU didn't write Revelation. It's not about YOU and how
YOU would write things, but about what the text says, which is that they
are "without". Right outside the gates is without. 100 miles away from
the gates is "without". Another dimension is "without".

> And if the sinners are somewhere way far away,
> God would not say, that they're outside the gates.

He doesn't say they are "outside the gates". He doesn't even say they
are "without the gates". He is not talking about being inside the gate
or outside of the gate, or within the gate, or without the gate, but the
"city":

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right
to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Those who do his commandments may enter (through the gates) into the city.

For without (the city, not the gates)...are the dogs (no intended
offense to Oldwetdog, even though he does say he's damn proud of being a
"dog"matist), etc...

The only conclusion you can reach is that they are "without" the city.
There is absolutely no exegetical way to insist that these people must,
of necessity, be pressing up against the gates, be within 100 miles of
the gates, or even on the same planet. They are "without" the city,
period. If your theology depends on this only possibly meaning they are
sitting directly outside the city gates, that only confirms the weakness
of your position, and the extent to which you have to spiritualize
things, for then, that would mean that not only eternity, the new
Jerusalem, and heaven are all about YOU and life HERE and NOW on EARTH,
but also that hell and eternal damnation is also here and now on earth.
What a blasphemous, mocking lie!

> The fact is, that they would not be outside the gates
> of this New Jerusalem, when all of the sinners,
> according to your doctrine, are gone. In fact, they
> wouldn't be around, AT ALL! They wouldn't be
> anywhere!

And they're not. They are "without", i.e. NOT IN the city.

> Jesus said...
>
> "And fear not them which kill the body, but are
> not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which
> is able to DESTROY both SOUL and body in hell."
> - Matthew 10:28
>
> And in Revelation, we read about what happens
> to these sinners and it happens BEFORE the
> "new heaven and earth", which is obviously
> before the New Jerusalem comes down.
>
> "And whosoever was not found written in the book of
> life was cast into the lake of fire." - Revelation 20:15
>
> Now if this means what your doctrine claims, which
> is that all people both living and dead are judged
> and the old earth is destroyed and a new earth appears,
> upon which only the saved live, in their "regenerated,
> live forever bodies", then the above verse was "Adios!"
> to all sinners! Bye Bye now! See ya! Gone, gone, gone!

ibid. Let it be noted that the Lake of Fire is NOT in the city! Your
theology must now contend that the Lake of Fire is here on earth!
Ridiculous!

>
> As Jesus said, BOTH their bodies AND their souls,
> would have been destroyed and so, according to
> your doctrine, there should be no sinners left in
> existence, to be anywhere, let alone in outer space,
> or wherever you want to put them. Yet there they
> are, Randy! Outside the gates of the New Jerusalem!

Nothing says hell is instant annihilation. It is everlasting death!

> Your doctrine has failed. It has fallen apart under
> Revelation's own explanation.

More of your "legend in your own mind" theology. It does not surprise
me that someone who cannot discern that the will of God is not being
done on earth here and now, that heaven and eternity is not here and
now, and about YOU, would also not discern the ass of his view hanging
in a bag around his neck.

> And you flat out ignore it when I prove to you that this
> "New Jerusalem" cannot possibly be a literal, physical
> city. You try to get around it and play word games and
> invent, on the fly, new pieces for your doctrine, as I
> smash it apart, piece by piece. And we both know that
> this has happened and we both know that you, Glenn
> and Chuck have had to reinvent their doctrines, trying
> desperately to somehow make their doctrine still work,
> in light of the facts that I have presented to you. (:

ibid.

> It is sad to watch you guys squirm and try to wiggle
> your way out of the mess that you create for yourselves,
> with your dishonesty and unwillingness to admit to
> the truth that's right in front of your faces. (:

ibid.

> The truth is, that Revelation does EXPLAIN THIS to you
> and yet, YOU REJECT the explanation, as I said you do,
> when you DON'T WANT it to be symbolic! (:

ibid.

> Here is, once again, the Scriptural proof that this
> New Jerusalem cannot be a literal, physical city ...

ibid.

It amazes me that you look at a "city" which is "adorned as a bride",
and then when it says behold the bride, we have the description of a
"city", your conclusion is that it is the "city" which is symbolic, and
not the "bride".

*yawn*...in Ephesians, the church is the temple. In Revelation, God is
the temple.
In Ephesians, God dwells in men. In Revelation, God dwells with man.
The church is NOT New Jerusalem.

Yeah...didn't you see there is no temple in the New Jerusalem? If it
was the same as Ephesians, the New Jerusalem would be the temple. If it
were the same as Ephesians, God and the Lamb would not be the temple,
the church would. The church is NOT New Jerusalem.

> It is "through the Spirit" Randy, as it says above.
> Not "through the body", as you believe.
>
> "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God."
> - 1 Cor 15:50

Glorified bodies can (1 Cor. 15).

> Luke 17:20-21
>
> 20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
> when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
> them and said, The kingdom of God cometh NOT
> with observation:
> 21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there!
> for, behold, the kingdom of God is WITHIN you.

> What you are waiting for physically isn't going
> to happen, Randy. And what you are waiting for
> spiritually, has already happened, if you would
> only accept it and partake of it. "Taste and see
> that the Lord is good".

I've already responded to this in another post.

> Now one day, you're going to have to stand before
> Him and He's going to ask you why you didn't
> believe Him and instead, waited for what already
> happened. And we both know that you won't be
> able to lie to Him and cover it up anymore and
> you're going to have to say, "Because Lord, I
> believed that if the Bible wasn't all about my time,
> that it was useless.".
>
> And we both know that He will not be happy that
> you called His word useless, because He kept His
> Promise and fulfilled it. (:

Your babbling won't amount to anything in that day, because you are the
one who spiritualized God's word into oblivion so you could cling to
your preterist dates and conclude that the eternal state is all about
YOU HERE and NOW.

> "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of
> the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did
> lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And
> the nations of them which are saved shall walk in
> the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring
> their glory and honor into it. And the gates of it
> shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be
> no night there." - Rev 21:23-25
>
> "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever
> believeth on me should not abide in darkness."
> - John 12:46
>
> Tell me Randy...
>
> Do you still find it so easy to dismiss my view?

ibid.

oh gosh...still rambling...

It says the king of these locusts is an "angel" named Apollyon
(destroyer), and that they came from a "bottomless pit", after being
released by another angel with the key to the pit. The context of the
passage gives sufficient evidence to indicate these locusts are literal
angelic creatures, symbolically referred to as "locusts". The literal
position is not that there is no symbolism, but that if there is, the
text will indicate that, and offer an explanation. It does.

But even if it is referring to literal locusts, instead of literal
demons, just because you haven't seen a locust like the ones described,
doesn't mean they could not exist. The other day, I saw a documentary
on deep sea creatures. They are finding new ones all the time. I have
to tell you, I have never in my life seen anything looking so demonic
and hideous in any monster movie, as the things they're finding in the
ocean. At first, I didn't believe it, and thought they were CGI, but
they were real. If there are creatures in the ocean that we have never
seen before, that look like that, there is no reason to believe there
cannot be literal locusts that have features like Revelation describes.

> So there it is Randy. Symbolism without an explanation.
> Gee, imagine that!

There is explanation. An angel opens a bottomless pit, and the king of
the locusts is an angel. The passage offers evidence these are
apparently angelic creatures, and describes them as locusts. Or they
could be literal locusts that look like nothing you've ever seen before.

> You do what you want Randy. Go ahead and insult me
> some more and ignore the points you know I have made.
> All that will say about you, is that you are dishonest.
> That you know what happened here and that you know
> that your doctrine does not hold water, but you refuse
> to acknowledge it and that is pure pride, ego and vanity!
>
> So go ahead snip it to shreds and throw some insults
> and pretend it never happened, as you usually do. (:

You act like I'm the one who will insult and snip, but now I have read
and responded to every line of your post, without snipping anything.
YOU are the one who snipped every single point I made, and who seldom
responds to any of it.

Now, onto some information that I can actually use from you:

1) Does Agent 3.2 (or 3.3 to your knowledge) have a way to view the
levels of nested quotes with shaded colors and borders, as you can in
Thunderbird, with the colored Quotes extension?

2) Do you have a random quote extension for Agent, or know of one, that
allows you to generate random quotes? I haven't found one for Agent or
Thunderbird yet, that will do it.

3) Can you make sub-folders with Agent 3.2+?

4) Are there any skins available for Agent?

5) Is there any way to make the message list pane in Agent 3.2+ show in
ledger style, so that every other line is highlighted?

6) Can you control the color of the highlight bar in the message pane in
Agent 3.2+? I know you can adjust the color of the text, but can you
change the bar color now too?

7) Does the SSL work for SMTP login now, on Agent 3.2 plus, and is it
convenient and easy to set? Before, you had to manually edit the .ini
file. Google pop3 and smtp access requires SSL login, which was not
available in my 2+ Agent.

I've been using Thunderbird newsreader lately, and it's really
convenient. They have a lot of extensions and skins, and the ledger
view for the message pane, as well as convenient sorting and searching
options, and folder views of certain search criteria, so that all I have
to do is click a folder with pre-defined search parameters, and it
automatically populates with all the articles that meet those criteria
(such as people I know), etc.

However, I either haven't yet mastered the filtering system for killing
files and deleting posts, or else it's a little weak and buggy in
Thunderbird. I don't want to pay $29.00 for Agent just to get the
filtering system, if I can't get all the other convenient features of
Thunderbird.

[Read The Bible]

>> Read The Bible said:
>> By "the tribulation" I often mean that coming

>> series of events described in Mt.24:5-26 and
>> Rev.6-18.
>> -
> Fred replied:
> As opposed to the seven year period?

(Not necessarily. The Antichrist will make a
seven-year treaty with Israel, and won't break the
treaty until the midst of the seven years, when he'll
commit the abomination of desolation - Dan.9:27 - and
begin his 42-month reign - Rev.13:5. The Antichrist's
career is described in detail in Dan.11:21-45, with
the treaty referenced in v.23 and the abomination of
desolation in v.31. The tribulation will be longer
than the seven years that the Antichrist is on the
scene, for the great war of Dan.11:13-19 has to occur
before he even arises. This could be the great war of
Rev.6. How much longer than seven years the coming
tribulation of Rev.6-18 will last will depend on how
long the war of Rev.6 lasts.)

> Fred said:
> ...the Author tells us "tribulation" as the trouble

> we have in the world

(Yes, Jn.16:33 refers to that general, ongoing
tribulation. But Mt.24:21, Rev.7:14 refer to the
end-time "great" tribulation. Both tribulations occur
in the world.)

>> Read The Bible said:
>> The 144,000 are definitely Christians - Rev.14:4.)
>> -
> Fred replied:

> Don't refer to verses as though they say what you
> say when you're saying something different.

(Note that a reference after a statement doesn't have
to use the same words as the statement -- all the
reference has to do is contain information that
supports or illustrates the statement in some way. In
this case, Rev.14:4 supports the statement that the
144,000 are Christians because it shows that the
144,000 are followers of Christ. Followers of Christ
are Christians -- Act.11:26, 26:28; 1Pet. 4:16.
Otherwise, what in the world would they be? And
please don't answer "Jews", for they can be both Jews
and Christians, like Paul - Acts 22:3.)

> Fred said:
> The Christians are the church, who receive Him
> before He returns.

(Actually, there's no scripture that says or requires
that anyone who accepts Christ after His return will
not be a Christian. And, anyway, no scripture says or
requires that the 144,000 accept Christ after His
return. Indeed, they are already His servants before
His return - Rev.7:3.)

> Fred said:
> The folks who receive Christ after He returns are
> not Christians (Zech 12:10)

(How does Zech.12:10 support or illustrate your
statement?)

> Fred said:
> ...the verse makes it clear that they are not
> Christians.

(How? I don't see that anywhere.)

> Fred said:
> They are firstfruits.

(How does that make them not Christians?)

> Fred said:
> Jesus is the firstfruits of the church

> resurrection...

(Yes, but the 144,000 haven't been resurrected yet
in Rev.14:4. They're the firstfruits of the church in
another sense.)

---
> Fred referred to Rev.9:11

(Note that Rev.9:11 doesn't require that the locusts
would have the ability to recognize Christians without
some sort of seal visible to them.)

> Fred said:
> ...all Christians are sealed with the same Holy
> Spirit

(Yes, but the seal of Rev.7:3 isn't the seal of the
Holy Spirit, which the 144,000 would already have as
His servants. It's a visible seal like the one in
Ezek.9:4.)

> Fred referred to Eph.1:13

(Right, and the 144,000 couldn't be the servants of
God without being believers.)

> Fred referred to Mk.16:17

(Just as that doesn't require that every believer
speak in tongues - contrast 1Cor.12:30, so it doesn't
require that every believer can cast out demons.)

---
> Fred said:
> ...gentiles are adopted children of Israel, not

> children or tribes of the children of Israel.

(If Gentiles can be grafted into believing Israel -
Rom.11:17, then they can be grafted into one of its
tribes. Indeed, in the millennium, Gentiles could
even inherit the land of the particular tribe they've
been joined to - cf. Ezek.47:23.)

---
> Fred said:
> The 144,000 are Christ's after His coming

(This hasn't been shown from scripture. Instead,
it's been shown from scripture that they're
Christ's before His coming.)

> Fred claimed that the 144,000 are enemies-of-the-
> gospel

(No, no enemies of the gospel would be described as
the 144,000 are described in Rev.14:1-5.)

> Fred referred to Rom.11:28

(That refers to elect Jews who are still at that time
unbelievers. It has nothing to do with believing Jews
like the 144,000.)

> Fred said:
> You don't seem to pay much attention to anything
> He says.

(This hasn't been proved. Instead, what I haven't
paid attention to are claims not supported by
scripture.)

> Fred said:
> The 144,000 have not accepted Christ before He

> returns or they would be in the first resurrection

(No scripture says they aren't.)

> Fred said:
> ...they would not be first fruits of the other
> resurrection.

(They're not the firstfruits of any resurrection.)

---
>> Read The Bible said:
>> ...there are no true believers outside of the
>> church -- Eph.4:4-5.
>> -
> Fred replied:
> ...your verses say one thing and you say another.

(Again, this hasn't been proved. Eph.4:4-5 supports
the statement I made because it says there is one
faith and one body.)

> Fred said:
> ...the church is the few

(Yes, and even the great-multitude portion of the
church referred to in Rev.7:9 are few compared to the
far vaster number of those who are lost. Those in
Rev.7:9 have to be part of the few because they've
found the way - Rev.7:14, Mt.7:14, Jn.14:6.)

[Read The Bible]

> Fred said:
> Your "the tribulation" is imaginary

(Mt.24:21, Rev.7:14, Rev.6-18 isn't imaginary.)

> Fred said:
> Rev 14:1 refers to the Mt. Zion on earth

(Probably not, as during that time the Antichrist
will be in charge of the earthly Jerusalem -
Rev.13-14, 2Thess.2:4. The 144,000 are probably in
the heavenly Mt. Sion - Heb.12:22, since they've been
redeeemd from the earth and are before the throne of
God - Rev.14:1-5, thus probably fulfilling Rev.12:5.)

> Fred said:
> ...the 144,000 are the national saviors on Mt Zion
> in Obad.1:17-21

(Whether they are or not doesn't require that
Rev.14:1-5 is referring to the same place or time as
Obad.1:17-21. Indeed, Rev.14:1-5 is probably the
heavenly Sion during the reign of the Antichrist -
Rev.13-14, while Obad.1:17-21 is probably the
earthly Sion after the 2nd coming - cf. Zech.14:9,
Rev.20:4.)

---

> Fred said:
> Nothing was said of everyone having to be where
> Jesus is when He returns

(Jn.14:3, 1Thes.4:17, Mk.13:27 all require that every
believer be gathered to Jesus at His return.)

> Fred said:
> ...we all go at once.

(Right, but we don't go any higher than the clouds.
Jesus is returning to the earth. We meet Him on His
way down.)

>> Read The Bible said:
>> All Christians will then remain in His presence as
>> He descends to Jerusalem - Zech.14:4, Act.1:11-12 -
>> and begins His millennial reign on earth - Rev.20:6.

>> -

> Fred said:
> You say exactly the opposite of what He says.

> (1 Thes. 5:9)

(Actually, I don't, for 1Thes.5:9 doesn't say or
require that Christians won't remain in His presence
as He descends to Jerusalem and begins His millennial
reign on earth. It only requires that they aren't
subject to the eternal wrath opposed to salvation -
Jn.3:36. And even the temporal wrath of the vials -
Rev.16 - won't be directed at the Christians on the
earth in any way - cf. Is.26:20. They will be waiting
patiently for the 2nd coming - Rev.16:15, which
doesn't occur until after the vials, in Rev.19.)

> Fred referred to Rev.19:15

(That's a wrath subsequent to the vials in Rev.16.
And the wrath of Rev.19:15 won't be directed at
Christians either, for by that time they'll all have
been raptured to be with Jesus in the sky - Rev.19:14
- before He treads the winepress on the earth.)

> Fred said:
> ...we will reign with Him like the angels in
> heaven . . . (Mt. 22:30)

(Mt.22:30 refers only to being like the angels
insofar as we won't marry after the resurrection. It
in no way says or requires that we'll be in heaven
during the millennium. Indeed, Jesus will bring all
the angels with Him - Mt.25:31 - when He comes to
reign on the earth - Zech.14:4,9.)

>> Read The Bible said:
>> All Christians will be living on this old earth

>> with Jesus until His millennial reign ends -
>> Rev.20:6

> -

> Fred said:
> They are the bride descending in the place prepared
> for them, and they go there at His coming

> (Jn.14:2-3).

(No, the place prepared doesn't descend until after
the millennium and the subsequent battle of Gog and
Magog and the subsequent white throne judgment -
Rev.20-21. Nor does Jn.14:2-3 say or require that
anyone goes to the place prepared at the 2nd coming.)

(The literal city of Rev.21 is called the bride in
the symbolic sense that its form pictures the church
-- made up of both the twelve tribes of believing
Israel and the twelve apostles of the church -
v.12-14. The city can also be called the bride in the
sense that all of the church -- Jew and Gentile --
and only the church, will inhabit it - v.24-27.)

> Fred said:
> The church spends the day of the Lord in heaven

(No verse says that. Instead, the church won't spend
any of the thousand-year day of the Lord in heaven.
The day of the Lord begins with the second coming -
1Cor.1:7-8, which is in Rev.19, after the vials of
Rev.16. At the second coming, even the dead of the
church are brought down from heaven with Jesus -
1Thes.4:14 - so that they might be resurrected to
reign with Him on the earth for the 1000 years -
Rev.20:6, Rev.5:10, Jer.23:5.)

> Fred said:
> ...the day of the Lord is the day of His wrath

(It's a lot more than that, for it also includes
the peaceful aspects of the millennium on the earth -
Is.30:23-26, Mic.4:1-4)

> Fred said:
> ...the church is not appointed to wrath.

(Amen: none of the wrath of the vials - Rev.16, and
none of the subsequent wrath of the second coming -
Rev.19, and none of the subsequent wrath of the
millennium - Zech.14:17-19 -- none of these will be
directed against Christians in any way. So nothing
requires that all Christians be in the third heaven
during any of these times in order for them not to be
appointed to wrath.)

> Fred referred to Is.13:9-13

(That refers to the wrath of Rev.19, which is after
all Christians have been gathered into the sky to be
with Jesus.)

---
>> Read The Bible said:

>> Jn.13:36 refers to the death of Peter, by which he
>> was taken into the presence of the Lord in the

>> third heaven - 2Cor.5:8.)
>> -
> Fred replied:

> Read the Bible needs to read the Bible.

(How do you feel that the references I gave contradict
my statement? Note that Jn.13:36 refers to Peter's
future death when it says "thou shalt follow me
afterwards", and 2Cor.5:8 shows where believers go
when they die.)

[Read The Bible]

> Fred said:
> ...the church is the body of Christ, the manchild
> who ascends to heaven

(This hasn't been proved. The manchild of Rev.12:5
could be only the 144,000-portion of the church
caught up to the throne before the second coming -
Rev.14:5.)

>> Read The Bible said:
>> ...the 12 stars of Rev.12:1 might represent the
>> 12 Apostles.
>> -
> Fred replied:

> Not if you read your verses.

(Which verses would forbid it?)

---

> Fred said:
> Do you know our salvation is of the Jews?

(Yes - Jn.4:22, Rom.15:27.)

> Fred said:
> When you grasp that, you will no longer hold much of
> what you profess.

(Why not?)

---

> Fred said:
> Read the related verses, and it puts the church in
> heaven reigning with Christ.

(Actually, no verses say any such thing regarding the
time of the millennium.)

---
> Fred said:
> The 144,000 are Jews not Christians.

(The 144,000 are Christians - Rev.14:4.)

> Fred said that Rev.14:1-2 refers to the earthly
> Mt Zion.

(Nothing in Rev.14:1-2 says or requires that. John
is probably seeing a vision from heaven and hearing
a voice from heaven, as the 144,000 redeemed from
the earth are singing before the throne - Rev.14:3-5.)

---
>> Read The Bible said that all believers, Jew or
>> Gentile, have to do the commandments of God -

>> Mt.5:19, 7:21-29; Jn.14:15,21, 15:10; Acts 1:2;
>> 1 Cor.7:19, 14:37; 1Thess.4:2; Titus 1:16; Heb.5:9;
>> Jas.2:14-26; 1Jn.2:3-4, 3:22-24, 5:2-3; 2Jn.1:6;
>> Rev.14:12, 22:14

>> -
> Fred replied:
> ...again your verses don't say what you say.

(They do say that all Christians have to keep the
commandments of God. Please read them again.)

> Fred referred to Rom.8:1-2

(Rom.8:1-2 doesn't deny that all Christians have to
keep the commandments of God, for there is only no
condemnation if we remain in Jesus and don't walk
after the flesh. We don't remain in Jesus when we
don't keep His commandments - 1Jn.3:24, 2:4;
Jn.14:15,23-24; 15:10. If we walk after the flesh we
will be condemned -- Rom.8:13, Heb.10:26-27.)

(The law of sin and death in Rom.8:2 is the old
Mosaic law - Rom.7:7-11, which believers are not
under - Rom.6:14. Believers are under the new law of
Christ - 1Cor.9:21, Rom.8:1.)

> Fred referred to Gal.5:3

(That refers to the Old Mosaic law which believers
aren't under - Gal.3:24-25.)

> Fred referred to the enemy-of-the-gospel-elect,

> who have both the faith of Jesus and do the
> commandments.

(No one who believes in Jesus and obeys His
commmandments is an enemy of the gospel. Instead,
it's those who don't believe - 2Thess.3:2, or who
say they believe but don't obey - Titus 1:16 -- they
are the enemies of the gospel.)

> Fred said:
> Christians can be and will be saved without keeping

> the commandments

(Without keeping the old Mosaic commandmments, yes,
but not without keeping the new commandments of Jesus
- Heb.5:9, Mt.7:21-27.)

> Fred said:
> ...saying that Christians are not required to keep

> the commandments is not telling them to sin.

(Actually it is, whether you realize it or not, "for
sin is the transgression of the law" - 1Jn.3:4, the
law of Christ: "being not without law to God, but
under the law to Christ" - 1Cor.9:21. "He that saith,
I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a
liar, and the truth is not in him" - 1Jn.2:4. "And all
liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" -
Rev.21:8.)

> Fred said:
> ...It is simply saying what the scriptures say.

(Actually, no scriptures say what you said. It's a
horrible lie from the devil, who is the father of lies
- Jn.8:44; 1Jn.3:7-10. I urge you to reject this lie
and be restored to the truth of the scriptures -
1Jn.3:24, 1Thess.4:2, 1Cor.14:37, 1Cor.7:19, Jn.14:15.)

> Fred said:
> When you speak of the commandments of God you are
> speaking of the commandments of God, not just the
> ones you want to pick.

(I am speaking of the commandments of God which are in
effect, not the old ones which were disannulled -
Heb.7:18-19.)

> Fred referred to Mt.5:18

(The "all" of Mt.5:18 is the "all" of Lk.24:44, which
was fulfilled perfectly, so abolishing the old law -
Eph.2:15.)

> Fred said:
> ...citing verses that do not say what you say.

(You keep making this claim but haven't been able to
prove that the verses I've cited can't possibly
support my statements in any way.)

---
> Fred quoted Tertullian

(Do you agree with him that the church will be on
the earth "for a thousand years in the divinely-built
city of Jerusalem, 'let down from heaven'"? I thought
you said the church would remain in heaven for the
1000 years. And regarding the quotation, note that the
New Jerusalem will not descend until after the
millennium and subsequent events - Rev.20-21, for
it descends to the new earth, not the old one --
Rev.21:1-2.)

> Fred quoted Justin Martyr

(He's referring to the earthly Jerusalem when he says
"dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem", and he's right.)

> Fred quoted Irenaeus

(He's also referring to an earthly millenial kingdom,
and he's also right. Nevertheless, let us in the
future stick with only the scriptures themselves, or
only use quotations of men that reference specific
scriptures, for in the end we'll have to go to the
scriptures anyway to know whether anything any man
says is right - Acts 17:11.)

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149656197.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > Fred said:
> > ...the church is the body of Christ, the manchild
> > who ascends to heaven
>
> (This hasn't been proved. The manchild of Rev.12:5
> could be only the 144,000-portion of the church
> caught up to the throne before the second coming -
> Rev.14:5.)

The Spirit didn't tell you? Too bad! They're still on earth after the
manchild departed for heaven, which excludes them from being the manchild
and the church.

>
> >> Read The Bible said:
> >> ...the 12 stars of Rev.12:1 might represent the
> >> 12 Apostles.
> >> -
> > Fred replied:
> > Not if you read your verses.
>
> (Which verses would forbid it?)

Forbid? Require? Satan's vocabulary, Adolph?

It's a matter of reference:
Genesis 37:9
And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said,
Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and
the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

So that's how you read the verses. A verse doesn't have to be relevant to
what you read into it. It simply doesn't forbid it.

> ---
> > Fred said:
> > Do you know our salvation is of the Jews?
>
> (Yes - Jn.4:22, Rom.15:27.)
>
> > Fred said:
> > When you grasp that, you will no longer hold much of
> > what you profess.
>
> (Why not?)

Because with the other fork of your tongue you say it is of the church. The
church is saved by being grafted into Israel. Salvation is a matter of
belief in Him, not a matter of being conformed to the image of His son.

> ---
> > Fred said:
> > Read the related verses, and it puts the church in
> > heaven reigning with Christ.
>
> (Actually, no verses say any such thing regarding the
> time of the millennium.)
>

ROTFL!!!!

The Rapture: What is it? When is it?

In scripture the rapture is described in 1Thess 4:17 Then we which are alive
and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the
Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. It is our being
caught up to meet the Lord. As He promised I go to prepare a place for you
and I will come again, and receive you unto myself (John 14:2-3).

The word rapture comes from the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible deinde
nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam
Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus. The we...shall be caught up
in English is rapiemur in Latin. Rapiemur is the future passive of the Latin
verb for to seize away [rapio, -ere, rapui, raptum], and the English word
rapture comes from the future participle of rapio [rapturus, -a, -um], just
as the English word capture comes from the Latin word capio.

Our Lord was referring to the rapture in Matt 24:30-31 when He said, 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 in
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send 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. However, the
rapture is only part of this thorough gathering of all His elect. In
addition to the Christians who will be gathered into His rest (Heb 4:9), and
go to the place prepared (John 14:2-3), the heavenly city (Heb 11:16). The
enemy-of-the-gospel elect are also gathered: As concerning the gospel, they
are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved
for the fathers' sakes (Rom 11:28). They enter His wrath instead of His
rest: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest
(Ps 95:11). As we go to the place prepared for us, they are returned to
Israel: Ezek 37:12 Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause
you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel,
where they are saved after He has arrived And I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they
shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in
bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn (Zech
12:10) and For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their
sins (Rom 11:27). The gathering of his elect from the four winds, from one
end of heaven to the other is all of His elect.

In Matt 24:37 the Lord says, But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the
coming of the Son of man be, and in Gen 7:16-17 it is written And they that
went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and
the LORD shut him in. And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the
waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
The door was shut and the flood was on the earth. The door to His rest is
shut when the last gentile enters-in: For I would not, brethren, that ye

should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of

the Gentiles be come in" (Rom 11:25)], as in the days of Noah, His wrath
will rain down upon the earth. We are also told that the rapture follows the
revealing of the man on sin: Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be
not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor
by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man
deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a
falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself
that he is God (2 Thess 2:1-4). These verses not only tell us that His
coming and our being gathered to Him will follow the revealing of the
antichrist, but also tell us how he will be revealed. He will sit in the
temple shewing himself to be God by sitting in God's place: the mercy seat
between the cherubim on the ark of the covenant.

The time of the rapture is at the time when the two witnesses ascend into
heaven in Rev 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto
them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their
enemies beheld them. The two witnesses are part of all His elect which are
gathered from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (Matt
24:31). They are changed, putting on immortality and ascending into heaven,
at the same time, the same twinkling of an eye, that we all are changed at
the last trump in Rev 11 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality

(1Cor 15:51-53). The church enters His rest and the rest of mankind enters
His wrath.

The rest into which the church enters but His-enemy-of-the-gospel elect do
not enter is His day of rest Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in
David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear
his voice, harden not your hearts (Heb 4:7). It is the same day as the day
of the Lord But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein
shall be burned up (2Pet 3:10). It begins with His coming like a thief in
the night and ends at the end of His 1000 year reign when there is a new
heaven and a new earth And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea" (Rev
21:1) and His bride, the church, descends in the place He prepared for her

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of

heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband (Rev 21:2).

It is written in 2 Pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as
one day, and the day of His rest, the day of the Lord, is a 1000 year day,
which is the third day of the prophecy in Hosea 6:2 to Jews who will live in
His millennial reign After two days will he revive us: in the third day he
will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

What is revealed by the 1000 year days in scripture is a week of 1000 year
days with the last day of the week being the day of the Lord, the day of His
rest. The three days of Hosea 6:2, the three at the end of the week, are
what scripture calls the last days, and the first day is the day in which
Adam ate of the forbidden fruit and died at the age of 930 But of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen 2:17).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~

Early Church Father Tertullian"

Early Church Father Irenaeus:

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149656065....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > Fred said:
> > Your "the tribulation" is imaginary
>
> (Mt.24:21, Rev.7:14, Rev.6-18 isn't imaginary.)

No the scriptures aren't imaginary, just what you claim they say. They don't
say He contradicted Himself when He said: "In the world ye shall have
tribulation" (John 16:33).

> > Fred said:
> > Rev 14:1 refers to the Mt. Zion on earth
>
> (Probably not, as during that time the Antichrist
> will be in charge of the earthly Jerusalem -
> Rev.13-14, 2Thess.2:4. The 144,000 are probably in
> the heavenly Mt. Sion - Heb.12:22, since they've been
> redeeemd from the earth and are before the throne of
> God - Rev.14:1-5, thus probably fulfilling Rev.12:5.)

Read the text as John is describing them He hears a voice from someplace
else, heaven, and they are gathered to fullfil the prophecy of Obadiah .and
"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth" (Rev. 14:13).

>
> > Fred said:
> > ...the 144,000 are the national saviors on Mt Zion
> > in Obad.1:17-21
>
> (Whether they are or not doesn't require that
> Rev.14:1-5 is referring to the same place or time as
> Obad.1:17-21. Indeed, Rev.14:1-5 is probably the
> heavenly Sion during the reign of the Antichrist -
> Rev.13-14, while Obad.1:17-21 is probably the
> earthly Sion after the 2nd coming - cf. Zech.14:9,
> Rev.20:4.)

That both Obad 1:17-21 and Rev 14 as well as Zech 14 :are on earth is a
matter of reading.

>
> ---
> > Fred said:
> > Nothing was said of everyone having to be where
> > Jesus is when He returns
>
> (Jn.14:3, 1Thes.4:17, Mk.13:27 all require that every
> believer be gathered to Jesus at His return.)

Your claim was that I said it, and I didn't. I'm clear on the concept of God
and know that He is there when He is here, as He confirms: "no man hath
ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of
man which is in heaven" (John 3:13).

>
> > Fred said:
> > ...we all go at once.
>
> (Right, but we don't go any higher than the clouds.
> Jesus is returning to the earth. We meet Him on His
> way down.)

Not in my Bible: In my Bible we're shown two of the all ascending to the
place prepared for them as He returns for the day of the Lord:

Rev. 11:11-12
And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered
into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them
which saw them. [12] And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto

them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their
enemies beheld them.

Rev. 14:2-3
And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the
voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with
their harps: [3] And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and
before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but
the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

In which they, the bride of Christ, descends when the day of the Lord is
over:

Rev. 21:1-2

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the

first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. [2] And I John saw

the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared

as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev. 21:9-11
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials
full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I
will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. [10] And he carried me away in
the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, [11] Having the glory of
God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper
stone, clear as crystal;

> >> Read The Bible said:
> >> All Christians will then remain in His presence as
> >> He descends to Jerusalem - Zech.14:4, Act.1:11-12 -
> >> and begins His millennial reign on earth - Rev.20:6.
> >> -
> > Fred said:
> > You say exactly the opposite of what He says.
> > (1 Thes. 5:9)
>
> (Actually, I don't, for 1Thes.5:9 doesn't say or
> require that Christians won't remain in His presence
> as He descends to Jerusalem and begins His millennial
> reign on earth. It only requires that they aren't
> subject to the eternal wrath opposed to salvation -
> Jn.3:36. And even the temporal wrath of the vials -
> Rev.16 - won't be directed at the Christians on the
> earth in any way - cf. Is.26:20. They will be waiting
> patiently for the 2nd coming - Rev.16:15, which
> doesn't occur until after the vials, in Rev.19.)

Duh... He is omnipresent. Remember? Reread: "no man hath ascended up to
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in
heaven" (John 3:13). He was there while He was here.

For the church, the day of His rest is the day of His wrath (Heb. 4:4, 9)
they are appointed to rest, not wrath (1 Thess 5:9), who is appointed to
wrath is the enemy-of-the-gospel (Rom 11:28) elect "unto whom I sware in my

wrath that they should not enter into my rest" (Ps 95:11).

> > Fred referred to Rev.19:15

>
> (That's a wrath subsequent to the vials in Rev.16.
> And the wrath of Rev.19:15 won't be directed at
> Christians either, for by that time they'll all have
> been raptured to be with Jesus in the sky - Rev.19:14
> - before He treads the winepress on the earth.)

Duh... Read the Bible needs to read the Bible. The wrath we are shown in Rev
19:15 is the same wrath which came at the last trump as the 24 elders
announced in Rev 11:18, the wrath in Rev 15:1: "And I saw another sign in
heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues;
for in them is filled up the wrath of God" (Rev. 15:1).

>
> > Fred said:
> > ...we will reign with Him like the angels in
> > heaven . . . (Mt. 22:30)
>
> (Mt.22:30 refers only to being like the angels
> insofar as we won't marry after the resurrection. It
> in no way says or requires that we'll be in heaven
> during the millennium. Indeed, Jesus will bring all
> the angels with Him - Mt.25:31 - when He comes to
> reign on the earth - Zech.14:4,9.)

So you say, He says we will be as the angels in heaven: "For in the
resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the
angels of God in heaven" (Matt 22:30). Sexual orgasm

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149655933.4...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> >> Read The Bible said:
> >> By "the tribulation" I often mean that coming
> >> series of events described in Mt.24:5-26 and
> >> Rev.6-18.
> >> -
> > Fred replied:
> > As opposed to the seven year period?
>
> (Not necessarily. The Antichrist will make a
> seven-year treaty with Israel, and won't break the
> treaty until the midst of the seven years, when he'll
> commit the abomination of desolation - Dan.9:27 - and
> begin his 42-month reign - Rev.13:5. The Antichrist's
> career is described in detail in Dan.11:21-45, with
> the treaty referenced in v.23 and the abomination of
> desolation in v.31. The tribulation will be longer
> than the seven years that the Antichrist is on the
> scene, for the great war of Dan.11:13-19 has to occur
> before he even arises. This could be the great war of
> Rev.6. How much longer than seven years the coming
> tribulation of Rev.6-18 will last will depend on how
> long the war of Rev.6 lasts.)

You're off on a tangent.The discussion is tribulation, and He still says
tribulation is what we have in the world (John 16:33), not a seven year
period. Keep putting your words in His mouth, and kep getting more confused.

> > Fred said:
> > ...the Author tells us "tribulation" as the trouble
> > we have in the world
>
> (Yes, Jn.16:33 refers to that general, ongoing
> tribulation. But Mt.24:21, Rev.7:14 refer to the
> end-time "great" tribulation. Both tribulations occur
> in the world.)
>

Your words, not His. "The great tribulation" of Rev 7:14 out of which came
the "great multitude, which no man could number," includes the few chosen of
the many called, such as Stephen (Acts 7:59), of the first resurrection and
the resurrection among the rest of the dead who "lived not again until the
thousand years were finished" (Rev 20:5). The tribulation we have in the
world.

> >> Read The Bible said:
> >> The 144,000 are definitely Christians - Rev.14:4.)
> >> -
> > Fred replied:
> > Don't refer to verses as though they say what you
> > say when you're saying something different.
>
> (Note that a reference after a statement doesn't have
> to use the same words as the statement -- all the
> reference has to do is contain information that
> supports or illustrates the statement in some way. In
> this case, Rev.14:4 supports the statement that the
> 144,000 are Christians because it shows that the
> 144,000 are followers of Christ. Followers of Christ
> are Christians -- Act.11:26, 26:28; 1Pet. 4:16.
> Otherwise, what in the world would they be? And
> please don't answer "Jews", for they can be both Jews
> and Christians, like Paul - Acts 22:3.)

Every knee bows to Christ (Philip 2:10), the enemy-of-the-gospel (Rom 11:28)
elect follow Him when He returns (Zech 12:10), the few chosen of the many
called Christians follow Him before He returns, but only the Christians are
Christians. What would they be? He tells us. They are firstfruits. Jesus is
the firstfruits of the first resurrection, and they are the firstfruits of
the resurrection of judgment, the rest of the dead (Rev: 20:4) who are found
written in the book of life (Rev 20:15). They are Jews "of all the tribes of
the children of Israel," not Christian adopted by Israel.

>
> > Fred said:
> > The Christians are the church, who receive Him
> > before He returns.
>
> (Actually, there's no scripture that says or requires
> that anyone who accepts Christ after His return will
> not be a Christian. And, anyway, no scripture says or
> requires that the 144,000 accept Christ after His
> return. Indeed, they are already His servants before
> His return - Rev.7:3.)

Required? Scripture does require one opinion, What is required to
communicate is that the folks comminicating mean the same thing when they
use a word, and we were using it to refer to members of His church. If
you're using it differently, we're no longer communicating. And for the
record, Christian is a name the world used to designate the disciples: "the
disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26).

>
> > Fred said:
> > The folks who receive Christ after He returns are
> > not Christians (Zech 12:10)
>
> (How does Zech.12:10 support or illustrate your
> statement?)

Read it! The grace they receive is poured out after He returns. It is
difficult to understand what the Author is saying when you ignore what He is
saying.

>
> > Fred said:
> > ...the verse makes it clear that they are not
> > Christians.
>
> (How? I don't see that anywhere.)

How could you. You've decided they are and ignore the scriptures which show
they aren't.

>
> > Fred said:
> > They are firstfruits.
>
> (How does that make them not Christians?)
>

Duh... Because there are only two resurrections, the resurrection at His
coming of Christians of which Christ is the firstfruits, and the
resurrection of judgment of which they are the firstfruits. It's a matter of
paying attention to what the Author is saying.

> > Fred said:
> > Jesus is the firstfruits of the church
> > resurrection...
>
> (Yes, but the 144,000 haven't been resurrected yet
> in Rev.14:4. They're the firstfruits of the church in
> another sense.)

That they are the firstfruits tells you they aren't in the resurrection of
the church of which Chriszt is the firstfruits.

> ---
> > Fred referred to Rev.9:11
>
> (Note that Rev.9:11 doesn't require that the locusts
> would have the ability to recognize Christians without
> some sort of seal visible to them.)

O brother! You should have read the verse, for the king over them is the
only one who has to notice:
Rev. 9:11

And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit,
whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his

name Apollyon.

> > Fred said:
> > ...all Christians are sealed with the same Holy
> > Spirit
>
> (Yes, but the seal of Rev.7:3 isn't the seal of the
> Holy Spirit, which the 144,000 would already have as
> His servants. It's a visible seal like the one in
> Ezek.9:4.)

????????? Christians are still sealed.

>
> > Fred referred to Eph.1:13
>
> (Right, and the 144,000 couldn't be the servants of
> God without being believers.)

JW round dance? According to Eph 1:13, if they were Christians they would
have already been sealed.

> > Fred referred to Mk.16:17
>
> (Just as that doesn't require that every believer
> speak in tongues - contrast 1Cor.12:30, so it doesn't
> require that every believer can cast out demons.)

No wonder you can't see anything, a verse is cited to show that believers
have authority to cast out demons, and you start babbling about talking in
tongues and whether believers are required to cast out demons.

> ---
> > Fred said:
> > ...gentiles are adopted children of Israel, not
> > children or tribes of the children of Israel.
>
> (If Gentiles can be grafted into believing Israel -
> Rom.11:17, then they can be grafted into one of its
> tribes. Indeed, in the millennium, Gentiles could
> even inherit the land of the particular tribe they've
> been joined to - cf. Ezek.47:23.)

They are grafted into Israel, not grafted into the children of Israel. You
can't understand what the Author is saying if you don't pay attention to
what the Author is saying.

> ---
> > Fred said:
> > The 144,000 are Christ's after His coming
>
> (This hasn't been shown from scripture. Instead,
> it's been shown from scripture that they're
> Christ's before His coming.)

You can't read the posts either.

> > Fred claimed that the 144,000 are enemies-of-the-
> > gospel
>
> (No, no enemies of the gospel would be described as
> the 144,000 are described in Rev.14:1-5.)
>

The problem is that scripture makes it patently clear, as you already know,
for instead of addressing all the scriptures making it clear, you try to
nit-pick at them, one at a time.

> > Fred referred to Rom.11:28
>
> (That refers to elect Jews who are still at that time
> unbelievers. It has nothing to do with believing Jews
> like the 144,000.)

Your words, not His. The 144,000 are sealed because they aren't already
sealed like the church, so they and the church will be protected. After He
returns, both believer.

>
> > Fred said:
> > You don't seem to pay much attention to anything
> > He says.
>
> (This hasn't been proved. Instead, what I haven't
> paid attention to are claims not supported by
> scripture.)

ROTFL!!! see the posts and above.

> > Fred said:
> > The 144,000 have not accepted Christ before He
> > returns or they would be in the first resurrection
>
> (No scripture says they aren't.)

You for got they're firstfruits, but Christ is the first fruits of the first
resurrection.

>
> > Fred said:
> > ...they would not be first fruits of the other
> > resurrection.
>
> (They're not the firstfruits of any resurrection.)

Some much for your alleged discernment. If Read the Bile had read the Bible,
he would have known the firstfruits were of the garvests, and that the
resurrections are the harvests, of the earth there are two harvests and two
firstfruits, one for each harvest.

> ---
> >> Read The Bible said:
> >> ...there are no true believers outside of the
> >> church -- Eph.4:4-5.
> >> -
> > Fred replied:
> > ...your verses say one thing and you say another.
>
> (Again, this hasn't been proved. Eph.4:4-5 supports
> the statement I made because it says there is one
> faith and one body.)

See your statement above. Now you've flopped back to Christians being
synonoamoius with the church.

Again, you won't understand what He is saying if ignore what He is saying.
It says there is one body and one faith in the church, and anyone reading it
with discernment, knows that of the three baptisms, there is only one that
is unique to the church.

Hebrews 6:2
Of the doctrine of baptisms....

Matthew 28:19
... baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit:
Acts 8:15-17
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive
the Holy Ghost: [16] (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) [17] Then laid they their
hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:15-17
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive
the Holy Ghost: [16] (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) [17] Then laid they their
hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The baptism unique to the church is the baptim of the Holy Spirit.

>
> > Fred said:
> > ...the church is the few
>
> (Yes, and even the great-multitude portion of the
> church referred to in Rev.7:9 are few compared to the
> far vaster number of those who are lost. Those in
> Rev.7:9 have to be part of the few because they've
> found the way - Rev.7:14, Mt.7:14, Jn.14:6.)
>

The innumerable multitude isn't the few.It's the Author who describes
Christians, who judge the rest (1 Cor 6:2), as the few chosen of the many,
and the saved as the innumerable multitude.

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149656065....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > Fred said:
> > Your "the tribulation" is imaginary
>
> (Mt.24:21, Rev.7:14, Rev.6-18 isn't imaginary.)

No the scriptures aren't imaginary, just what you claim they say. They don't

say He contradicted Himself when He said: "In the world ye shall have
tribulation" (John 16:33).

> > Fred said:

> > Rev 14:1 refers to the Mt. Zion on earth
>
> (Probably not, as during that time the Antichrist
> will be in charge of the earthly Jerusalem -
> Rev.13-14, 2Thess.2:4. The 144,000 are probably in
> the heavenly Mt. Sion - Heb.12:22, since they've been
> redeeemd from the earth and are before the throne of
> God - Rev.14:1-5, thus probably fulfilling Rev.12:5.)

Read the text as John is describing them He hears a voice from someplace

else, heaven, and they are gathered to fullfil the prophecy of Obadiah .and
"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth" (Rev. 14:13).

>

> > Fred said:
> > ...the 144,000 are the national saviors on Mt Zion
> > in Obad.1:17-21
>
> (Whether they are or not doesn't require that
> Rev.14:1-5 is referring to the same place or time as
> Obad.1:17-21. Indeed, Rev.14:1-5 is probably the
> heavenly Sion during the reign of the Antichrist -
> Rev.13-14, while Obad.1:17-21 is probably the
> earthly Sion after the 2nd coming - cf. Zech.14:9,
> Rev.20:4.)

That both Obad 1:17-21 and Rev 14 as well as Zech 14 :are on earth is a
matter of reading.

>

> ---
> > Fred said:
> > Nothing was said of everyone having to be where
> > Jesus is when He returns
>
> (Jn.14:3, 1Thes.4:17, Mk.13:27 all require that every
> believer be gathered to Jesus at His return.)

Your claim was that I said it, and I didn't. I'm clear on the concept of God

and know that He is there when He is here, as He confirms: "no man hath
ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of
man which is in heaven" (John 3:13).

>

> > Fred said:
> > ...we all go at once.
>
> (Right, but we don't go any higher than the clouds.
> Jesus is returning to the earth. We meet Him on His
> way down.)

Not in my Bible: In my Bible we're shown two of the all ascending to the

> >> Read The Bible said:

> >> All Christians will then remain in His presence as
> >> He descends to Jerusalem - Zech.14:4, Act.1:11-12 -
> >> and begins His millennial reign on earth - Rev.20:6.
> >> -
> > Fred said:
> > You say exactly the opposite of what He says.
> > (1 Thes. 5:9)
>
> (Actually, I don't, for 1Thes.5:9 doesn't say or
> require that Christians won't remain in His presence
> as He descends to Jerusalem and begins His millennial
> reign on earth. It only requires that they aren't
> subject to the eternal wrath opposed to salvation -
> Jn.3:36. And even the temporal wrath of the vials -
> Rev.16 - won't be directed at the Christians on the
> earth in any way - cf. Is.26:20. They will be waiting
> patiently for the 2nd coming - Rev.16:15, which
> doesn't occur until after the vials, in Rev.19.)

Duh... He is omnipresent. Remember? Reread: "no man hath ascended up to

heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in
heaven" (John 3:13). He was there while He was here.

For the church, the day of His rest is the day of His wrath (Heb. 4:4, 9)
they are appointed to rest, not wrath (1 Thess 5:9), who is appointed to
wrath is the enemy-of-the-gospel (Rom 11:28) elect "unto whom I sware in my
wrath that they should not enter into my rest" (Ps 95:11).

> > Fred referred to Rev.19:15

>
> (That's a wrath subsequent to the vials in Rev.16.
> And the wrath of Rev.19:15 won't be directed at
> Christians either, for by that time they'll all have
> been raptured to be with Jesus in the sky - Rev.19:14
> - before He treads the winepress on the earth.)

Duh... Read the Bible needs to read the Bible. The wrath we are shown in Rev

19:15 is the same wrath which came at the last trump as the 24 elders
announced in Rev 11:18, the wrath in Rev 15:1: "And I saw another sign in
heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues;
for in them is filled up the wrath of God" (Rev. 15:1).

>

> > Fred said:
> > ...we will reign with Him like the angels in
> > heaven . . . (Mt. 22:30)
>
> (Mt.22:30 refers only to being like the angels
> insofar as we won't marry after the resurrection. It
> in no way says or requires that we'll be in heaven
> during the millennium. Indeed, Jesus will bring all
> the angels with Him - Mt.25:31 - when He comes to
> reign on the earth - Zech.14:4,9.)

So you say, He says we will be as the angels in heaven: "For in the
resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the
angels of God in heaven" (Matt 22:30). Then we descend (Rev 21:1-2).

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his
servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7)."

"Behold, I will send you EL YH [LORD God] the prophet before the coming of
the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (Mal 4:5)

"Why then say the scribes that ELYH [Elijah] must first come" (Matt 17:10)?

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom
11:25).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149656065....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[Read The Bible]

> Dave said:
> Revelation was *A VISION*. And it USED *SYMBOLS*.

(Note that even a vision that uses symbols can be
fulfilled in a visible, physical fashion on the
earth, just as Daniel's symbolic vision of the growth
of the Medo-Persian empire, and Alexander the Great's
rapid conquest of it, and Alexander's death and the
breakup of the Greek Empire into four parts -
Daniel 8:1-8,20-22 - was all fulfilled in a visible,
physical fashion.)

(Just a side note: Out of one of these four parts of
the Greek Empire will come the "little horn" -
Daniel 8:9, the Antichrist, who I expect will arise
out of Lebanon and "wax exceeding great, toward the
south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant
land" - Daniel 8:9. This could be fulfilled by his
taking control of a Baathist union of Egypt (south),
Syria (east), and Iraq (east), which will also be
occupying Israel (the pleasant land), and which could
have been put together by an Iraqi Baathist general
by force of arms - Daniel 11:13-19.)

(But putting that aside -- we shall see as we go
through the book of Revelation that most of it isn't
even symbolic, or doesn't have to be symbolic because
there are possible literal fulfillments for what John
saw.)

(John first saw a literal throne in heaven surrounded
by literal creatures and angels worshipping God -
Revelation 4:2-5:14. He later saw a literal war that
will happen, possibly the Middle East war of
Daniel 11:13-19, that, with its aftermath of famine,
will affect one-fourth of the earth -
Revelation 6:1-8. John next saw literal martyrs in
heaven who will ask God how long before He brings His
judgment on the earth - Revelation 6:9-11. Then John
saw what could be a literal cataclysm - possibly
volcanic in nature - that will have people fleeing to
hide themselves in caves in the mountains -
Revelation 6:12-15.)

(And that's just the beginning. For then a strange
object from space, perhaps a large frozen comet laden
with reddish dust, could explode in the atmosphere
and rain down something which could appear like a
burning blood-red hail, which could cause a massive
forest-fire in someplace like Siberia which could burn
up one-third of the earth's trees and all the grasses
surrounding them - Revelation 8:7.)

(Then a large island volcano, perhaps in someplace
like the Canary Islands, could suddenly explode so
that an entire side of it collapses into the ocean,
causing a massive tsunami that could race across the
Atlantic and destroy the East Coast of the US and
one-third of the world's ships. The collapsed volcano
could send forth massive clouds of reddish ash that
could fall into the ocean so that one-third of the
world's seawater appears blood-red. The ash could
kill a lot of the plankton, so that the sea creatures
up the food chain in that area would die of
starvation; and the ash could also clog sea creatures'
gills so that they would suffocate -- in these two
ways one-third of the world's sea creatures could
die - Revelation 8:8-9.)

(Then another object could fall from space, perhaps
a comet or asteroid laden with poisonous elements. It
could explode above some place like the Great Lakes
region, its dust falling and ruining one-third of the
world's fresh water, to the point where many people
will die from trying to drink it - Revelation 8:10-11.)

(By this time, the world could have detected another
asteroid or comet approaching the earth and could
have readied nuclear missiles to explode it in outer
space. But the exploded object could remain as a huge
dust cloud in orbit around the earth, a cloud so wide
that it fills one-third of the sky, and so thick that
it blocks out the light from the sun, moon, and
stars. In the right orbit, it could then block out
the sun for a third of the day, and block out the
moon and the stars for a third of the night -
Revelation 8:12.)

(Note that these events have all been affecting
one-third of this or that. This may be because God
will be allowing Satan to work ruin on the earth,
just as God allowed Satan to ruin one-third of the
angelic creatures in heaven so that they were cast
down to the earth long ago - Revelation 12:4, many
being bound in the depths of hell - 2 Peter 2:4.)

(But during the coming tribulation, God will allow
the bottomless pit to be unlocked, releasing strange
locust-like possibly-demonic creatures that will rush
up out of the bottomless pit and wreak havoc on the
earth, stinging men and causing excruciating pain for
five months - Revelation 9:1-11.)

(Then four powerful fallen-angels who have been bound
in the Euphrates will be loosed, and they will lead
a horde of 200,000,000 possibly-demonic creatures
that look something like men on horseback and who are
allowed to kill one-third of mankind with fire, smoke,
and brimstone that comes out of the horses' mouths --
Revelation 9:13-19.)

(And since it says that Satan will give the Antichrist
all of his power - Revelation 13:4, will Satan give
the army of the 200,000,000 horsemen to the Antichrist
as the means by which he will conquer the world, to
the point where no one will even try to make war
against him? - Revelation 13:4-7)

(You may say "All of this is ridiculous; it's
insane." But not necessarily. Science fiction has
prepared the world for "alien invasions", and one
X-Files story-line even has something like ancient
aliens that are still alive in a dormant state under
the ground. So those who reject as insane all talk of
demonic creatures coming up from hell could simply
understand the locusts and horsemen as armies of
"aliens" coming up out of the earth, where they had
lain dormant for thousands of years.)

(If you do believe in demonic creatures in hell, you
may still reject any idea that God would allow them
to come up and interact with mankind, saying something
like, "Look, if God has never allowed demons to
physically appear and interact with mankind during all
these thousands of years, He's not going to in the
future either. These weird locusts and horsemen must
just be far-out symbols of something else -- who knows
what." But, the fact is that in the past God did allow
disobedient angelic creatures to interact with
mankind, and not only to interact but even to breed
with mankind, creating angelic-human hybrids who were
of giant stature - Genesis 6:2,4.)

(Science fiction has prepared mankind to even think of
such a thing as Genesis 6:2,4 in an "alien" fashion:
as an alien race that came down and made hybrids with
humans. And once again it's the X-Files that have
worked the idea of alien-human hybrids into a great
many of its episodes.)

(Note that there's an interesting aspect to the name
"X-Files": if we abbreviate the name as X-F and
replace the blank space with O, we get XOF; and in an
English gematria like the Hebrew and Greek gematria,
XOF = 666, just as FOX = 666. Were the X-Files with
"Fox" Mulder originally on Fox? Will that network and
the "alien" ideas of the X-Files be employed by that
man the letters of whose name will also add up to 666
- Revelation 13:18, i.e. the Antichrist?)

(And once again you may say, "This is nuts! You're
crazy as a fox!" Okay, then just think of all of this
as science fiction. Then it can become interesting,
instead of crazy, right?)

[Read The Bible]

(When the Antichrist reigns over the earth, he'll
make everybody worship him as God - Revelation 13:8.
He'll have this great religious leader - possibly the
next Pope - who will be his "prophet", and who will
be able to do amazing miracles like calling fire down
from heaven - Revelation 13:13. Now you may think,
"Oh, all that False Prophet stuff's just symbolism
for something else -- who knows what." Not
necessarily, for the prophet Elijah was able to
literally and repeatedly call fire down from heaven -
2 Kings 1:10,12; 18:37-38. So there's no reason
why the miracle performed by the False Prophet
couldn't be just as literal.)

(And if God could empower Elijah to literally call
fire down from heaven, there's no reason that He
couldn't empower "the two witnesses" to literally
shoot fire from their mouths - Revelation 11:5, which
will happen possibly during the same time as the
Antichrist's rule. These two witnesses will also be
able to do other miracles like turn water into blood
and keep it from raining for years on end -- miracles
already literally performed by Moses and Elijah in
Old Testament times - Exodus 7:20, James 5:17.)

(Now the False Prophet of the Antichrist will make
some sort of "image" of the Antichrist which will be
able to speak, and to kill anyone who won't worship
it - Revelation 13:15. You may say, "Oh, bosh! More
symbolism of who knows what." But why can't this also
be literal? What about a holographic image projected
into every living room and office at set times to be
worshipped? Or a two-dimensional image could simply
appear on the screen of every computer and cell
phone at set times. There could be tiny cameras and
motion sensors attached to each holograph projector
and computer and cell-phone which would send video
images and motion data to a master supercomputer,
which would be able to interpret the body movements
and positions of all people everywhere, making sure
they're all properly bowing down to the image.)

(A supercomputer connected to the cameras would be
able to confirm who each person is through
facial-recognition software, or by tiny RFID chips
embedded in their hands or foreheads; and it could
speak out through a speaker in each holograph
projector, computer, and cell phone, with a voice
that sounds exactly like the Antichrist's voice --
"I see you, John Smith! You refuse to bow before me?
Bow down now or you shall die!" And if John Smith
refuses, all of his credit and debit accounts could
be immediately shut down and the Antichrist's local
police could be immediately sent to "bring him in"
to be publicly beheaded.)

(Or, if this high tech approach will be impossible
because of the disastrous state of the world at that
time, or because the majority of the people in
developing countries simply won't have all the
gadgets required, the Antichrist could go low tech
and make a statue of himself, of which myriad copies
could be made and placed in every village or town
square. The statue could contain a speaker through
which his voice could proclaim endless bombast
recorded in whatever language is required. And
everyone could be rounded up at set times - say,
once a week - to the center of town to worship the
statue in the sight of the local police, who would
enforce the worship on pain of death.)

(I can hear you now: "More stupid nonsense! It will
never happen. None of Revelation 13:15 is literal;
it's just symbols for some unknown thing." But hasn't
something similar already literally happened? Didn't
Nebuchadnezzar make a statue of himself that everyone
had to worship at set times? - Daniel 3:1-7. And note
that in Daniel the worship time was announced - and
the act of worship probably accompanied by - a musical
symphony, which was probably quite beautiful. What if
the Antichrist does the same thing? What if he with
Satan's help is able to write or have someone else
write the most beautiful symphony every written,
better than the best of Mozart or Bach, a symphony
that causes instant and utter bliss in anyone who
hears it. And what if this symphony sounds from every
speaker of every statue, and from every computer, and
every cell phone, and every holograph projector around
the world at the same time, letting everyone know that
now, now is the time to blissfully bow down and
worship the image of Our Beautiful Master!)

(In whatever fashion Revelation 13:15 is fulfilled,
high-tech or low-tech, scripture says many Christians
will be beheaded for refusing to worship the
Antichrist and his image - Revelation 20:4.)

(And now we come to the "mark of the beast", that mark
which the Antichrist will force everyone to take upon
their hand or forehead - Revelation 13:16. Now one may
be able to choose whether the mark one receives will
be a symbol for the Antichrist, or his name, or the
number of his name - 666 - Revelation 13:17-18. The
literal meaning of "mark" in the original Greek is
"a scratch or etching," which sounds like it could be
a mark made by scarification - quite low tech, but
quite indelible, and quite easily applied, even in the
poorest countries where no RFID-chip readers can be
found, for all that would be needed to apply such a
mark would be any sharp object able to etch the skin
deep enough to leave a thick and lasting scar.)

(Now there's a curious thing about the number 6. When
it's translated into ancient Hebrew, which used
letters for numbers, it appears as the letter
transliterated as W, so that 6-6-6 would be
transliterated as W-W-W. In this way, the Antichrist
has already and most cleverly had his mark placed at
the beginning of every URL of every web page on the
WWW.)

(Also, the number 6, when translated into UPC codes,
can appear as two thin black lines. The same two thin
black lines are also placed at the beginning, middle,
and end of UPC codes as "control bars", so that 6-6-6
appears across the UPC codes. In this way, the
Antichrist has already and most cleverly had his mark
placed on almost every item we buy or sell.)

(In the future, no person who hasn't received some
sort of mark on their hand or forehead will be able to
buy or sell - Revelation 13:17. The mark placed on
people could look like WWW, or, if one wants the
number of his name, it could look like 666, or even
777, for the Hebrew letter representing the number 6
looks like a 7. Or, if the three Hebrew letters that
look like 7's are etched into the hand close together,
they can look like the single letter M, or an upside
down W.)

(No matter what form the mark of the Antichrist will
take when it's placed upon people, and no matter what
form his image takes, and no matter what miracles his
False Prophet may perform, DO NOT ever worship the
Antichrist or his image, or ever receive his mark,
whether they want to etch it on your hand with a knife
or inject an RFID-chip into you that has the mark
printed on its surface and/or digitally coded into it,
or whatever other form the mark may take -- the warning
in the Bible is as dire as it gets: to be saved from
eternal torment you must be willing to die before you
would ever worship the Antichrist or his image, or
receive his mark - Revelation 14:9-14, 15:2.)

---

(God will allow the Antichrist to reign for forty-two
months - Revelation 13:5. At the end of that time, God
will bring judgments against the Antichrist and all of
his worshippers. First, anyone who has worshipped the
Antichrist's image or received his mark will be struck
with a horrible sore om their body -- Revelation 16:2,
just as God struck the Egyptians with literal sores so
long ago - Exodus 9:9-11. Then the sea will become
like the blood of a dead man and everything in the sea
will die - Revelation 16:3. This could be something
like a red tide, or the sea could become literal blood,
just as God could have turned the Nile into literal
blood so long ago - Exodus 7:20. Next, all fresh
waters will be turned into blood, so that that's all
the worshippers of the Antichrist will have to drink -
blood - Revelation 16:4-7.)

(Then the sun will be allowed to scorch men with fire
- Revelation 16:8-9. This could possibly be something
like a coronal ejection blasting the earth. Then the
kingdom of the Antichrist will go into a time of
darkness - Revelation 16:10, possibly like the literal
darkness that fell upon the Egyptians for three days -
Exodus 10:21-23. Then the Euphrates River will dry up,
clearing the way for armies from the nations of the
east to move west - Revelation 16:12.)

(Then three demonic beings that will look like frogs
will go forth around the world working miracles and
telling every nation to send its armies to the valley
of Megiddo in northern Israel - Revelation 16:13-16.
But who will these demons tell the nations they are
going there to fight? Will the demons admit that the
nations will be gathered there in order to attempt
to fight Jesus Christ at His second coming? -
Revelation 19:19. Or will the demons keep the nations
in the dark, saying that an army of evil "aliens" is
coming to invade the earth? Either way, the
Antichrist and his False Prophet and all the armies
of the world will be completely defeated by Jesus at
His second coming - Revelation 19:11-21. A most
literal and most complete defeat. Amen.)

[pulpitfire]

Read The Bible wrote:

>> Dave said:
>> Revelation was *A VISION*. And it USED *SYMBOLS*.
>
> (Note that even a vision that uses symbols can be
> fulfilled in a visible, physical fashion on the
> earth, just as Daniel's symbolic vision of the growth
> of the Medo-Persian empire, and Alexander the Great's
> rapid conquest of it, and Alexander's death and the
> breakup of the Greek Empire into four parts -
> Daniel 8:1-8,20-22 - was all fulfilled in a visible,
> physical fashion.)

Exactly. I agree with you on this point. Dave *must* spiritualize the
book into oblivion, to maintain his Preterist system of theology.

Let me give an example of how you can interpret Revelation literally,

Revelation 1

Basically, the literal system of interpretation just says that the text

means what it plainly says, unless it indicates it is using symbols, or

figures of speech. And even these, as we have seen, are almost always

explained by the text itself. Otherwise, anyone can spiritualize the
text into
oblivion, and basically make it mean whatever they want.

[oldwetdog]

The problem with Randy's explanation is not in the sauce, but in
the application ;-)

Randy does fine until he decides that because you call the
members of the Church "Saints" you are not talking about the Church.

The Church / the Kingdom
http://tinyurl.com/sxkcz

and

The Church in the Last Days
http://tinyurl.com/mfb9l

From there, Randy goes straight to Hell by both preaching a
Doctrine of Devils, but by adding words to John:

The words "Christ shall reign on this earth for a thousand years"
are NOT found anywhere in God's Word.

Because Randy -- and all those who preach this Doctrine of Devils
have added words to John's Visions -- they have added the plagues
of the seven vials of God's Wrath to their own life!!

owd

[pulpitfire]

Owd's response above, if placed in quote marks, is not found anywhere in
the Bible.

[oldwetdog]

FOFLOL!!

[Pastor Dave]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:47:01 -0500, pulpitfire
<pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:

<caps used for emphasis only>

>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:40:32 -0500, pulpitfire
>> <pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> I am going to try one more time, to reach you with this.
>>
>> <snip what we mostly don't disagree on anyway>
>>
>> You like to forget that Revelation was *A VISION*.
>> And it USED *SYMBOLS*.
>>
>> John tells us that he was, "in the spirit on the
>> Lord's day". Hello??? :)
>
>First, you snipped every single point in my post.

You assume that you made points. :)

But all seriousness aside, this wasn't about your points.
This was about trying one last time to reach you on this
subject. And that is why I'm not going to begin a debate
here, because I know how you operate, which is proved
below. So I will only respond to a few points, because
if you didn't get it this time, then there's no use in my
continuing to repeatedly have the same argument.

The fact is, as evidenced below, you didn't even bother
to read my post through first. You were too eager to
jump in and make false claims about me and put words
into my mouth and then insult me and that also is proved
below.

And your claims about me snipping, are ridiculous,
considering that you're the one that started that
practice between us. I just followed your lead and
showed you what it's like. But we both know you'll
never admit to that. And we both know that you
know it's true.

Besides this, I clearly stated that I snipped them,
because I agree that in those passages, the symbols
are explained. That statement is still quoted above.
So your objection comes from your desire to slam me
and not from any real, logical reasoning.

Your problem is, that you assume that means that
if there's no explanation, that it isn't symbolism.
Yet I showed you are wrong, with my example of
the locusts. You claimed that they are "literal,
angelic creatures". That's ridiculous! But you go
ahead and wait for those locusts with hair like a
woman and teeth like a lion and a breastplate like
armor if you want to Randy. :)

But you also believe in two guys actually breathing
fire to devour people.

So tell me Randy, did Jeremiah actually burn people
with fire from his mouth, after they literally turned
to wood, in this fulfilled prophecy about Jeremiah,
which God told him that he (Jeremiah) would do?

"Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts,
Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make
my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood,
and it shall devour them." - Jeremiah 5:14

Now note, it doesn't say "AS fire". No, it clearly says,
his words will BE fire and that the people will be
wood. Well? What about it? No answer? Okay. :)

>Why should I now give careful consideration to
>every line of your rebuttal, and respond point
>for point?

Because I was not asking for any response whatsoever.
Again, this was about trying one last time to reach
you on this subject. I was only asking you to consider.
Read it, consider it and move on.

And btw, if you were not going to give careful
consideration to my rebuttal, which wasn't a
rebuttal, but just a statement, then why did
you respond at all?

You see Randy, you have just admitted that you
responded to my post, without careful consideration.

Now what do you think that says about your response,
which is quoted in this message?

Hello? Randy? You need to THINK, son! I am not
an idiot and if you keep sticking your foot in your
mouth, I'm going to catch it! And you did exactly
that, more times, further down in this message
and it was caught each and every time. Do you know
why? Because as you admitted, you didn't give it
careful consideration.

And since you simply repeated your doctrine, that
shows that your doctrine is one which also lacks
careful consideration, since as you will see below,
the logic of it doesn't work out, in the part of your
post that I chose to respond to. I didn't bother with
all of it, because as I said, I sent my post as one last
attempt to get through to you on the issue of the
"new heaven and earth" and new Jerusalem.

>If you don't have to answer my objections,
>why do you expect I should have to answer
>yours?

I don't want you to. This was for you to think about.
I said clearly that my purpose was to try one last
time, to reach you. What in that statement makes
you think that I was looking to debate this again?

In fact, I am not asking for a response to this post
either. The questions asked in it, are rhetorical.

And you, Randy, inserting your doctrine into my
words, is not an honest approach, nor is you claiming
that I said things that I didn't say, nor is YOUR
REQUIREMENT that I try to refute your position,
by first believing that the Bible agrees with what
you said. That's just flat out stupid for you to think
I would do, when my whole message was about telling
you why your view is wrong! Hello??? :)

So to say, for example; "That doesn't account for
the 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth, from Earth"
(to paraphrase, to show what you believe), is just
flat out ridiculous, when my intent has been to show
you that the Bible doesn't teach that!

And when you also claim that I am inserting a
peace treaty made by Christ into Daniel 9:24-27,
that is a lie! Once again, YOU BELIEVE there is
a peace treaty stated there. I do not and so, you
are expecting me to first agree that a peace treaty
is stated there and then proceed from the point
of agreeing with you, when the whole premise
of my response on that Scripture, is that it isn't
a 7 year peace treaty that is being stated there!

So don't bother denying it, because you DO think
I should begin by assuming that your interpretation
is correct and then trying to prove you wrong by
first saying you're right. (:

And don't bother denying that you put words into
my mouth, when you did this exact thing regarding
Daniel (and Revelation) in this very message (below)!

Hello? McFly? :)

>What do you want him to say, that he was
>in the "flesh" on the Lord's day, or that he
>was on the "phone" on the Lord's day?
>That just means he was receiving revelation
>from God.

I recognize what he said. You do not. He was,
"in the spirit". He was receiving a vision. It
contained a lot of symbolism. I can't help it
if you don't like that, because to take away
literal locusts ruins your fantasy that you have
and keep, because it tingles your senses. (:

No matter how badly you want to make it a literal book,
it isn't. It contains symbolism for events that were to
occur. But not much is described without symbolism.

It is something he saw in the spirit and it was a vision,
much of which takes place in Heaven and a lot of
symbolism is used. It is a book of symbols contained
in prophecies.

Randy, if you don't know this much about Revelation,
then you are acting the fool. (:

And to deny it, is to confirm that you understand nothing
about symbolism and how it is used in the Bible and
nothing about the Jewish people and how they thought,
spoke and wrote as God inspired them, throughout
the Bible. Yet you hypocritically admit that while God
inspired it, the personalities of them writers came
through also, which is how it makes it easier to confirm
that a particular person wrote a particular letter. (:

And you need to spend a lot more time in the Old
Testament, carefully studying it and sifting through
what it says and what it will show you.

You seem to forget that the OT is what Jesus referred
to and it is what the Apostles and the churches read
and is what people were saved through.

You cannot expect ignorance, combined with reading
a 1st century Jewish text as if it were a 21st century
Gentile text, to make you into a Biblical expert that
is able to teach someone who does know and understand
these things. It's just that simple.

And I don't mean that in an egotistical way, so don't
be offended. I was told the same thing and you know
what? It was true! But after spending years researching
I learned that it is simply impossible to understand
the NT, without a good understanding of the OT
and the way the people then lived, spoke, wrote
and thought. That is why God made sure that we have
the WHOLE Bible! Because ALL of it is necessary for
us to be well studied and understand! So people who
spend their whole Christian lives just looking at a
passage here and there from the OT, are those who
are easily lead to believe in these futuristic fantasy
doctrines and it is really sad to see! It really is. (:

>> He also said that it... must shortly come to pass".
>> But that, to you, means "thousands of years and
>> still counting" and you are telling ME, that I am
>> the one, "spiritualizing the book into oblivion"?
>
>Once the events begin, they will occur speedily.

That is NOT what it means and we both know it.

See below.

>Lu 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect,
>which cry day and night unto him, though he
>bear long with them?
>Lu 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily
><5034>. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh,
>shall he find faith on the earth?
>
>God will avenge the elect (in the future) "speedily",
>"though he bear long with them". God makes the
>elect wait a long time, but He will avenge them
>speedily, once He avenges them.

YOU ADDED the words, "in the future", meaning
in YOUR future. But it doesn't say that and the
ONLY thing that can honestly be said, is that it
was yet in the future from the point in time that
Jesus said it.

You also seem to think that YOU get to define,
"bear long" and that it automatically means
whatever you want it to mean, to suit your
doctrine. (:

Where does Jesus say, "bear long means thousands
of years"?

Oh wait, lemme guess... You're going to say that this
or that hasn't happened yet, so He couldn't have come
yet, but of course, this assumes that you have already
proved your doctrine to be correct, which you haven't.

I do not agree with your thinking that Jesus is saying
that once He comes, things will happen quickly and
I can prove that linguistically.

But let's assume that your interpretation is correct.
So what? What does that mean? Nothing. It means
absolutely nothing.

Do you know why Randy? Because even if Jesus said
in THOSE passages, that when He came, things would
happen quickly, it would have nothing to do with the
other passages, in which He said that He would COME
quickly, which passages deal with how long before He
comes and not how long it takes Him to do what He's
going to do once He's here.

You see, YOU KNEW that if you stayed in Revelation,
that it would not support your view above. So instead
of staying in Revelation, you jumped to Luke.

And isn't it interesting, that every time I nail you down
in the Gospels, that you try to jump to Revelation and
ignore the points I made and now, here you are, because
you were nailed down in Revelation, jumping to Luke!

<chuckle>

Sorry, I have to laugh. :)

Back to my point...

So what does it say in Revelation, about His COMING?

"Behold, I COME quickly!" (Rev 3:11).

Notice, it doesn't say, "Once I get here, things will
happen fast.". No. Jesus is noting that He will
COME quickly! How do we know this? Because
He said; "Behold, I COME quickly!".

This shows that He is talking about how long before
He comes and not how long it will take after He arrives.

Now I know that it is the simple words that you think
need to be twisted up, because you think that your
doctrine can't be wrong, but it says what it says and
it says that He would COME quickly. And He did!

Scripture interprets Scripture, not Randy. (:

Your rewording attempt may work on stupid people,
but it won't work on me.

The fact is, above, Jesus is saying that it is going
to happen soon. That is "quickly" from the time
He said it, as I showed in Revelation and since
that's what "quickly" as a statement always means,
when someone tells you when they are coming and
that's what He said. "Behold, I COME quickly"
and He even defined "quickly" for us.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

He didn't say, "quickly from thousands of years from
now". He said "quickly" from the point in time He
said it and that's what He meant!

It never ceases to amaze me, how you end timers
try to twist a simple word, until it means the opposite
and then assume that no one will notice! The truth
is, people do notice and you notice and you know
what you're doing! But you refuse to believe anything
else and so, you live with your lies and twisting,
all the while it is eating at your gut and by now,
after I have engaged you, a little more each time.
That's why you started sending out responses to
people that hold your same doctrine, saying,
"It's good to see that someone else holds the truth.",
because you need to try to confirm it in your mind
and you hope for a response back..

You twist the Bible up so bad, that the words "soon"
and "quickly" and "at hand" end up meaning,
"thousands of years away and still counting".
Yet "locusts with hair and teeth like a lions"
become literal statements.

Please! <LOL!>

>> I am not the one claiming that "MUST SHORTLY"
>> means, "a long, long time from now".
>
>ibid.

See above.

>> John wrote this to seven churches that actually existed
>> and said that's who he was addressing it to. And John
>> had no idea that it would be read 2,000 years later.
>
>That's your speculation about what John thought. It says "He that hath
>an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" (Rev. 2:7,
>11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). This means it wasn't just for the church to
>whom it was addressed, and you cannot limit it to the first century
>churches on the basis of exegesis.

The word "churches" is defined by the context.
While we know that other churches probably
read it afterward, the fact is, that Revelation
was addressed as follows...

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia"
- Revelation 1:4a

>> And contrary to your desire to "late date" it, the
>> historical reality is, that there were nine churches
>> there, before there was a massive earthquake, just
>> as Jesus predicted that earthquakes would come
>> and there is only a small amount of time in which
>> they were rebuilding and only seven of them stood
>> and that time was in the mid/late 60's AD.
>
>And Laodicea did not even mint more than a couple coins until the 80's
>or 90's, because they rejected Roman money and rebuilt on their own.
>They were not in a condition of wealth during the 60's, when the city
>was leveled by the earthquake, and didn't even mint more than a couple
>coins during that period. The 90's is when they finished their
>rebuilding projects, and began minting coins again, which fits better
>with what Revelation says about them saying they have need of nothing,
>and being wealthy.

The fact is, that the time line I gave is right.
There were 9 churches and the great quakes
happened (as Jesus predicted, btw) and there
was a slim period of time when there were
seven built up again and not nine yet. And
it had to be during that exact time period
in which Revelation was written and it just
so happens to be in the mid to late 60's AD.

But hey, that's just a coincidence, huh? <smile>

This is more of your late date garbage. The seven
churches did rebuild a lot more quickly than the
late date advocates want to give them credit for.
And all that was required, was that the church
was in a condition to gather in homes. It does not
require that the entire city of Laodicea is rebuilt.
The letter was not addressed to the city. It was
addressed to the church there. Or didn't you know
that, Randy? (:

The church would have consisted of a church that
met in homes. They didn't have big, grand church
buildings. Once again, you are thinking like a
21st century Gentile and you're trying to project
your manner of living and gathering, onto them,
in the 1st century. (:

If they had big, grand church buildings, they would
have been easy to find and imprison and/or kill.
Or didn't you know that either? (:

As for your end timer doctrine "money claim",
not minting coins does not mean that they did not
already have coins/wealth.

Furthermore, "minting coins" is not required,
in order to use coins already minted. Hello???

You really shouldn't speak about what you don't
know about. You repeat whatever these late date
advocates say and you end up looking the fool,
because they only go halfway through the logical
thought process and only halfway through the
history. They see there was an earthquake
and that they didn't take money from the Romans
and stop there and claim they couldn't have rebuilt.
It never occurs to them, that maybe they turned
down the money from Rome, because they already
had money!

Tacitus reported that the city was so wealthy that they
rebuilt their city "without any subvention from Rome".

Tacitus was a famous citizen of the Roman Empire,
in case you are not aware of that either.

I'm sorry, but the mere fact that they did not accept
money from Rome, does not mean that they didn't
rebuild. No city, that has been devastated by an
earthquake, which was poor and in need of aid,
would say...

"No thanks, Rome. We prefer the rubble. It's actually
quite nice to look at. And besides... we really would
like it to take more years to rebuild. We get bored
easily and this will give us something to do for a longer
period of time. And we don't like to eat food anyway."

What is wrong with you, dude?! Do you have a switch
that you use to turn off your brain when you read your
Bible, or what?! :)

They didn't take any money from Rome, because they
DIDN'T NEED any money from Rome!

You need to stop taking the word of end timers' texts
that only give you half the story, because the author
saw something he/she liked and so, stopped there,
without investigating further, because that's all
he/she wanted to hear, JUST AS YOU DID!

And this is again what I was talking about. You end up
looking foolish, because you don't think things through,
because you're SO DESPERATE to keep your doctrine!

The fact is, they DID rebuild WITHOUT any help
from Rome!

And btw, because I quote a lot of history, further down
you imply that there's something wrong with that.
But here you are, using what you THINK is accurate
history and quoting it!

And whether it's accurate or not, makes no difference.
The point is, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE, as will be seen
by your comments further down, about my history
quotes further down, which you reject out of hand and
yet, cannot dispute, so rather, you insult me about them!

That shows what you're about and you are quite
transparent, Randy!

>Further, while you claim the catastrophes of Revelation were limited to
>the land of Jerusalem, some of these Gentile churches were hundreds of
>miles away. If you think the events of Revelation were only local to
>Jerusalem and Judea, and not global, how do you account for that?

That's a lie! I never said what you are implying!

The earthquakes happened BEFORE Revelation
was even written. So how could those earthquakes
have been part of what was described in Revelation?

DUUUHHH!!! Hello??? :)

Once again, logic goes right out the window when an
end timer doesn't want to accept the plain truth! (:

>And let it be noted, that while you make fools people for trying to read
>the days news into the prophecies of Revelation, that's exactly what the
>Preterist position does, except they try to read the seal judgments of
>Revelation into the news of the day from first century historians like
>Josephus.

And here is where I note your hypocrisy regarding
historical texts, as I said earlier in this message!

This is the completely ridiculous attack by the end
timer. The fact is, it is not "reading into it", to
acknowledge history. It is however, "reading into it"
to claim that each days' events on the news are in
the Bible, such as claiming "European Union",
when the Bible says no such thing!

I do not do what you do, when I acknowledge that
in 70 AD, the Temple was torn apart stone by stone,
just as Jesus said it would be and that it happened
within that same generation, just as Jesus said it
would.

And don't bother telling me about the Western Wall.
Jesus said what He said about the Temple building.
That was NOT part of the Temple building. It was
simply a raised foundation. Anything could have
been built on that. Making that claim, would be
like saying that Hurricane Andrew didn't wreck
someone's home, because hey, look, the basement
and foundation is still there! Please! (:

And what you fail to understand, is that Josephus was
not even a Christian and yet, uses the same terminology
for the events. And do you know why, Randy? Because
he was a Jew, who thought, spoke and wrote like a Jew
and so, what he described, matches up with the Scriptures
and a lot of it would match up, even if he weren't a Jew.
It doesn't take a Jew to note what happened to the
Temple. And then when we open our Bibles, why lo
and behold! There it is, just as was described by a
historian WHO WAS THERE, RANDY, WHILE YOU
WERE NOT! And the description fits perfectly. And
as I said, he was NOT a Christian and therefore, was
NOT seeking to make it match up to Jesus' words.
He just reported what happened to the Temple,
as well as a lot of other things about those events.
He even recognized just before it happened, that
people could recognize that the Day of God was
coming. It was in the air.

Your problem Randy, is that you read and interpret
Revelation and the other places in the Bible that speak
of the return of Jesus, as a 21st century Gentile and
you think that it's all about YOU and YOUR time
and that is the problem!

You then think that you can just dismiss the historical
accounts that were written by Jews, at the time that
these events were happening! You think that you,
a 21st century Gentile who is ignorant of the Jewish
way of thinking, can interpret the texts better than
they can, even though the NT, with the exception
of Luke & Acts, was written by 1st century Jews!
And even Luke & Acts were accounts that were told
to Luke, by 1st century Jews!

You want to COMPLETELY IGNORE them and make it
a "21st century, it's all about Randy" Bible and that is
simply ridiculous! (:

And what will you do with what people, including priests,
who as we both know, were anti-Christian, reported about
those events?

Heavenly phenomena:

- A star resembling a sword
- A comet (Halley's Comet)
- A bright light shining around the altar
and the temple
- A vision of chariots and soldiers running around
among the clouds and all cities of Palestine.

Earthly phenomena (reported by priests)

- A quaking
- A great noise
- The sounds of a great multitude saying,
"Let us remove hence."

Do you really think that this happened and it wasn't
the return of Christ in the same generation as He
promised, especially since we note what was seen
and heard above, about leaving the Temple and then
it ended up being destroyed (purified by fire) and
then torn down, stone by stone, just as Jesus said
it would be? But yet, you insist that it wasn't the
return of Jesus? Say what?? Please! (:

And that's just part of it! Now why would these things
have been witnessed and written down, Randy? Well?

You see Randy, the difference here is, that history
shows that it did happen exactly as described.

But what YOU want us to believe, is that when the events
occurred, they were supposed to ignore them and not
write a word about them, because hey, Randy said so! (:

You also fail to recognize, that what I have shown you,
which has been A LOT of information, over many posts,
matches up perfectly with the time frame given.

And I don't have to try to redefine "soon" and "at hand".
You do. But your ego and vanity will not allow you to
realize the simple fact that when you have to redefine
clear, simple words that speak of a short time, to try
to make them mean a long time, so that you can take
the fantastic, obscure statements in Scripture literally,
that there is a problem with your doctrine!

Since when do we interpret the clear, simple statements
in the Bible, by the obscure?

It is the other way around, Randy! We are NOT to claim
that a simple word like "soon" means, "thousands of years
off and still counting", so that we can make locusts with
hair like a woman's and teeth like a lions and breast
plates like iron, literal creatures!

And yet, here comes Randy, dismissing out of hand
that "soon" could actually mean "soon", so that he
can claim that they are literal creatures!

And then you have THE GALL to tell ME that I'M the one
who is not interpreting the Bible correctly and that it's
my doctrine that is heresy? What're you, on glue?! :)

And your "angelic creatures" line doesn't work, since
I can easily turn around and say that the angels pouring
out the seven bowls are not seen by man, so there is
no reason to think that these locusts are literal locusts
instead of a symbolic representation of an army.

And as for the breast plates of iron, you seem to forget
that Rome is symbolized by iron. Or did you forget that
YOU BELIEVE also, as I do, that the iron in Daniel's
statue has iron representing Rome? Hello??? Just
something to think over. :)

You also don't understand that the pit is used more than
once in the Bible, to represent a force and not an actual
pit in the ground.

So here you are, making up fantasies about the future,
with crazy looking locusts, instead of realizing that
Revelation is a book regarding visions that use
symbolism. No, it's better to twist "soon" and "at hand"
than to admit that these locusts are symbolism right?
I mean after all, it is the words "soon", "quickly" and
"at hand" that blow away your futurist doctrine, so
those are the ones you need to attack. And hey, why
not try to support that twisting, by claiming that
these locusts are real locusts, that literally appear
that way? Who cares how crazy it sounds, as long
as you think it helps you deny the word "soon" and
makes it all about YOU and YOUR time, right? (:

You also have to try to find a way to explain the
following, which you have NEVER ONCE been
able to do and for which I have NEVER ONCE
seen an answer from you for...

Fact: The Bible speaks of the "time of the end",
not "the end of time". Go ahead and try
to find that phrase in the Bible. You won't
be able to.

Fact: The time of the end, was the end of an age
(Matthew 24:2 (aion = "age", not "world")).

Fact: Daniel's book was Messianic.

Fact: Daniel tied the Messiah to the time of the end.

Fact: Daniel was told to seal his book "until the time
of the end" (Daniel 12:4).

Fact: A few hundred years later, the book could be
unsealed, because the Messiah had arrived.

Fact: Thus, Daniel was told to seal his book, because
a few hundred (six, I believe) had to go by.

Fact: In Revelation, John is told NOT to seal his book,
because the time was "at hand" (Rev 22:10).

Fact: The end timers/futurists want us to believe that
this means that "thousands of years and still
counting" had to go by, before the events
described therein take place.

Fact: Therefore, the end timers/futurists want us
to believe that Daniel was told to seal his
book because the time was not yet and a few
hundred years had to go by, but John was told
NOT to seal his book, because the time was
at hand and that meant that thousands of years
had to go by.

You have never explained to me how that makes
any sense whatsoever! No one has! I've received
only insults and people disappearing from the
thread and ignoring my posts asking them to
answer to that. And that my young friend,
tells me A LOT about you and these other people.

You see Randy, when the futurists see a problem
and they refuse to deal with it, even in their own
hearts and minds, that means that THEY KNOW
that they aren't dealing with it and that means
that when they continue on saying what they say,
that they know that they're lying about it and
they just don't want to let go of that piece of
their doctrine, because it means it may not be
all about them. (:

And what about you and Glenn and even Chuck,
who have had to change pieces of their doctrine,
after points were finally hammered home and
what I receive in response, is an admission
without an admission.

I.e., Chuck no longer denies that the destruction
of the Temple that Jesus prophesied occurred
in 70 AD. So he, like you, Glenn and the rest
of the futurists, invents something on the fly.

Chuck says that this event was part of His return.

Okay, well, if it's part of His return, then that
means that He has been returning now for almost
2,000 years and is floating up there on a cloud
somewhere. Either that, or He quit and went
back to Heaven and we're all in trouble now. :)

But this is where the "invented on the fly instead
of dealing honestly with the point" responses
leave you futurists. Wit a warped, crazy doctrine
that pits the Bible against itself repeatedly and
in many places. But you guys don't care. It's
the doctrine that it's all about you, that's important
to you! (:

And what he didn't consider, is that He just
blew away his own belief that we will see Jesus
physically and bodily riding on a cloud, since
no one reported seeing Jesus Himself riding
on a cloud in 70 AD and he conceded that the
Temple's destruction was part of Jesus' return.

Hmmmm.... :)

But you know what Randy? If I pointed that out
to him, he would just make up something else on
the fly, like claiming that He didn't descend low
enough during that event, or some other such
nonsense!

<sigh>

And why do you futurists have to go through these
contortions and Biblical gymnastics?

Simple! Because you refuse to research the Scriptures
and see that the "riding a cloud" statement was used
before in a prophecy that has already been fulfilled,
which means that it is symbolism for the Lord's
presence in judgment. In that case, a judgment
against Egypt. I showed you this, but no, IT HAS
TO BE ABOUT YOU, SO YOU DEMAND THAT
IT BE LITERAL, SCRIPTURE BE DAMNED!!!

You people also refuse to acknowledge that another
fulfilled prophecy regarding Babylon was fulfilled
and used the exact same language that Jesus used
in Matthew 24/Luke 21! Read Isaiah 13:6-10, which
I have not only quoted to you, but also put all three
places in order for you, verse by verse for comparison
and yet, YOU STILL REFUSE TO ADMIT THAT IT
WAS SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE, EVEN THOUGH THE
BIBLE SHOWS YOU THAT IT IS!!!

>> Therefore, Revelation was written just prior to 70 AD.
>
>Not...

It would also be ridiculous for John to be told in
Revelation, that he still had to go witness before
MANY peoples, nations, tongues and kings
(Rev 10:11), when the record shows that by this
late date that you end timers propose, that John
was so infirmed, that he had to be carried into
a church and could only speak a few words.
The record also shows that he chased down
a man on horseback around the time Revelation
was written and this certainly would have been
impossible, if he had been of the age that you
would propose, which would make him and
extremely old man. if Revelation were written
in 95-96 AD.

But you see, these are the things that you people
don't ever deal with, because you don't want to
admit that you cannot deal with them. Your
end times, "it's all about me and my generation"
doctrine is more important to you, than any
Scriptural, or historical facts. (:

But you would say, "Oh, but Davey, don't you know
that God gave him da strength ta do it? Duuuhhh."

Now even his age wouldn't have mattered. Another
"on the fly invention" to add to your doctrine, that
you will have the nerve to claim is an honest rebuttal.

<chuckle>

You people have no shame and it should make everyone
very sad that people like you, claim to be representing
proper doctrine and that which the ancient church
taught. PUHLEASE !!! <chuckle>

>> And John also said in Rev 1:9, that he was
>> "a companion in the tribulation", which means
>> that the tribulation that was to occur just before
>> Jesus' return, was already taking place.
>
>I'll agree that the Tribulation John faced was current to his day. He
>was banished, not executed, which fits Domitian's reign more than
>Nero's. All this proves to me is that you don't have to go through the
>Tribulation of Revelation 4-19 to go through tribulation.

What you're doing, is trying to separate it and claim
that it isn't THE "Tribulation", because you aren't
the generation that is seeing it and so, you want to
somehow make it all about us today. (:

Let's see.... Christians being jailed, thrown into
the games against gladiators, being hunted down,
having to hide their meetings, being tortured,
whipped, beheaded, being set on fire and used as
living street lamps, being run through with the
sword, thrown to the lions to be torn apart by
them, being boiled in oil, etc..

And all these things happened to thousands and
tens of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands
of Christians because why Randy? BECAUSE THEY
WERE CHRISTIANS!!!

Now go ahead and make your "nor will ever be" speech.

The fact is, I already proved to you that this was
hyperbole. And btw, Jerusalem never has seen it
as bad. I didn't even tell you about what happened
there in full. Suffice it to say, that at least 600,000
corpses were thrown outside the wall, before Rome
even breached the walls. Does that rings "the stench"
bells for you in Scripture?

You think it's saying "world wide". It isn't and
I already proved to you that the Greek word for
the planet is not used once in Revelation.

Now go ahead and claim it is, because the 46th
definition in the piece of crap Thayer's says so.

<chuckle>

The fact is, that Egypt is part of the world and yet,
God said the same thing in the days of Moses. So
according to you, God lied, because if it's yet to
come and it's world wide and it's going to be worse
than anything before, then God lied when He said
it in Moses' day, about Egypt. But you're not smart
enough to recognize that and I know that you'll be
stupid enough to try to argue this. <chuckle>

The truth is, Randy, that there is no record of any
persecution under Domitian in 95-96 AD, so for
John to write that he was in the tribulation then,
would have been ridiculous. And the fact is, that
it is claimed that there was such persecution at
that time, by the end timers, because THEY KNOW
that they have to account for that verse, in which
John says that he is in a tribulation, in order to
keep their precious doctrine. So they claim the
late date, which is after 70 AD, so now they think
they get to ignore what happened then and how
Jesus' words were fulfilled to the letter and then
they think they found some evidence of a few
Christians who died under this guy, for which
there is no record of them having been put to
death because they were Christians, but rather,
for other charges and they get one mistranslated
quote, which was a quote of someone three times
removed and now they THINK they can convince
me that they have a solid doctrine, when the truth
is, that the evidence overwhelmingly supports an
early date, just prior to 70 AD, both by the internal
and the external evidence. But lies and misdirection
is what you guys are great at!

It did not happen! There is no historical record that
shows any wide spread persecution of the church
under Domitian! And you end timers don't realize,
because as I said, you stop halfway in your
investigations, that Nero also had the name,
"Domitius", as in "Domitius Nero". He took that
name also, as he did others, through marriage, etc..

You need to start doing some REAL research!

>>> Basically, the literal system of interpretation
>>> just says that the text means what it plainly says,
>>
>
>> No, it doesn't. It tries to make literal what is
>> symbolic and make symbolic, all simple and
>> clear time references that would mean that it
>> isn't all about them. (:
>
>That is not correct:
>
>That Revelation uses symbols no more authorizes us to spiritualize it to
>oblivion than any other passage that does. The literal system of
>interpretation allows for the use of symbols.

This is the LIE that you KEEP TELLING!

I don't, "spiritualize it into oblivion".

What you're really trying to say, is that I don't ignore
symbolism and make it physically literal, in the places
that YOU choose to, which are ridiculous to do so with!
(:

>For example:
>
>Revelation 1
>
>8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,
>which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
>
>Ok, here, Christ says He is the Alpha and Omega. This is a symbolic
>reference. So what does it mean? Does th literal system of
>interpretation say it mean Christ is the first and last letters of the
>Greek alphabet? No. It says right in the text that follows. It means
>He is the "Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come...".
>Thus, the symbolism means that the Lord is eternal, Almighty God. The
>plain statement of the text qualifies what the symbol means.
>
>Now, let's move on to the next symbol:

<snip>

No, we don't need to, because as I already said,
many symbols are explained. However, as I also
said, there are symbols that aren't, such as the
locusts. They are described as locusts with
hair like a woman's hair and teeth like a lions,
etc.. And nowhere does it say that they are
anything but locusts. So to tell me that symbols
are always explained, which is what you're trying
to imply here, IS NOT TRUE!!! I already went
over this and it is quoted below. So why repeat
yourself?

And when you try to claim that they're really,
"angelic creatures", that is *_YOU_* ADDING
YOUR OWN EXPLANATION!!! That explanation
is NOT found in Scripture! You even go so far
as to want me to believe that they actually look
like that! Please! <chuckle>

>> In the passages that you seem to have implied that
>> I would disagree with you on, an explanation is given
>> anyway.
>>
>> However, you reject said explanations, when you don't
>> like them. This "new heaven and earth" for example.
>>
>> Scripture interprets Scripture. Not Randy.
>
>> You want to believe in a physical new heaven and earth,
>> on which only the saved, who now have regenerated
>> bodies live and there is no more physical death.
>>
>> Yet you reject it when Scripture interprets Scripture
>> and tells you that it is symbolism.
>
>
>> Isaiah also speaks of this "new heaven and earth" and
>> he said that *after* this new heaven and earth arrived,
>> that there would still be death! He also noted that life
>> would still go on. There would be farming, building
>> houses, death, etc.. And I showed you where these
>> passages are, more than once. Yet you have mostly
>> ignored them and when you have addressed them,
>> you tried to explain them away, by using a method
>> that is the opposite of what you use with Revelation,
>> yet what we see in Revelation, is borrowed from Isaiah.
>
>Your interpretation requires us to believe that Christ has exercised His
>perfect will on earth since A.D. 70,

You see, this is what I'm talking about. You ASSume
that every little bit and piece of what you believe is
true. So when I show you a fact, you CLAIM that it
can't be so, because your other beliefs haven't happened!

That is a RIDICULOUS approach! And the truth is,
that a fact remains a fact, whether you accept it
or not!

And btw, God has been exercising His perfect will
on Earth since He made it. You seem to be saying
that God's will has been less than perfect thus far.

Shame on you! (:

>and that this included the worst
>persecution the church has seen to date,

Actually, yes, it would be. But as far as what the
church sees, the Bible does not state that this
tribulation is all about the church. This is your
problem. You read it as a 21st century Gentile,
who think that God did everything He ever did,
just so YOU, in THIS century, could see it happen.

You are VAIN, ARROGANT, EGOTISTICAL and
full of PRIDE!!!

You need to start researching history! You simply
have NO CLUE what you're talking about!

Yes, the church was to go through a great tribulation
and it did. But the "worse ever" part is what Jesus
said about JERUSALEM and JUDEA and it involved
mainly the Jews. In fact, Jesus told them that the
Christians should flee the area, when they saw the
it coming.

You end timers try to take Matthew 24:21 out of
its context and apply it to YOURSELVES. But
Jesus said it within the context of the destruction
of Jerusalem and Judea.

Matthew 24:20-21

20) But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,
neither on the sabbath day:
21) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was
not since the beginning of the world to this time,
no, nor ever shall be.

Now tell me Randy, where would they run to, if it
was going to be going on everywhere on the planet?
Why would Jesus tell them to run away, if it wouldn't
make any sense to run away from it, because it's
everywhere on the planet?

And why would He say that they should pray that
their flight isn't on a Sabbath, if His words weren't
directed specifically at Jews? They could only
travel about 3/4 of a mile on the Sabbath, which
would have meant that they couldn't have gotten
far enough away. So again, why would Jesus say
this, if it wasn't about a Jewish place? Are Gentiles
restricted to that also? Hello? McFly?

But hey, let's back up a couple of verses and see
if I'm right...

Matthew 24:16-18

16) Then let them which be in Judea flee into
the mountains:
17) Let him which is on the housetop not come
down to take any thing out of his house:
18) Neither let him which is in the field return
back to take his clothes.

Now what does that say, in v16? Oh yea, that's right...
"let them which be I-N J-U-D-E-A flee...".

And why does it say "housetop"? Could it be because
in that time, people did spend a lot of time on their
housetop, which was typically a flat roof, upon which
people went up onto, to do various things, like making
cloths, etc.? Naaa, that couldn't be it, right Randy?

You see, in reality, Jesus said this, because people
would be sitting out in the open, on top of skyscrapers,
when it happened. Please! <chuckle>

I'm sure He just meant it to SOUND like it was about
them in their time and way of living, with that whole
"Sabbath" and "rooftop" thing, to mess with their heads,
but He didn't actually want it to BE about their time
and way of living. And who knows? Maybe He was
just telling them, back then all of that stuff, just to
test you Randy and see if you would know enough
to tell me it's all about you and your time, right?

Don't worry about it, I'm sure that it's quite logical
for Jesus to come to the 1st century, to talk to people
in the 21st century. And especially to tell them the
parable about the owner of the vineyard (Mat 21:33-41)
coming back and seeking vengeance on the same
generation of people that killed his son, because He
really wanted you to think that He was coming back
in the 21st century. I'm also sure that He said,
"this generation", because He meant another.

Yea, maybe in backward Bizarro world! <LOL!>

It's pretty bad when you get it this wrong and the answer
is right there in front of you! And you propose that you
will teach me, instead of the other way around?

Now let us look at what else He said about His
return and what it meant...

Luke 21:20-22

20) And when ye shall see J-E-R-U-S-A-L-E-M
compassed with armies, then know that the
desolation T-H-E-R-E-O-F is nigh.
21) Then let them which are I-N J-U-D-E-A
flee to the mountains; and let them which are
in the midst of it depart out; and let not them
that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22) For T-H-E-S-E be the days of vengeance,
that A-L-L T-H-I-N-G-S which are
W-R-I-T-T-E-N may B-E F-U-L-F-I-L-L-E-D.

Gee, maybe He was talking about what would lead
up to these events after all, huh?

>as well as the dark ages etc.
>This age doesn't even qualify for the millennial reign of Christ,

Once again, you insist that what you think is true,
is true. The fact is, I have already proved to you
that Revelation 20:4 does not say one word about
a 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth.

Fact: John is seeing this in Heaven.

Fact: John said he saw THE SOULS of them,
not physical bodies.

Fact: Rev 20:4 talks about how long those saints
reigned WITH Christ, not about how long
Christ Himself reigns. Christ's reign is
eternal (Lk 1:31-33) and nowhere does
the Bible teach that Christ plays musical
chairs with His throne!

Fact: I have demonstrated to you that the term
"thousand" is used many times throughout
the Bible to signify completeness.

>> Jesus came to fulfill the OT and the OT also speaks
>> of what happens when He returns, such as Zech 14:1-2,
>> where it shows that Jerusalem is not saved by Jesus
>> riding the clouds like today's church claims, but rather,
>> it is desolated! The city is taken, it is plundered,
>> the women are raped, etc..
>
>Your view of Daniel and the OT prophecies has Christ being the prince of
>His people the Romans, breaking the peace treaty with Israel, and
>desolating the temple!

Do you see how stupid you are acting?!

I never said one word about a peace treaty!
There is no "peace treaty" and the Bible
does not say "peace treaty". It says "covenant"
and only God makes covenants with man.

Not only this, but the word that is translated
as "make", is translated incorrectly and I
proved that to you! The word there, in the
Hebrew, means "to confirm". Thus, a covenant
is being confirmed, not made! And if it is being
confirmed, then it already exists! If it was about
a covenant being made, it would be the Hebrew
word that means, "to cut".

Thus, it is about the Messiah confirming the covenant
that God made with man and the passages even tell you
it is "Messiah the Prince", but because you want it to be
all about you, you insist that it is a different prince,
when in reality, linguistically, it goes back to the last
dominant noun, which in this case, is "Messiah".

But you don't care about that, right?

You take what YOU believe and then try to claim
that I said it!

I proved to you linguistically, that this is not
a different prince under discussion in Daniel
and I proved to you that to do it that way,
would mean that you have the Messiah
appearing and being crucified on the same day!
But you don't care about any of that!

<snip>

And with that, I'm done with you! You keep
putting YOUR words into MY mouth!

And you keep telling me that I have said things
and that I believe things, that I have never
said, nor said that I believe!

You can't refute what I have said and so, you
decide instead to twist what I said, ignore what
I said, put words into my mouth and then claim
to be refuting what I said!

And don't bother denying it, because in what
I responded to alone (quoted above), you did
it at least twice and I pointed out where!

But go ahead and be like Glenn and find some
out of context quotes, why don't ya! (:

I cannot get through to you, when you don't
even bother to read the message, before you
jump in and try to twist things around, to
make it seem as if I said something I never
said!

And tell me Randy, how is it that you think
that whatever I say about Revelation has to
take into account what YOU CLAIM IS TRUE,
when I have told you that I do not believe
as you do?

I.e., Why would my explanation have a literal
1,000 year reign of Christ, with Him physically
and bodily on Earth, when I don't believe that's
what it says?! Hello?! Anybody home?!?!?!

>> To quote Josephus, who, as a Jew, understood this
>> type of symbolism and how Jews viewed the Temple
>> of the Mosaic system...
>
>I don't base my theology on Josephus, as your theology
>is required to do.

Nor does mine and this is just you, once again,
attacking. YOU quoted something that you THOUGHT
was history and now you criticize me for doing so?

This is especially dumb of you, when I tore your
supposed facts to shreds and you could not say
one word to dispute mine and so, you figured
you'd act like an ass and insult me and make
false accusations against me instead. A sure
sign of weakness, Randy! (:

>> "As for the inside, Moses parted its length into three
>> partitions. At the distance of ten cubits from the most
>> secret end, Moses placed four pillars, the workmanship
>> of which was the very same with that of the rest; and
>> they stood upon the like bases with them, each a small
>> matter distant from his fellow. Now the room within
>> those pillars was the most holy place; but the rest of
>> the room was the tabernacle, which was open for the
>> priests. However, this proportion of the measures of
>> the tabernacle proved to be an imitation OF THE
>> SYSTEM OF THE WORLD; for that third part thereof
>> which was within the four pillars, to which the priests
>> were not admitted, is, as it were, A HEAVEN PECULIAR
>> TO GOD. - Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book III,
>> Chapter 6, Par 4
>
>

>Here we go, newspaper prophet.

Thank you for using that term Randy! I like that you
did! And do you know why?

Simple! Because when you try to use the very same
phrase that someone applied to you against them,
it tells everyone that you can't dispute it and so, like
a 5 year old, you whine, "No sir! You are!". <chuckle>

Now let's examine what REALLY happened here.
I showed that from a Jewish perspective, that
the Temple contained heaven and earth.

Randy didn't like that and so, he called me
a "newspaper prophet". See below for the
reason why I love the fact that you did that!

>Everything you accuse Owd of doing is exactly
>what you do, except you don't look in today's
>news, you look in the news around A.D. 70.

Trying to get around the fact that the prophecies
have been fulfilled and are recorded in history,
will not help you.

Especially when you would hypocritically go
to history, to show someone that prophecies
that you admit have been fulfilled, have been.
That makes you nothing more than a hypocrite!

The reason your insults and premises don't work,
is because you have a language problem, Randy.

If one goes back into history, one is not acting as
a prophet, in the sense that the word is being used
by you. One can only be a "newspaper prophet",
by looking at the daily news and either claiming
that the prophecies are about to be fulfilled, or are
being fulfilled now, because of what the daily news
said and there are still more left to fulfill after these
events. One cannot however, be a "newspaper prophet",
by looking back through history and seeing that the
events line up with Scripture.

That would be like claiming that if the Rapture that
you believe in happened tomorrow, that it would be,
"newspaper prophecy" to look back the next day
and say, "Yea, it happened!".

Do you see what a corner of stupidity you paint
yourself into? Hello??? Duuuhhh!!! :)

You just aren't that skilled in the language department,
nor in the logic department and I'm getting bored with
correcting your linguistic and logic issues. (:

But let's take your premise a little farther...

According to you, history should be wiped out each day.
I mean after all, by your premise, looking back through
history is a bad thing, when reading Scripture. So I
guess that you will be tearing out all of the parts of
the Bible that are in the past, right? I mean after all,
the Bible is accurate in its history, right? And we
don't want any of that sneaky "history" to be a part
of our reading, right? So I think you can safely get
rid of most of your Bible and only leave the parts
that you think have yet to be fulfilled.

Oh and btw, whatever you do, don't EVER use ANY
historical documents outside of the Bible, to prove
that anything that the Bible says happened, actually
did happen. I mean after all, you did claim that to
do so, would make you a "newspaper prophet", right?

Make sure when someone brings up that "Tyre"
prophecy, that you tell them that it was fulfilled.
And when they ask you to prove it, you go ahead
and insult them, because they want to see historical
documentation of it and you think that's a bad thing.

And btw, why is it that a long time ago, you asked
me to show you where in history it is documented
that Jesus returned on 70 AD, when you now say
that this would be a bad thing to do?

The reality is, I did document it and now you have
spent all of this time trying to be a success at
ignoring it. But we both know that you can't. :)

You see Randy, you are a hypocrite. You love it
when a piece of history confirms the Bible. You
just don't want anyone else to confirm anything
that YOU don't WANT to believe happened yet. (:

Now do you REALLY think that it's just a coincidence
that I can show you how these things were fulfilled,
using historical texts and it all comes into the exact
same time frame? Are you really that lame, that you
would try to claim that amount of things being
fulfilled and lining up with what Scripture says,
within that same time period, are all just coincidence?

Why is it that I have an answer for every question
you ask me about this and that they all fall within
the period from Jesus' ascension, to 70 AD?

You have to be in serious denial to think that this
type of coincidence could occur!

The truth is Randy, that you know that I have made
a very solid case and you simply don't like it, so
instead of actually responding to what I said, you
choose instead to insult me and then you will, as
we both know you will, go on to say that you refuted
what I wrote and that I ran away from it. The reality
is that I'm not going to waste my time, responding
point by point, when you don't make any points
and choose to...

1) Insult me.

2) Put words into my mouth that I never said.

3) Claim that my premises are wrong, because
they don't account for what you believe, when
my point is, that what you believe is in error.

You did not examine what I said at all. At least
I give you the courtesy of reading what you wrote,
before responding, so that whether I decide to
go point by point or not, at least I read it and
saw it in YOUR context and not in the context
of me thinking only about MY doctrine and
just jumping in and responding, without even
knowing what the next paragraphs say. (:

And with that, I am done with this. But you needed
to learn that your half assed history and your half
assed research and your half asses, made up on
the fly doctrines do not sway me.

You're a paper tiger, who would never address
a Pastor this way in person.

You propose to teach me out of your ignorance.
In fact, out of your willful ignorance. (:

No thanks, but you have a nice day now, ya hear? :)

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"The religion that does not begin at home,
does not begin" - Adrian Rogers

[pulpitfire]

Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:47:01 -0500, pulpitfire
> <pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> <caps used for emphasis only>
>
>
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:40:32 -0500, pulpitfire
>>> <pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am going to try one more time, to reach you with this.
>>>
>>> <snip what we mostly don't disagree on anyway>
>>>
>>> You like to forget that Revelation was *A VISION*.
>>> And it USED *SYMBOLS*.
>>>
>>> John tells us that he was, "in the spirit on the
>>> Lord's day". Hello??? :)
>> First, you snipped every single point in my post.
>
> You assume that you made points. :)

And so did you :). Done. Whew...that was easy.

[pulpitfire]

Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:47:01 -0500, pulpitfire
> <pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> <caps used for emphasis only>
>
>
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:40:32 -0500, pulpitfire
>>> <pulpi...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am going to try one more time, to reach you with this.
>>>
>>> <snip what we mostly don't disagree on anyway>
>>>
>>> You like to forget that Revelation was *A VISION*.
>>> And it USED *SYMBOLS*.
>>>
>>> John tells us that he was, "in the spirit on the
>>> Lord's day". Hello??? :)
>> First, you snipped every single point in my post.
>
> You assume that you made points. :)

You assume that you made points :). Whew...that was easy. Done.

[St Dog the Wet]

Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2006 05:23:41 -0700, "Read The Bible"
> <bible...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>
>

THE BIGGEST LIE
Perhaps the Grandest Lie ever presented to mankind, and God's
People, is that God is the cause, and is to be blamed for, the
Great Tribulation which the false "God" of Modern Rome will cause.

For the entire past generation, perhaps the last 80 years, the
writers, teachers and preachers of "the rapture" have been
selling this Doctrine of Devils to mankind. Embedded in and
contained in the false hope of their escape from Tribulation is
the concealment of the cause and source of the suffering the
Church is to escape.

The entire world has become aware of the false hope of
Christian's escape, and they laugh at the ridiculous visions of
cars running empty on streets while Christians are whisked into
the sky. The world laughs; but they are not so blind or ignorant
that they miss the statement that it is God who brings this
Tribulation on the world.

So the World knows Christians believe that God is the source and
causes of the Tribulation coming on the world. And who taught the
world this lie? Was it Satan? No, not as far as the world knows:
it was the Christianity.

So Satan has used God's People to tell THE BIGGEST LIE to the
entire World!

Now, while Satan laughs, and the tribulation becomes impossible
to ignore or deny, the people of the world will blame Christians
-- because, after all, the Church taught them that it is the God
of Abraham who is the cause of this Tribulation.

TRUTH LOST
During the last generation the Church has lost the opportunity to
teach her people the Truth: That Modern Rome will soon rise to
rule the World; that Satan will occupy the body prepared for him
and then proclaim himself to be "God."

During this generation the Church has lost the opportunity to
teach the World the Truth: that Satan's conquest of the world and
claiming to be "God" is the cause of Tribulation.

Because The Church has failed to recognize this Doctrine of
Devils, and has failed to teach both God's People and the people
of the world the truth, the Church will endure the Tribulation of
these Last Days.

Because these false teachers and prophets have lied and added
words to the visions of John, they have added the wrath of the
seven vials of God's Wrath to their own lives.

If you are one who has believed the lies of the 'rapture' and the
'millennial reign of Christ on this earth,' and you will not
abandon these lies, you too will receive your portion of the
vials of God's Wrath.

If you are one who has believed these lies you will also endure
the laughter and ridicule of those who hate you -- when they
discover you can not escape.

A Servant of God
His Witness
oldwetdog

[St Dog the Wet]

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149656065....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Read the Bible needs to learn to read, then read the Bible.

[Read The Bible]

> Dave said:
> John tells us that he was, "in the spirit on the
> Lord's day".

(How, in your view, does Revelation 1:10 require that
John's vision not include literal things?)

> Dave said:
> He also said that it... must shortly come to
> pass".

(Regarding Revelation 1:1, doesn't the Preterist view
claim that Revelation was written in the mid to late
60's AD, but that it wasn't fulfilled until 70 AD? If
so, then, in the Preterist view, Revelation may not
have been fulfilled for about 5 years. Is 5 years
"shortly"? Is even one year "shortly"? If I called you
up and said "I'll come over to your house shortly",
would you think I meant I would come over in five
years? Or that I would come over in one year? And if
one year or even five years can be "shortly", clearly
that word doesn't mean what men usually mean by
shortly. This is why Peter had to expressly warn us
that we aren't to judge the seeming-delay of the
second coming by how men reckon time, but that we must
look at it in the way God looks at time, and for God
a thousand yers are like a single day - 2 Peter 3:8-9.)

> Dave said:
> John wrote this to seven churches that actually
> existed and said that's who he was addressing it
> to.

(But note that Revelation 1:4 doesn't say "and all
the things written in this book must be fulfilled in
your lifetime".)

> Dave said:
> And John had no idea that it would be read 2,000
> years later.

(Whether he did or not we can't know without asking
him. But note that even if he didn't, that doesn't
affect what the scripture itself says.)

> Dave said:
> John also said in Rev 1:9, that he was "a companion
> in the tribulation", which means that the
> tribulation that was to occur just before Jesus'
> return, was already taking place.

(Actually, not necessarily, for Revelation 1:9 could
be referring to the ongoing tribulation that all
believers of all times experience - Acts 14:22, while
Revelation 6-18 refers to a tribulation that will
not happen until "hereafter" - Revelation 4:1.)

> Dave said:
> You want to believe in a physical new heaven and
> earth, on which only the saved, who now have
> regenerated bodies live and there is no more
> physical death.

(Actually, nothing says or requires that only the
saved of this old earth will be on the new earth, or
that only immortal people will inhabit the new earth,
for God could possibly create a brand new mortal race
along with the new earth. Those of this old earth who
are resurrected into immortality could then be in the
same relation to the new mortal race as the angels
are to us today. That is, we could be "like the
angels" not only in that we won't marry -
Matthew 22:30, but also in that we will be able to
minister to the mortal race of the new earth just as
the angels now minister to us today - Hebrews 1:14.
We could go to the next level, as it were.)

> Dave said:
> Isaiah says death. Revelation says no more death.

(Isaiah 65:20 could refer to the new mortal race,
while Revelation 21:4 could refer to the resurrected,
immortal believers of the old earth.)

> Dave said:
> Or is the "new heaven and earth" symbolism?
> The truth is, this "new heaven and earth" is the
> Kingdom of God and the old Mosaic system destroyed

(Note that the new heaven and earth can be literal,
and can be the kingdom of God, and can exclude the
old Mosaic system - all at the same time; nothing
requires that the new heaven and earth be merely
symbolic.)

> Dave quoted Josephus and said:
> Note that it represented both heaven and earth.

(But note what the "it" is in Josephus' quote: the
Mosaic tabernacle that had the four pillars between
the holy place and the most holy place -
Exodus 26:32-33. If you try to claim that this Mosaic
tabernacle was the old heaven and earth, then you would
have to say the old heaven and earth were destroyed
when the Mosaic tabernacle was replaced by Solomon's
Temple. So then the new heaven and earth would have to
be Solomon's temple. But then Solomon's temple was
destroyed and replaced by a second temple, which would
then have to be the new, new heaven and earth. And
when that second temple was destroyed, God would have
to create a new, new, new heaven and earth. So you
see we can't tie the meaning of "heaven and earth" to
what might happen to this or that tabernacle or
temple; "heaven and earth" can only refer to the
literal and single old heaven and earth, which will be
replaced by a literal and single new heaven and earth.)

(Peter makes this plain in the full context of his
reference to the new heaven and earth -
2 Peter 3:5-13, for he first refers to this literal
earth which was destroyed by Noah's flood. Then he
says that this literal earth is now set to be
destroyed a second time, but this time by fire. In
neither case does he even remotely suggest that he's
talking about some merely-symbolic earth.)

> Dave said:
> You also want to believe that a literal, physical,
> New Jerusalem appears and comes down onto this
> supposedly physical "new heaven and earth".

(Yes. Nothing says or requires that Revelation 21:1-3
won't be fulfilled literally.)

> Dave said:
> ...there are sinners outside the gates

(Revelation 22:14-15 could refer to the sinners
referred to in Isaiah 65:20, who could be part of a
new mortal race that will be created with the new
earth. Or, Revelation 22:14-15 could be referring to
those in the lake of fire - cf. Revelation 21:8. The
lake of fire could be placed on the new earth near
the city of New Jerusalem so that the saved can go out
of the city and look at the sinners burning forever -
Isaiah 66:24. In this way, the saved will never be
able to forget what mercy God has shown them in
forgiving their sins and not making them burn forever
too. The lake of fire will be a constant reminder to
the saved of what great grace God has shown toward
them.)

(Regarding Isaiah 65:17, if it means that the saved
won't remember their former, sinful lives, the lake
of fire could still serve as a constant and eternal
revelation of the wrath of God, forever abiding upon
those who are the vessels of His wrath - Romans 9:22.
But wouldn't God also need the saved to serve as a
constant and eternal revelation of the mercy of God,
abiding upon those who are the vessels of his mercy? -
Romans 9:23. And how could this mercy be known without
some sort of rememberance that the saved too had once
been sinners? Perhaps there will just be a general
sense that they too had been sinners, without any
yucky remembrance of what their actual sins had been
-- cf. Hebrews 8:12, Isaiah 43:25, Jeremiah 31:34.)

> Dave said:
> Jesus said, BOTH their bodies AND their souls,
> would have been destroyed and so, according to your
> doctrine, there should be no sinners left in
> existence, to be anywhere

(Actually, I don't hold to the doctrine of
annihilationism, for the scriptures say that the
damned will suffer forever - Matthew 25:46,
Revelation 14:11, Isaiah 66:24, cf. Mark 9:43-48.
Therefore, when Matthew 10:28 says that God will
destroy their bodies and souls, it cannot mean that
He will annihilate them to where they will no longer
exist at all.)

[Read The Bible]

> Dave said:
> ...this "New Jerusalem" cannot possibly be a
> literal, physical city.

(Actually, nothing says or requires that it can't be
literal.)

> Dave said:
> Revelation itself tells you that this New Jerusalem
> is the bride of Christ, which we know is the church

(Note that New Jerusalem doesn't have to literally be
the church in order for it to be called "the bride" -
Revelation 21:9, for it could be a literal city the
form of which symbolizes the church, which has joined
together the twelve tribes of Israel and the church -
Revelation 21:12-14. It could also symbolically be
called the bride because only those who are saved
will be able to enter into it - Revelation 21:24-27.)

(Note that a city can be literal and symbolic at the
same time: Galatians 4:24-26 refers to the literal
city of the current, earthly Jerusalem as the symbolic
"mother" of those who would place themselves under the
bondage of the Mosaic covenant, and it refers to the
heavenly Jerusalem as the symbolic "mother" of those
who are in the liberty of the New Covenant, i.e. the
church.)

> Dave referred to Ephesians 2:19-22

(Note that Ephesians 2:19-22 symbolically refers to
the church not as a city, but as a temple, whereas
in the city of New Jerusalem God Himself is the only
temple - Revelation 21:22.)

> Dave referred to 1 Cor 15:50

(Mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God - 1 Corinthians 15:50, but immortal, resurrected
"flesh and BONE" -- possibly without blood as we know
it -- will inherit the kingdom of God, for it is in
such a literal, resurrected physical body that even
Jesus Himself lives - Luke 24:39-43. And the
resurrected bodies of the saved will be like Jesus'
resurrected body - Philippians 3:21. We wait for the
redemption of our bodies - Romans 8:23.)

> Dave referred to Luke 17:20-21

(Note that while Luke 17:20-21 says that the kingdom
of God cometh not with observation, in the very next
verses, Luke 17:22-24, Jesus says that the day will
come when things would be seen that cannot be seen
now. Also, earlier, in Luke 9:27-35 some did "see the
kingdom of God". So Luke 17:20-21 must have been
intended for the unbelieving Pharisees at that time;
Jesus was probably trying to get them to focus upon
the salvation of their own hearts, without worrying
about the outer kingdom of God, which they would not
live to see established on the earth anyway. If they
remained unbelievers until they died, they would see
the kingdom of God sometime after their deaths, but
only from afar, as they would not be allowed to enter
into it - Luke 13:28; "Except a man be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God" - John 3:3 - must
therefore mean that a man won't be allowed to enter
the kingdom of God without being born again.)

> Dave said:
> What you are waiting for physically isn't going

> to happen...

(Despite Preterism's attempt to overthrow my faith -
2 Timothy 2:18, I still believe that there will be a
physical resurrection and a physical kingdom on the
earth - Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10.)

> Dave said:
> what you are waiting for spiritually, has already
> happened

(I believe that my spiritual death and resurrection
has already occurred - Colossians 2:12-13. But even
though I have the firstfruits of the Spirit, I still
await the redemption of my body - Romans 8:23,
Philippians 3:21.)

> Dave said that Futurists would say:
> "...Lord, I believed that if the Bible wasn't all

> about my time, that it was useless."

(Isn't that what Preterists will say to Jesus at the
judgment? "Lord, I believed that if the resurrection
and kingdom weren't all about my time, that the Bible
was useless"? It's the Futurists who know that the
Bible isn't all about the present time, but that very
much remains to be fulfilled in future times.)

> Dave compared Rev 21:23-25 and John 12:46

(Note that Revelation 21:23-25 is part of what must
occur "hereafter" in relation to John's present time
- Revelation 4:1, while John 12:46 can include the
present time, for it refers symbolically to Jesus as
the spiritual light of the world. We presently walk
both in the spiritual light of Jesus and what we
might call the physical light of the sun, for Jesus
is not the sun. But in the future, in the New
Jerusalem, Revelation 21:23-25 says that Jesus will
replace even the physical light of the sun with a
different form of visible light of which He Himself
will be the source.)

> Dave said:
> "Jesus riding a cloud" isn't physically, bodily
> literal

(Note that Jesus will return just as physically,
bodily, and literally as he left - Acts 1:11,
Zechariah 14:4. And just as the cloud of Acts 1:9 was
literal, so will the clouds of Revelation 1:7 and
Matthew 24:30 be literal.)

> Dave said:
> neither is the "Sun and Moon" language

(The sun and moon of Matthew 24:29 could be just as
literal as the clouds of Matthew 24:30. Indeed, it
will be the literal clouds that will be blocking the
light from the literal sun and moon - cf. Job 36:32.)

[Read The Bible]

> Fred said that the 144,000 are still on the earth

> after the manchild departed for heaven, which
> excludes them from being the manchild and the church.

(Actually, the 144,000 are before the throne of God
in heaven in Rev.14:1-5, possibly fulfilling Rev.12:5.
And the 144,000 are definitely the church because
they're Christians - Rev.14:4, and there are no
Christians outside of the church - Eph.4:4-5.)

>> Read the Bible (RTB) asked which verses would
>> forbid that the 12 stars of Rev.12:1 might

>> represent the 12 Apostles.
>> -

> Fred answered: Forbid? Require? Satan's
> vocabulary, Adolph?

(How are the words "forbid" and "require" Satan's
vocabulary? - e.g. Gal.6:14, Mic.6:8)

> Fred quoted Gen.37:9 and said: So that's how you

> read the verses. A verse doesn't have to be relevant
> to what you read into it. It simply doesn't forbid
> it.

(I don't understand what you said. But note again
that nothing requires that the woman of Rev.12:1 be
clothed with the man Jacob and have the woman Rachel
under her feet. She could instead be clothed with
Christ - Mal.4:2, or simply be "fair as the moon,
clear as the sun", like the woman in Song.6:10, who
could also represent the Bride of Christ. And note
that the 12 stars are in a crown, which could
represent that they have positions of leadership in
the church, just as the 12 Apostles do - 1Cor.12:28.)

>> RTB said that salvation is of the Jews - Jn.4:22...
> Fred replied: ...with the other fork of your tongue

> you say it is of the church

(Note that no forked tongue is required because Jesus
is a Jew and all the Apostles are Jews, and they are
at the same time the church.)

> Fred said: The church is saved by being grafted into
> Israel.

(The church is saved only by being grafted into
Jesus - John 14:6, Acts 4:12, John 15:1-6.)

> Fred said: Salvation is a matter of belief in Him...

(Amen - 1 John 5:13.)

> Fred said: ...not a matter of being conformed to the
> image of His son.

(Those saved by faith have been predestined to be
conformed to the image of His Son - Romans 8:29.)

> Fred referred to John 14:2-3

(Note that John 14:2-3 doesn't say or require that
the rapture will take us to the place prepared.)

> Fred referred to Heb 4:9

(Note that Heb.4:9-10 could refer to believers who
die a faithful death - cf. Rev.14:13.)

> Fred referred to Heb 11:16

(Note that we've already come to the heavenly
Jerusalem in a symbolic sense - Heb.12:22, Eph.2:6.
Nothing says we will literally go there before we
die, or if we live, before the millennium is over.)

> Fred said: as in the days of Noah, His wrath will

> rain down upon the earth

(And as in the days of Noah, believers will have
protected places to go into - Isaiah 26:20.)

> Fred said: The time of the rapture is at the time

> when the two witnesses ascend into heaven

(Rev.11:12 can't be the rapture of the church because
the rapture won't happen until the 2nd coming -
1Thes.4:16-17, and there's no 2nd coming in Rev.11.
The 2nd coming doesn't happen until Rev.19, after the
vials of Rev.16. And even if the 7th trumpet of
Rev.11:15 were the last trump of 1Cor.15:52, which it
isn't, Rev.11:12 occurs before the 7th trumpet, while
the resurrection of the church has to occur after the
last trump - 1Cor.15:52, which won't be until after
the 7th trumpet, at the second coming - Mt.24:30-31.
Rev.11:12 is simply a resuscitation and translation of
the two witnesses alone, like the resuscitations of
Lazarus and Tabitha - Jn.11:43, Act.9:40, and like the
translations of Enoch and Elijah - Heb.11:5; 2Kgs.2:11.
It's nothing more.)

> Fred quoted some early church writers

(The quotes you gave look like ones you already posted
to this thread, and to which I gave some answers to.
Did you want me to reply to the quotes again, or did
you want to first reply to what I said?)

*******
(Subsequent post)

> Fred said: tribulation is what we have in the world

> (John 16:33), not a seven year period.

(There's a general, ongoing tribulation in the world -
John 16:33, and then there's an end-time unprecedented
tribulation in the world - Mt.24:21, Rev.6-18 - which
will last longer than 7 years.)

> Fred referred to Rev 7:14

(That's the end-time tribulation that would not
begin until "hereafter" John's time - Rev.4:1.)

> Fred said that the 144,000 are the firstfruits of
> the resurrection of judgment

(Note that no verse says or requires that the 144,000
are the firstfruits of any resurrection.)

> Fred said that those in Zechariah 12:10 aren't
> Christians

(Note that it doesn't say or require that they aren't
Christians. They're clearly believers in the returned
Christ, and all believers in Christ are Christians.)

> Fred said: The grace they receive is poured out
> after He returns.

(That in no way requires that they aren't Christians.)

> Fred said about the locusts: ...the king over them

> is the only one who has to notice: Rev. 9:11

(Just as a human king doesn't do the seeing for every
one in his army, so Abaddon won't do the seeing for
every locust. He can't be everywhere at once.)

> Fred said: Christians are still sealed.

(Yes, and nothing says or requires that the 144,000
aren't already sealed Christians before Rev.7:3, for
the seal of Rev.7:3 isn't the seal of Eph.1:13, but a
visible seal like the seal of Ezek.9:4.)

> Fred said: a verse is cited to show that believers

> have authority to cast out demons, and you start
> babbling about talking in tongues

(The verse cited - Mark 16:17 - refers to speaking in
tongues as well as to casting out devils. Just as the
verse doesn't require that every believer speak in
tongues - contrast 1 Corinthians 12:30 - so it
doesn't require that every believer has authority to
cast out demons.)

> Fred said that Gentile believers are grafted into
> Israel

(Right - Romans 11:17, and so they could be grafted
into one of the twelve tribes of Israel - cf.
Ezekiel 47:23.)

> Fred said: the firstfruits were of the harvests, and

> that the resurrections are the harvests

(We are already firstfruits of a harvest - Jas.1:18,
1Cor.16:15, Rom.16:5, Lk.10:2, Jn.4:35 - even before
the 1st resurrection, just as the 144,000 will in some
manner be firstfruits - Rev.14:4, before the 1st
resurrection - Rev.20:6.)

> Fred said: The baptism unique to the church is the
> baptism of the Holy Spirit.

(And note that nothing says or requires that the
144,000 aren't baptized in the Holy Spirit. Indeed,
they couldn't be Christ's servants - Rev.7:3 - and
followers - Rev.14:4 - without the Spirit - Rom.8:9.)

> Fred said regarding Rev.7:9: The innumerable

> multitude isn't the few.

(Note again that they have to be part of the few
because they've found the way that only the few find
- Mt.7:14, Jn.14:6, Rev.7:14.)

[Read The Bible]

>>> Fred said: Your "the tribulation" is imaginary

>> RTB replied: (Mt.24:21, Rev.7:14, Rev.6-18 isn't
>> imaginary.)
> Fred replied: No the scriptures aren't imaginary,

> just what you claim they say. They don't say He
> contradicted Himself when He said: "In the world
> ye shall have tribulation" (John 16:33).

(Can you specifically indicate how you feel that what
I've said about the tribulation of Mt.24:21, Rev.7:14,
Rev.6-18 contradicts Jn.16:33?)

> Fred said about Rev.14:1-2: Read the text as John

> is describing them He hears a voice from someplace
> else, heaven

(Note that there's no reference in Rev.14:1-2 to
"someplace else" because in Rev.14:1-5 the 144,000
have been redeemed from the earth and are before the
throne of God in heaven.)

> Fred said: ...they are gathered to fulfill the
> prophecy of Obadiah

(Note that no scripture says or requires that.
Obad.1:21 probably is referring to the earthly
Mt. Zion during the millennium, and it doesn't have
to be referring to the 144,000 at all.)

> Fred referred to Rev. 14:13

(Note that Rev.14:13 doesn't refer to the 144,000
already in heaven in Rev.14:1-5, but to the rest
of the church still on the earth during the time of
the Antichrist's rule.)

> Fred said: That both Obad 1:17-21 and Rev 14 as

> well as Zech 14 are on earth is a matter of
> reading.

(I agree that Obad.1:17-21 is probably on the earth,
and Zech.14 is definitely on the earth, and
Rev.14:12-13 is definitely on the earth; but nothing
says or requires that Rev 14:1-5 is on the earth --
indeed, reading it makes it clear to me that it's
in heaven, probably the fulfillment of Rev.12:5.)

>>> Fred said: Nothing was said of everyone having to
>>> be where Jesus is when He returns

>> RTB replied: (Jn.14:3, 1Thes.4:17, Mk.13:27 all

>> require that every believer be gathered to Jesus
>> at His return.)

> Fred replied: Your claim was that I said it, and I
> didn't.

(Do you deny that Jn.14:3, 1Thes.4:17, Mk.13:27 all

require that every believer be gathered to Jesus at

His return? If so, how? And based on what scriptures?)

> Fred said: I'm clear on the concept of God and know

> that He is there when He is here, as He confirms:
> "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
> came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is
> in heaven" (John 3:13).

(I'm not sure of your point. Are you applying Jn.3:13
to Jn.14:3, 1Thes.4:17, Mk.13:27 so that every
believer doesn't have to be gathered to Jesus at His
return? Doesn't Jesus bring "with him" all of the
believers in heaven when he bodily leaves heaven -
1Thes.4:14, so that His return will involve the
gathering together to Him of all believers in heaven
and on earth? - Mk.13:27, 1Thes.4:14-17.)

> Fred said: In my Bible we're shown two of the all

> ascending to the place prepared for them as He
> returns for the day of the Lord: Rev. 11:11-12

(Note that there's no return of Christ in Rev.11. The
two witnesses will ascend alone like Enoch and Elijah
ascended alone - Heb.11:5, 2Kin.2:1.)

> Fred referred to Rev. 14:2-3

(Rev.14:2-3 probably refers to the 144,000 singing
before the throne in heaven.)

> Fred said: ...the bride of Christ, descends when
> the day of the Lord is over: Rev. 21:1-2 ...
> Rev. 21:9-11

(The literal city of New Jerusalem is only
symbolically called the bride in Rev.21:2,9, for the
literal bride, the people of the church, will have
been on the earth with Jesus during the millennium -
Rev.20:4-6, 5:10.)

>> RTB said: (...1Thes.5:9 doesn't say or require that
>> Christians won't remain in Jesus' presence as He

>> descends to Jerusalem and begins His millennial
>> reign on earth. It only requires that they aren't
>> subject to the eternal wrath opposed to salvation -
>> Jn.3:36. And even the temporal wrath of the vials -
>> Rev.16 - won't be directed at the Christians on the
>> earth in any way - cf. Is.26:20. They will be
>> waiting patiently for the 2nd coming - Rev.16:15,
>> which doesn't occur until after the vials, in
>> Rev.19.)

> Fred replied: Duh... He is omnipresent. Remember?

> Reread: "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
> that came down from heaven, even the Son of man
> which is in heaven" (John 3:13). He was there while
> He was here.

(I'm not sure how you're applying Jn.3:13 to what I
said. How does it contradict any of my statements?)

> Fred said: For the church, the day of His rest is
> the day of His wrath (Heb. 4:4, 9)...

(Doesn't Heb.4:4 refer to Gen.2:2? How do you apply
Gen.2:2 to the day of God's wrath? And doesn't
Heb.4:9-10 refer to the same principle as
Rev.14:12-13? But note that not all Christians will
die in the coming tribulation - Mk.13:20, 1Cor.15:51.
Some must be "alive and remain" - 1Thes.4:15 - until
the 2nd coming of Rev.19; therefore some must still
be alive on the earth during the vials of Rev.16,
which precede Rev.19.)

> Fred said: ...they are appointed to rest, not wrath
> (1 Thess 5:9)...

(Those Christians still alive on the earth during the
vials - who are addressed in Is.26:20, Rev.16:15 -
aren't appointed to wrath because the vials don't have
to harm them in any way.)

> Fred said: ...who is appointed to wrath is the

> enemy-of-the-gospel (Rom 11:28) elect "unto whom I
> sware in my wrath that they should not enter into
> my rest" (Ps 95:11).

(Actually, the human elect are those appointed to
salvation, the church - 2Tim.2:10, and no one
appointed to salvation is appointed to wrath -
1Thes.5:9. Regarding Ps.95:10-11, that refers to the
unbelieving Israelites in the wilderness - Heb.4:2,
not to faithful believers - Rev.13:10, 14:12.)

> Fred said: The wrath we are shown in Rev 19:15 is

> the same wrath which came at the last trump as the
> 24 elders announced in Rev 11:18, the wrath in
> Rev 15:1

(Actually, the wrath of Rev.19:15 is subsequent to
the wrath of Rev.16 -- which is the wrath Rev.15:1
is referring to, and which is probably the wrath
Rev.11:18 is referring to. Note the parallel between
the temple-opening in Rev.11:19 and Rev.15:5-6. The 7
vials could be brought forth by the sounding of the
7th trumpet. But the 7th trumpet of Rev.11:15 isn't
the last trump - 1Cor.15:52 - which will sound at the
2nd coming - Mt.24:30 - because the 2nd coming doesn't
happen until Rev.19, after the vials of Rev.16.)

>> RTB said: (Mt.22:30 refers only to being like the

>> angels insofar as we won't marry after the
>> resurrection. It in no way says or requires that
>> we'll be in heaven during the millennium. Indeed,
>> Jesus will bring all the angels with Him - Mt.25:31
>> - when He comes to reign on the earth -
>> Zech.14:4,9.)

> Fred replied: So you say, He says we will be as the

> angels in heaven: "For in the resurrection they
> neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are
> as the angels of God in heaven" (Matt 22:30).

(Ah, I think I see your problem: You're probably
reading it as "as the angels of God, in heaven" - that
is, you think it's saying that after the resurrection
we'll be in heaven as the angels are in heaven. But
that's not what Mt.22:30 is saying, for the reason I
gave in my paragraph above. The "in heaven" is not a
reference to where we'll be or the angels will be
after the resurrection, but is simply a reference to
which angels we'll be like: the angels that are NOW in
heaven, but won't be at the 2nd coming - Mt.25:31.
There are also angels NOW in the pit of hell -
2Pet.2:4, Jude 1:6 - who DID marry - Gen.6:2; this is
why Jesus had to identify which angels we'll be like
-- the unfallen angels who didn't marry and don't
marry.)

> Fred said: Then we descend (Rev 21:1-2).

(Actually, not we, but the literal city of New
Jerusalem will descend in Rev.21:2, which city is
only symbolically called the bride.)

[Read The Bible]

> Dave said: ...the locusts. You claimed that they are

> "literal, angelic creatures". That's ridiculous!

(Why can't Rev.9:7-10 be literal, just as Ezek.1:5-14,
Is.6:2, Rev.4:6 are literal?)

> Dave said: ...you also believe in two guys actually

> breathing fire to devour people.

(Just as God can give a man power to call literal fire
from heaven - 2Kin.1:10,12; 1Kin.18:37, so He will
give a man power to call literal fire from of his
mouth - Rev.11:5; cf. Lk.18:27.)

> Dave referred to Jer.5:14

(That's symbolic fire, as in Jer.20:9, 23:29. Jeremiah
wasn't a miracle worker like Elijah was, or like the
2 witnesses will be. Just as the 2 witnesses will
literally keep it from raining - Rev.11:6, cf.
Jas.5:17 - and literally turn water into blood -
Rev.11:6, cf. Ex.7:20 - and literally send plagues -
Rev.11:6, cf. Ex.9:13-14 - so they will literally send
fire from their mouths - Rev.11:5.)

> Dave said regarding Dan.9:27: ...it isn't a 7 year

> peace treaty that is being stated there!

("Week" in Dan.9:27 is literally "seven", which could
be 7 years. The Antichrist (AC) will rule for 42 mos.
after the blasphemy - Rev.13:5 - of his abomination of
desolation (AOD) - Dan.11:36-37; 2Thess.2:4 -- which
won't occur until "the midst" of the 7 years of the
treaty - Dan.9:27. So he could make the treaty some 42
mos. before the AOD. The treaty of Dan.9:27 could be
the "league" of Dan.11:23, which the AC makes at the
beginning of his career on the world scene.)

> Dave said regarding Rev.: ...you understand nothing
> about symbolism and how it is used in the Bible...

(I know that Daniel's visions can be just as symbolic
as John's, and that part of even one of Daniel's most
symbolic visions - Dan.8:2-8 - had a literal, visible
fulfillment on the earth - Dan.8:20-22, a fulfillment
that can be found written in history books. So there's
no reason to think that any of John's symbolic visions
won't also have literal, visible fulfillments on the
earth, fulfillments that will be able to be found
written in future history books.)

> Dave said: He said that He would COME quickly...

(Peter said people would think His promise wasn't kept
- 2Pet.3:3-4, because they would be looking at His
promise from the way men reckon time and not from the
way God reckons time - 2Pet.3:9. "Quickly" in
Rev.22:20 means quickly to God, for whom 1000 years is
like 1 day - 2Pet.3:8.)

> Dave referred to Mt.24:34

(Mt.24:34 could refer to a generation by type - e.g.
the generation of the righteous of all times -
Ps.22:30, 14:5; 1Pet.2:9 - which won't perish from the
earth during the coming tribulation - Mt.24:22.)

(Mt.24:34 could refer to the temporal generation that
sees the rebudding of the fig tree - Mt.24:32-34,
which could represent Israel - Hos.9:10 - being
reestablished by the 1947 UN resolution. A temporal
generation doesn't usually pass away until after 70
years - Ps.90:10.)

> Dave noted that Rev.: was addressed as follows...
> "John to the seven churches which are in Asia"...

(But where does it say that Rev.4-22 had to be
fulfilled in their lifetime?)

> Dave said: Revelation was written and it just so

> happens to be in the mid to late 60's AD.

(Then in the Preterist view it could have been up to
five years before it was fulfilled? How was that
"quickly" to men?

"Come quickly! My house in on fire!"

"Don't worry, I'm coming quickly... in five years!")

> Dave said regarding Lk.21:6: ...don't bother telling

> me about the Western Wall. Jesus said what He said
> about the Temple building. That was NOT part of the
> Temple building. It was simply a raised foundation.

(A foundation is part of a building - Eph.2:20-21.
And, elsewhere, Lk.19:41-44 refers to the entire city
of Jerusalem, not just the temple buildings. Yet
there still remains the Wailing Wall with its stones
one upon another.)

> Dave said: You think that you, a 21st century

> Gentile who is ignorant of the Jewish way of

> thinking, can interpret the texts better than they...

(We should never interpret a prophecy by any man's
way of thinking - 2Pet.1:20-21; Jn.16:13.)

> Dave said regarding 70 AD: ...what will you do with

> what people, including priests, who as we both know,
> were anti-Christian, reported about those events?

(How do the things you listed in any way fulfill all
the great and myriad events of Revelation 6-19?)

> Dave said: Do you really think that this happened
> and it wasn't the return of Christ...

(Where did they describe that? - Rev.1:7, Mt.24:29-31,
Rev.19:11-21, 2Thess.1:7-10, Jude 1:14-15.)

> Dave said: ...history shows that it did happen
> exactly as described.

(Does history show the 2nd coming passages, or
Rev.6-18, or Zech.14, happening exactly as described?)

> Dave said: I don't have to try to redefine "soon"

> and "at hand". You do.

(If you mean redefine time references to the way God
looks at time, then Preterism does have to do that.
For how is five years "soon" or "at hand" to men?

"Honey, I just got off work and I'm on my way home.
See you soon... in five years!"

"My son, the day of your wedding is finally at hand.
I'm so proud to see you in your wedding tuxedo all
ready for the ceremony... in five years!")

> Dave said that he could say the locusts were: a

> symbolic representation of an army. And as for the
> breast plates of iron, you seem to forget that Rome
> is symbolized by iron.

(The Roman army was from the bottomless pit, led by
the Angel Apollyon? - Rev.9:2,11. The Romam army
stung and tormented men for five months with
scorpion-like stings, and wasn't allowed to kill a
single person even if he wanted to die? -
Rev.9:5-6,10. The Roman army was commanded not to hurt
the grass or trees, or any one of the 144,000? --
Rev.9:4. Where does history record these things?)

> Dave said: ...the pit is used more than once in the
> Bible, to represent a force and not an actual pit...

(What scriptures are you thinking of here, so we can
see what they say?)

> Dave asked how it could be that: Daniel was told to

> seal his book because the time was not yet and a few
> hundred years had to go by, but John was told NOT to
> seal his book, because the time was at hand and that
> meant that thousands of years had to go by.

(Note that one part of Daniel's vision in Dan.8 was
fulfilled - and so its meaning unsealed - 100s of
years before Jesus' time - e.g. Dan.8:3-8,20-22; but
other parts of that same vision remain to be fulfilled
- e.g. Dan.8:9-14,23-25. This is why the vision as a
whole relates to "the end" - Dan.8:19. Preterists
would require that "the end" started with the
Medo-Persian Empire, but Jesus said that even after
some events in the future happened, "the end is not
yet" - Mt.24:6. So Dan. can remain sealed until "the
end" does come - Dan.12:9. And while Rev. wasn't
sealed, because the time was "at hand" - Rev.22:10,
that means as far as God looks at time. So there's no
contradiction between Dan. and Rev., and nothing
requires that "the end" in Mt.24:6 has come. Rev.6-18
and different parts of Dan. could still be fulfilled.)

> Dave referred to Is.19:1

(If you're saying Is.19:1 was fulfilled, then when was
Is.19:1-5 fulfilled? When did the Red Sea and the Nile
dry up? - Is.19:5. And when was Is.19:17-25 fulfilled?)

> Dave referred to Is.13:6-10

(When was Is.13:6-22 fulfilled? How did the Medes -
and many subsequent nations and generations for 100s
of years - not inhabit Babylon? - Is.13:20-22. This
remains unfulfilled, for even in our time Saddam
Hussein has built a palace complex there.)

[Read The Bible]

> Dave said about Is.13:6-10: IT WAS SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE

What was Is.13:17-22 symbolic of?

> Dave referred to Rev.10:11

(John could "prophesy" through Rev., which has gone
throughout the world. Or God could send John down from
heaven to be 1 of the 2 who "prophesy" in Rev.11:3.)

> Dave said regarding Rev.1:9: What you're doing, is

> trying to separate it and claim that it isn't THE

> "Tribulation"...

(It's the tribulation of believers of all times -
Act.14:22, not the tribulation of Rev.6-18, which
wouldn't begin until "hereafter" - Rev.4:1.)

> Dave said: You think it's saying "world wide".

(Lk.21:10-11,25-28,36 will be worldwide.)

> Dave said: ...the Greek word for the planet is not
> used once in Revelation.

(Why would it have to be in such clear passages as
Rev.16:12-14, 19:19-21?)

> Dave said: Egypt is part of the world and yet, God

> said the same thing in the days of Moses

(What verses are you thinking of here, and when were
they fulfilled?)

> Dave said: ...there is no record of any persecution

> under Domitian in 95-96 AD

(I don't know about those exact years, but doesn't
Eusebius describe the persecution of the church
under Domitian?)

> Dave said: Nero also had the name, "Domitius"

(Are you saying Eusebius was referring to Nero when
he referred to Domitian?)

> Dave said: You end timers try to take Mt.24:21 out

> of its context and apply it to YOURSELVES. But Jesus
> said it within the context of the destruction
> of Jerusalem and Judea.

(Note that Mt.24:16 doesn't say or require that v.21
applies only to Judaea, nor does anything require that
either v.16 or v.21 has been fulfilled.)

> Dave said: ...where would they run to, if it was

> going to be going on everywhere on the planet?

(Rev.12:6 could represent different people fleeing to
different "wilderness" places around the planet.)

> Dave said: ...why would He say that they should pray

> that their flight isn't on a Sabbath, if His words
> weren't directed specifically at Jews?

(Some Gentile believers keep the Sabbath - Rom.14:5.
But the Sabbath isn't the sine qua non of the teaching
of Mt.24:20, for the parallel verse in Mk.13:18
doesn't mention the Sabbath.)

> Dave said regarding Mt.24:17: ...why does it say
> "housetop"?

(Judean roofs are still flat, and still used.)

> Dave said: ...it's quite logical for Jesus to come

> to the 1st century, to talk to people in the 21st
> century.

(As logical as Ezek. coming to the 6th cent. BC, to
talk to people in the 31st cent. AD about what will
happen when "the thousand years are expired" - i.e.
the battle of Gog and Magog - Ezek.38-39, Rev.21:7-9.
All scripture is for all people of all times - Mt.4:4,
2Tim.3:16.)

> Dave said: ...to tell them the parable about the

> owner of the vineyard (Mat 21:33-41) coming back and
> seeking vengeance on the same generation of people

> that killed his son...

(Note that there's nothing in Mt.21:33-41 about "the
same generation", just as there's nothing about the
killing of more servants sent by the owner after the
killing of the Son -- servants like Stephen -
Act.7:59. So Mt.21:33-41 could span many temporal
generations before the judgment falls, from the time
the 1st servant was killed to the time the last one
will be killed before the 2nd coming - cf. Mt.23:35.)

> Dave referred to Lk.21:20-22

(That will be fulfilled when Zech.14 is fulfilled. And
"all things" in Lk.21:22 refers only to all things
about the final destruction of Jerusalem, just as "all
things" in Jn.19:28 refers only to all things about
the crucifixion.)

> Dave said: Rev.20:4 does not say one word about a

> 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth.

(It says Christ will reign for 1000 years - how were
they fulfilled in 70 AD? Remember, Preterists require
that time references in Rev. be literal to men. Note
that Rev.20:4 says believers will reign with Jesus as
priests for 1000 years, and Rev.5:10 says He has made
us priests and we shall reign "on the earth".)

> Dave said regarding Rev.20:4: John is seeing this
> in Heaven.

(Rev.20:4 won't be fulfilled in heaven, just as
Rev.19:11-21 won't be.)

> Dave said: John said he saw THE SOULS of them, not
> physical bodies.

("Souls" can be embodied - cf. Act.27:37)

> Dave said: ...nowhere does the Bible teach that

> Christ plays musical chairs with His throne!

(There are two thrones: the heavenly throne - Heb.8:1
- and the earthly Davidic throne - Lk.1:32.)

> Dave said: ...the term "thousand" is used many times

> throughout the Bible to signify completeness.

(Then time references in Rev. don't have to be literal
for Preterists? Then why can't "soon", "quickly", and
"at hand" also not be literal as far as men think?)

> Dave said regarding Dan.9:27: Only God makes
> covenants with man.

(Who was God in Gen.21:27,32?)

> Dave said regarding Dan.9:27: ...a covenant is being

> confirmed, not made! And if it is being confirmed,
> then it already exists! If it was about a covenant
> being made, it would be the Hebrew word that means,
> "to cut".

(In Hebrew and in English, the covenant of Dan.9:27
was "cut" in Dan.9:26.)

> Dave said Dan.9:27: ...is about the Messiah

> confirming the covenant that God made with man

(How, in your view, did Messiah confirm it for "one
week", and how did he cause the sacrifice to stop
"in the midst of the week"?)

> Dave said: ...the passages even tell you it is
> "Messiah the Prince"

(Actually, the covenant of Dan.9:27 that will be
"confirmed" for "one week" - literally "one seven" -
will be "cut" with "Messiah" - Dan.9:26, which could
be a false Messiah ruling Israel by that time.)

> Dave said regarding Dan.9:27: ...the last dominant

> noun, which in this case, is "Messiah"

(Actually, the "he" in Dan.9:27 refers back to the
last reference to a person - called "the prince" -
whose people shall come and destroy the city -
Dan.9:26. The true Messiah's people are believers -
2Cor.6:16. They didn't destroy the city.)

> Dave said: ...you have the Messiah appearing and

> being crucified on the same day!

(How?)

> Dave said: I showed that from a Jewish perspective,

> that the Temple contained heaven and earth.

(But not from a scriptural perspective. And even what
you showed from the unbeliever Josephus would require
the Preterist view to say that the old heaven and
earth passed away when the Mosaic tabernacle was
replaced by Solomon's temple.)

> Dave said: ...the prophecies have been fulfilled

> and are recorded in history

(Where is Rev.6-19 recorded in history?)

[Melchizedek]

"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@yehooD0Tcom> wrote in message news:12823bh...@corp.supernews.com...
Pulpitfire wrote:
>
>

Randy, when you abandon the false doctrine of the 'rapture,' your
questions will appear to be honest -- rather than troll bait.

[Clip the sophistry]

NOPE.
footstool ==> owd
-------------------------------------------

The End Times: In the Words of Jesus (Streaming Media Player Video - 55+ min)

This video is available for a limited time, via http://bibleweb.info/
- from the Member's Area

--------------------------------------------------
There is over 250Gb of Small Group Bible studies by known
scholars, plus over 2.0Tb of DVD related videos available via:

http://bibleweb.info/ - A Christian Bible Study Collection

In our Guest area there is the entire 2 year Bible Study Program
from CCBI - Calvary Chapel Biblical Studies. (audio of all classes)

I have itemized just a few here for samples. Most of the video
material will require a DSL/Broadband web connection, as
they will stream to yourPC via 512kbps.

Audio MP3's can be viewed at 48kbps
--------------------------------------------------

Jesus Christ spoke of signs that will announce
His return and when He will take the faithful with Him to heaven.
This program shows the prophecies foretelling the end of human history.

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/_-_/movies/the-end-times-in-the-words-of-jesus.wmv

End Times - In the Words of Jesus Himself
The End Times: You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed.
Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom
against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the
beginning
of birth pains. (Matthew 24:6-8; Mark 13:7-8 NIV).

Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be
great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs
from
heaven." (Luke 21:10-11 NIV).

End Times - A Record of Recent Earthquakes in the 90's
Signs of the "End Times" are all around us. Just check out a chronology of major earthquakes over
the last ten years:
----------------------------
December 12, 1992 - Indonesia - A quake measuring 6.8 killed at least 2,200 people throughout
an eastern section of islands.
----------------------------
September 30, 1993 - India - A string of quakes killed almost 10,000 people in western
and southern India. The largest quake measured 6.4.
----------------------------
June 6, 1994 - Columbia - A quake and resultant mudslides killed about 1,000 people in the
Paez River valley in southwestern Colombia.
----------------------------
January 17, 1995 - Japan - A quake measuring 7.2 killed 6,430 people in Kobe.
----------------------------
May 28, 1995 - Russia - An earthquake measuring 7.5, Russia's largest on record, killed 1,989
people in the eastern portion of the country.
----------------------------
February 28, 1997 - Iran - A quake measuring 5.5 killed about 1,000 people in northern Iran.
----------------------------
May 10, 1997 - Iran - A quake measuring 7.1 killed 1,560 people in eastern Iran near the
Afghan border.
----------------------------
February 4, 1998 - Afghanistan - A quake measuring 6.1 killed at least 4,500 people in the
Takhar province.
----------------------------
May 30, 1998 - Afghanistan - A quake measuring 6.9 killed about 4,000 people in the
Takhar province.
----------------------------
July 17, 1998 - Papua New Guinea - An under-sea quake measuring 7.1 created three
tidal waves, which killed approximately 2,100 people.
----------------------------
January 25, 1999 - Columbia - A quake measuring 6.3 killed about 1,170 people in the
central region.
----------------------------
August 17, 1999 - Turkey - At least 17,800 people were killed by a 7.4 quake.
----------------------------
September 21, 1999 - Taiwan - A quake measuring 7.6 killed at least 2,000 people in
central Taiwan.
----------------------------
End Times - 21st century Earthquakes
January 26, 2001 - India - An monster earthquake measuring 7.7 struck the western state
of Gujarat
and neighboring Pakistan, killing at least 19,700 people.
----------------------------
March 26, 2002 - Afghanistan - At least 1,800 people were killed when a series of earthquakes
struck northern Afghanistan and destroyed the district capital of Nahrin.
----------------------------
June 22, 2002 - Iran - A quake measuring a 6 killed at least 500 people in northwestern Iran.
----------------------------
February 24, 2003 - China - A magnitude 6.3+ earthquake killed at least 266 people in
western China.
----------------------------
May 1, 2003 - Turkey - A 6.4 quake killed 167 people in southwestern Turkey.
----------------------------
December 26, 2003 - Iran - A massive earthquake killed more than 30,000 people in Bam,
Iran.
----------------------------
December 26, 2004 – Off the coast of Northern Sumatra – A 9.0 underwater earthquake
devastated the
Indian Ocean region with tsunamis that killed over 283,000 people.
----------------------------
October 8, 2005 – Kashmir – A 7.6-7.8 earthquake killed between 100,000 and
150,000 people. Many more people are still homeless.
----------------------------
May 26, 2006 – Java, Indonesia – A 6.3 earthquake killed over 6,000 people and
seriously injured another 33,000. More than 200,000 are homeless.
----------------------------
End Times - We Knew It Was Coming
The End Times: But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People
will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient
to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without
self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash,
conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God -- having a form of godliness
but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5 NIV).
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.
The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire,
and the earth and everything
in it will be laid bare. (2 Peter 3:10 NIV).
----------------------------
More to come ...
----------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------

The Rapture is Biblical and it is the first stage of the 2nd Advent.
Prophecy & The Rapture Videos

http://207.234.208.119/bibleweb-cm-studies.info/cm-studies/studies/=CD-R=prophecy-rapture/prophecy-rapture-index-dedicated.html

Seven Huge Lies About Bible Prophecy
http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/_-_/=DVD-ROM=Bibleweb.Info-04/prophecy-study-7-huge-lies.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
There is a Rapture, A Millennium, and A Blessed Hope

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/=DRIVE=c-2000-series/c-2000-disc-08-08/index.htm

REVELATION 20:1
I. WHAT THE MILLENNIUM IS.
A. A 1,000 year reign of divine government on earth by the Lord and His saints.
1. Satan will be bound.
2. His host in the pit.
3. Beast and false prophet in lake of fire.
B. Reign of righteousness in contrasts to sin.

II. PURPOSE OF REIGN.
A. From God's side.
1. Public earthly honoring of His son.
a. Phil. "Where God hath highly exalted Him."
2. Fulfilling of God's promise to His Son.
a. Luke 1:32 "He shall be great and He shall be called the Son of the
highest and the Lord shall give unto Him the throne of His Father
David."
b. Ps. 2:8,9.
c. Ps. 110:1,2.
3. Final divine trial of sinful men.
a. Does man desire God's righteous rule?
b. Looking for perfect government.
c. They really hate it. Revolt at end of 1,000.
4. God's answer to prayer of saints, "Thy kingdom come."
B. From Christ's side.
1. Bestow upon meek of earth the inheritance. He loved to promise them. Matthew
chapter 5 - "Blessed are the meek."
2. He receives the kingdom for which He has patiently waited.
C. From our side.
1. Come into state of indescribable blessedness.
a. Earth changed.
1. Isa. 35.
D. From nations and men who survived tribulation.
1. 1,000 years under iron rod sup.
E. From Creation.
1. Curse of sin removed. Romans 8.
a. Wolf and lamb feed together. Isa. 65.
b. Lion eats straw.

---------------------------------------------------------------
The Holy Spirit Series
by Senior Pastor Joe Focht - Calvary Chapel - Philly

Includes audio in MP3 on the following:
- Acts 1:4-8 Power to be Witnesses Pt. 1
- Acts 1:4-8 Power to be Witnesses Pt. 2
- John 14:16 The Person of the Holy Spirit
- John 14:15-17 The Holy Spirit is God
- John 14:17-18 The Holy Spirit in the Believer
- Galatians 5:22 The Fruit of the Spirit
- Resist Not, Grieve Not, Quench Not

With HTML + PDF Commentary Notes

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/=CD-R=the-holy-spirit/index.html

------------------------------------------------------
The Rapture Series

by Pastor Joe Focht

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/=CD-R=the-rapture/SAM18924.mp3

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/=CD-R=the-rapture/SAM19024.mp3

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/=CD-R=the-rapture/SAM19124.mp3

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/=CD-R=the-rapture/SAM19224.mp3

----------------------------------------------------
First Century - Scriptural Christianity Series

Not to sound cynical...
but whatever happened to the BIBLICAL Church? The one which grew by the
thousands despite intense persecution? The one where people gave whatever
material possessions they had to whoever else needed them? This compelling,
three-part, in depth study is a necessary challenge for EVERY modern-day Christian,
from the most well-known preacher.. to the most inconspicuous Sunday School teacher.
The challenge is in gauging our Christianity by Scripture and the first Biblical Church
recorded in the Book of Acts, and NOT by popular modern conceptions and manifestations
of Christianity.

First Century - Scriptural Christianity Series:

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/_-_/=CD-R=scriptural-christianity/

------------------------------------------------------

This Generation: Resolving The Olivet Discourse

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/_-_/=CD-R=resolving-the-olivet-discourse/index.html

--------------------------------------------------------

50 of Life's Toughest Questions & Answers

Explore responses to over 50 of life's toughest questions from experts
such as Darrell Bock, William Dembski, Gary Habermas, Pamela Ewen,
Paul Maier, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel and Ravi Zacharias.

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/=CD-R=jesus-fact-or-fiction/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

How We Got Our Bible

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/=CD-R=how-we-got-our-bible/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

100 Questions and Objections To Christianity....AND THEIR ANSWERS

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/qanda.html

Thru the Bible - Studies

A Non-Denominational - Expositional,
Verse-by-Verse, Chapter-by-Chapter,
Book-by-Book Thru the Bible
Reading and Commentary
(Great for small Bible Study groups.)

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/=DRIVE=c-2000-series/chuck-smith-index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

Do you know for sure if you died today that you would go to heaven?

Here are answers: http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/are-you-going-to-heaven.wmv

----------------------------------------------------------------

What is Truth?

Two one hour Streaming MediaPlayer video files:

http://207.234.208.119/bibleweb-cm-studies.info/cm-studies/studies/=CD-R=what-is-truth-small/01-what-is-truth.wmv

http://207.234.208.119/bibleweb-cm-studies.info/cm-studies/studies/=CD-R=what-is-truth-small/02-what-is-truth.wmv

----------------------------------------------------------------

Heaven & Hell

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/_-_/=CD-R=heaven-and-hell-missler/index-web.html

There's No Hurry !

http://207.234.208.119/bibleweb-archive.info/dont-click-this.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
Published Small Group Bible Study Materials
http://lulu.com/bibleweb/

The Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church
The purpose of this book is to offer specific evidence from
Scripture that supports the Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the
Church (Body of Christ), by Jesus Christ Himself, before the
Tribulation begins. It is not a commentary on the Book of
Revelation, though is does comment on several aspects of
the book.

http://lulu.com/bibleweb/

Design From a Benevolent Creator
In defense of the Biblical stance that all creation in the
universe is a product of magnificent design from a
Benevolent Creator, this book is an overview of just how
wonderful God is and why His book, the Bible is so significant.

Creation Studies: Evidence of Design
In a workbook style, this book will address the pros and cons
of two worldviews. Creation - belief that the origin, history,
and destiny of the universe, life, and human life is based on
God's Word about a perfect-six-day-creation, ruined by man's sin,
destroyed by Noah's flood, and restored to new life in Christ.
Evolution - belief that (with or without God's involvement) the
origin, history, and "meaning" of the universe, life, and human
life is based on expert human opinion about time, chance, and long
ages of death and struggle. Since each model of origins entails a
comprehensive worldview, embracing the whole of reality, each is
basically philosophical or better religious. The premise that
evolution is science and creation is religion is obviously false
since it is impossible for scientists actually observe or repeat
unique events of the past.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Evangelism & The Great Commission

Matthew 28:18-20 NIV
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I
am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Martin Luther
"'I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived' (Romans 7:9). So it
is with the work-righteous and the proud unbelievers. Because they do not know the Law of God, which
is directed against them, it is impossible for them to know their sin. Therefore also they are not
amenable to instruction. If they would know the Law, they would also know their sin; and sin to which
they are now dead would become alive in them."

Evangelism is the command of the Lord Jesus to every Christian (Matt. 28:18-20). Whether you are
outgoing and evangelistic or laid back and patient, you are called to be a fisher of men, not just a
keeper of the aquarium. This is a good place to start.

http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/bibleweb/evangelism/

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://207.234.208.119/bibleweb-dvd-01.info/dvd-01/index.html

Understanding The Times (Online MediaPlayer Videos)

----------------------------------------------------------------
/> A Christian Bible Study Collection
<>< />
/< Small Group Bible Studies
[XXXX][O]:::===============================>
\< 250Gb online - 1.5Tb DVD archive
><> \>
\> http://Bibleweb.Info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149919311....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> >>> Fred said: Your "the tribulation" is imaginary
> >> RTB replied: (Mt.24:21, Rev.7:14, Rev.6-18 isn't
> >> imaginary.)
> > Fred replied: No the scriptures aren't imaginary,
> > just what you claim they say. They don't say He
> > contradicted Himself when He said: "In the world
> > ye shall have tribulation" (John 16:33).
>
> (Can you specifically indicate how you feel that what
> I've said about the tribulation of Mt.24:21, Rev.7:14,
> Rev.6-18 contradicts Jn.16:33?)

What's to specify? Tribulation is what we have in the world. Your "the
tribulation" is your deception. You list three verse references you call
"the tribulation."

The part in Matt 24, is the most severe and precedes His coming.

The part in Rev 6-18 spans from the other lion's whelp, who makes His
enemies His footstool, which prcedes the part in Matt 24, to after His
return.

The greater tribulation of Rev 7:14 is the tribulatiuon we have in the
world, from being to end, out of which the innumerable multitude comes.

> > Fred said about Rev.14:1-2: Read the text as John
> > is describing them He hears a voice from someplace
> > else, heaven
>
> (Note that there's no reference in Rev.14:1-2 to
> "someplace else" because in Rev.14:1-5 the 144,000
> have been redeemed from the earth and are before the
> throne of God in heaven.)

Not so, the harvest is redeemed from the earth (soil), and they are the
first fruits of the second resurrection which does not go to heaven:

Rev. 14:1-2
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an
hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their
foreheads. [2] And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters,
and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers
harping with their harps:

Rev. 14:17-19
And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also
having a sharp sickle. [18] And another angel came out from the altar, which
had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp
sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the
vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. [19] And the angel thrust
in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast
it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

No Spirit, no repentance. A waste of time.

>
> > Fred said: ...they are gathered to fulfill the
> > prophecy of Obadiah
>
> (Note that no scripture says or requires that.
> Obad.1:21 probably is referring to the earthly
> Mt. Zion during the millennium, and it doesn't have
> to be referring to the 144,000 at all.)
>

Folks can conjure up all sorts of scenarios (your's sounds like something
conjured up by a committee). Both Obad.1:21 Rev 14.

> > Fred referred to Rev. 14:13
>
> (Note that Rev.14:13 doesn't refer to the 144,000
> already in heaven in Rev.14:1-5, but to the rest
> of the church still on the earth during the time of
> the Antichrist's rule.)

???????? Fading out? Rev 14:13 refers the fighting of Obad 1:21 which you
say isn't there.

> > Fred said: That both Obad 1:17-21 and Rev 14 as
> > well as Zech 14 are on earth is a matter of
> > reading.
>
> (I agree that Obad.1:17-21 is probably on the earth,
> and Zech.14 is definitely on the earth, and
> Rev.14:12-13 is definitely on the earth; but nothing
> says or requires that Rev 14:1-5 is on the earth --
> indeed, reading it makes it clear to me that it's
> in heaven, probably the fulfillment of Rev.12:5.)

Scripture does limit the 144,000 to earth for they are 'of all the tribes of
the children of Israel," Jews, and Jesus told the Jews they could not go
where He went. We descend to them in the place prepared (Rev 21) after the
judgment.

>
> >>> Fred said: Nothing was said of everyone having to
> >>> be where Jesus is when He returns
> >> RTB replied: (Jn.14:3, 1Thes.4:17, Mk.13:27 all
> >> require that every believer be gathered to Jesus
> >> at His return.)
> > Fred replied: Your claim was that I said it, and I
> > didn't.
>
> (Do you deny that Jn.14:3, 1Thes.4:17, Mk.13:27 all
> require that every believer be gathered to Jesus at
> His return? If so, how? And based on what scriptures?)

What does that have to do with my not saying anything of everyone having to
be where Jesus is at His coming? I don't limit Him to one place: "he that

came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13).

There will be folks with Him on earth while there are folks with Him in
heaven.

As for what you posted, John 14:3 & 1 Thess 4:17 are only a part of the
picture in Mk 13:27. The believers gathered are the ones who run to reveive,
and are conformed to the image of Christ.

> > Fred said: I'm clear on the concept of God and know
> > that He is there when He is here, as He confirms:
> > "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
> > came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is
> > in heaven" (John 3:13).
>
> (I'm not sure of your point. Are you applying Jn.3:13
> to Jn.14:3, 1Thes.4:17, Mk.13:27 so that every
> believer doesn't have to be gathered to Jesus at His
> return? Doesn't Jesus bring "with him" all of the
> believers in heaven when he bodily leaves heaven -
> 1Thes.4:14, so that His return will involve the
> gathering together to Him of all believers in heaven
> and on earth? - Mk.13:27, 1Thes.4:14-17.)

See above.

> > Fred said: In my Bible we're shown two of the all
> > ascending to the place prepared for them as He
> > returns for the day of the Lord: Rev. 11:11-12
>
> (Note that there's no return of Christ in Rev.11. The
> two witnesses will ascend alone like Enoch and Elijah
> ascended alone - Heb.11:5, 2Kin.2:1.)

Note: There is. So much for your spritual discernment: "And the seventh
angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms
of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he
shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15).
.

>
> > Fred referred to Rev. 14:2-3
>
> (Rev.14:2-3 probably refers to the 144,000 singing
> before the throne in heaven.)

The 144,000 are on Mt Zion on earth the singing is coming from heaven.

> > Fred said: ...the bride of Christ, descends when
> > the day of the Lord is over: Rev. 21:1-2 ...
> > Rev. 21:9-11
>
> (The literal city of New Jerusalem is only
> symbolically called the bride in Rev.21:2,9, for the
> literal bride, the people of the church, will have
> been on the earth with Jesus during the millennium -
> Rev.20:4-6, 5:10.)

It is the church who is betrothed to Christ: "For I am jealous over you with
godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present
you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2). The city is the place
prepared for them, and she descends in it.

> >> RTB said: (...1Thes.5:9 doesn't say or require that
> >> Christians won't remain in Jesus' presence as He
> >> descends to Jerusalem and begins His millennial
> >> reign on earth. It only requires that they aren't
> >> subject to the eternal wrath opposed to salvation -
> >> Jn.3:36. And even the temporal wrath of the vials -
> >> Rev.16 - won't be directed at the Christians on the
> >> earth in any way - cf. Is.26:20. They will be
> >> waiting patiently for the 2nd coming - Rev.16:15,
> >> which doesn't occur until after the vials, in
> >> Rev.19.)
> > Fred replied: Duh... He is omnipresent. Remember?
> > Reread: "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
> > that came down from heaven, even the Son of man
> > which is in heaven" (John 3:13). He was there while
> > He was here.
>
> (I'm not sure how you're applying Jn.3:13 to what I
> said. How does it contradict any of my statements?)

Why must it contradict. It's merely babbling because becuse He's like the
Scarlet Pimpernel, He's here, He's there, He's everywhere.

> > Fred said: For the church, the day of His rest is
> > the day of His wrath (Heb. 4:4, 9)...
>
> (Doesn't Heb.4:4 refer to Gen.2:2? How do you apply
> Gen.2:2 to the day of God's wrath? And doesn't
> Heb.4:9-10 refer to the same principle as
> Rev.14:12-13? But note that not all Christians will
> die in the coming tribulation - Mk.13:20, 1Cor.15:51.
> Some must be "alive and remain" - 1Thes.4:15 - until
> the 2nd coming of Rev.19; therefore some must still
> be alive on the earth during the vials of Rev.16,
> which precede Rev.19.)
>

You should have sought the Lord while He could be found, for you have
trouble with the simpler scriptures. The day of His rest is the seventh
day, which He says remains to be entered, and the seventh day is also the
day of the Lord which is also known as the day of the Lordfolks with
Spiritual discernment recognize as the day of the Lord. enter

Actually that is what Matt 22:30 says to whomever can hear:

>
> > Fred said: Then we descend (Rev 21:1-2).
>
> (Actually, not we, but the literal city of New
> Jerusalem will descend in Rev.21:2, which city is
> only symbolically called the bride.)
>

Creating your own scriptures? The church is the bride betrothed to Christ.
She descends in the place prepared for her.

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149847123.3...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> *******
> (Subsequent post)
>
> > Fred said: tribulation is what we have in the world
> > (John 16:33), not a seven year period.
>
> (There's a general, ongoing tribulation in the world -
> John 16:33, and then there's an end-time unprecedented
> tribulation in the world - Mt.24:21, Rev.6-18 - which
> will last longer than 7 years.)

Yes there is severe tribulation brfore He comes, but the part of it
mentioned in Mt 24:21 is only a part of it mentioned in Rev 6-18, which
extends from before the most to beyond His return.

> > Fred referred to Rev 7:14
>
> (That's the end-time tribulation that would not
> begin until "hereafter" John's time - Rev.4:1.)
>

No, blind one. What comes "hereafter" is the salvation of the innumerable
multitude, not the tribulation out of which they had come. It is salvation
which comes last to the first, not the tribulation out of which they come.

> > Fred said that the 144,000 are the firstfruits of
> > the resurrection of judgment
>
> (Note that no verse says or requires that the 144,000
> are the firstfruits of any resurrection.)

Learn to read. There are the firstfruits and the rest of the harvest. The
resurrections are harvests. Belief in Him and His word is voluntary, not
required at all.

> > Fred said that those in Zechariah 12:10 aren't
> > Christians
>
> (Note that it doesn't say or require that they aren't
> Christians. They're clearly believers in the returned
> Christ, and all believers in Christ are Christians.)

Which excludes them from the church which went to the place prepared at His
coming.

> > Fred said: The grace they receive is poured out
> > after He returns.
>
> (That in no way requires that they aren't Christians.)

It sure does. The Christians are gone.

>
> > Fred said about the locusts: ...the king over them
> > is the only one who has to notice: Rev. 9:11
>
> (Just as a human king doesn't do the seeing for every
> one in his army, so Abaddon won't do the seeing for
> every locust. He can't be everywhere at once.)

So you say. You lie.

> > Fred said: Christians are still sealed.
>
> (Yes, and nothing says or requires that the 144,000
> aren't already sealed Christians before Rev.7:3, for
> the seal of Rev.7:3 isn't the seal of Eph.1:13, but a
> visible seal like the seal of Ezek.9:4.)

Spiritually visible, which both are.

> > Fred said: a verse is cited to show that believers
> > have authority to cast out demons, and you start
> > babbling about talking in tongues
>
> (The verse cited - Mark 16:17 - refers to speaking in
> tongues as well as to casting out devils. Just as the
> verse doesn't require that every believer speak in
> tongues - contrast 1 Corinthians 12:30 - so it
> doesn't require that every believer has authority to
> cast out demons.)

You're supposed to be paying attention. What was pertinent to the discussion
was the authority of the believer. Having authority doesn't "require" it
enables.

>
> > Fred said that Gentile believers are grafted into
> > Israel
>
> (Right - Romans 11:17, and so they could be grafted
> into one of the twelve tribes of Israel - cf.
> Ezekiel 47:23.)

Yes, but not of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.

>
> > Fred said: the firstfruits were of the harvests, and
> > that the resurrections are the harvests
>
> (We are already firstfruits of a harvest - Jas.1:18,
> 1Cor.16:15, Rom.16:5, Lk.10:2, Jn.4:35 - even before
> the 1st resurrection, just as the 144,000 will in some
> manner be firstfruits - Rev.14:4, before the 1st
> resurrection - Rev.20:6.)

Christ IS the firstfruits of the first resurrection. That the 144, 000 are
redeemed and firstfruits leaves the only other resurrection. What you should
discern from firstfruits is that the firstfruits are first, and more follow
after them.

> > Fred said: The baptism unique to the church is the
> > baptism of the Holy Spirit.
>
> (And note that nothing says or requires that the
> 144,000 aren't baptized in the Holy Spirit. Indeed,
> they couldn't be Christ's servants - Rev.7:3 - and
> followers - Rev.14:4 - without the Spirit - Rom.8:9.)

When all else fails talk crazy? The point was that the one baptism to which
Paul referred in Eph 4:5 was the one, of the three in scripture, which was
unique to the church, the references to which you snipped." And the point
about the 144,000 being sealed was that they wouldn't need sealing if they
were already sealed as Christians.

> > Fred said regarding Rev.7:9: The innumerable
> > multitude isn't the few.
>
> (Note again that they have to be part of the few
> because they've found the way that only the few find
> - Mt.7:14, Jn.14:6, Rev.7:14.)

No, the part is part of the whole. The whole isn't part nof the part. The
few chosen of the many called are the first resurrection. There is also the
resurrection of judgment to which the rest of the dead are raised after a
thousand years (Rev 20:4-5). The whole is the saved from both resurrections.
Thew few chosen of the many called is part of those saved.

--

[Fred A Stover]

"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1149847123.3...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> > Fred said that the 144,000 are still on the earth
> > after the manchild departed for heaven, which
> > excludes them from being the manchild and the church.
>
> (Actually, the 144,000 are before the throne of God
> in heaven in Rev.14:1-5, possibly fulfilling Rev.12:5.
> And the 144,000 are definitely the church because
> they're Christians - Rev.14:4, and there are no
> Christians outside of the church - Eph.4:4-5.)

You know not the scriptures, for they identifiy the 144, 000 as Jews sealed
because they are not Christians, not part of the church resurrection, but
receiving Him after He returns and being firstfruits of the other
resurrection.

>
> >> Read the Bible (RTB) asked which verses would
> >> forbid that the 12 stars of Rev.12:1 might
> >> represent the 12 Apostles.
> >> -
> > Fred answered: Forbid? Require? Satan's
> > vocabulary, Adolph?
>
> (How are the words "forbid" and "require" Satan's
> vocabulary? - e.g. Gal.6:14, Mic.6:8)

Read the book.

>
> > Fred quoted Gen.37:9 and said: So that's how you
> > read the verses. A verse doesn't have to be relevant
> > to what you read into it. It simply doesn't forbid
> > it.
>
> (I don't understand what you said. But note again
> that nothing requires that the woman of Rev.12:1 be
> clothed with the man Jacob and have the woman Rachel
> under her feet. She could instead be clothed with
> Christ - Mal.4:2, or simply be "fair as the moon,
> clear as the sun", like the woman in Song.6:10, who
> could also represent the Bride of Christ. And note
> that the 12 stars are in a crown, which could
> represent that they have positions of leadership in
> the church, just as the 12 Apostles do - 1Cor.12:28.)

It's another of those Spirit things, which eludes you.

> >> RTB said that salvation is of the Jews - Jn.4:22...
> > Fred replied: ...with the other fork of your tongue
> > you say it is of the church
>
> (Note that no forked tongue is required because Jesus
> is a Jew and all the Apostles are Jews, and they are
> at the same time the church.)

What do the Apostles' Jewish roots have to do with oiur being grafted into
the promise to Israel? All twelve could have been Moldavians and we'd still
be grafted into the promise through Christ.

>
> > Fred said: The church is saved by being grafted into
> > Israel.
>
> (The church is saved only by being grafted into
> Jesus - John 14:6, Acts 4:12, John 15:1-6.)

No, by accepting Jesus we are grafted into Israel, to which the promise is
given that He will save them.

Acts 13:23
Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel
a Saviour, Jesus:
Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according
to the promise.

You need to pay attention to all the scriptures: "But he answered and said,
It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4). Folks who claim to accept
Jesus and claim to have replaced Israel instead of being grafted into Israel
do not have His promise

>
> > Fred said: Salvation is a matter of belief in Him...
>
> (Amen - 1 John 5:13.)
>
> > Fred said: ...not a matter of being conformed to the
> > image of His son.
>
> (Those saved by faith have been predestined to be
> conformed to the image of His Son - Romans 8:29.)
>

You're at it again Satan.

What I said was "Do you not know
that the church is the few chosen of the many called? The church is greatly
out numbered by the rest of the multitude, who are not church. All who run
are grafted-in, but it is those who are conformed to the image of Christ who
obtain."

> > Fred referred to John 14:2-3
>
> (Note that John 14:2-3 doesn't say or require that
> the rapture will take us to the place prepared.)

ROTFL!!!!
Duh...The rapture is the going to the place prepared.

> > Fred said: as in the days of Noah, His wrath will
> > rain down upon the earth
>
> (And as in the days of Noah, believers will have
> protected places to go into - Isaiah 26:20.)

Unclear on the concept of prophecy. The Author says, "it was lift up above
the earth."

Genesis 7:17

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased,
and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

>

> > Fred said: The time of the rapture is at the time
> > when the two witnesses ascend into heaven
>
> (Rev.11:12 can't be the rapture of the church because
> the rapture won't happen until the 2nd coming -
> 1Thes.4:16-17, and there's no 2nd coming in Rev.11.

You missed the trump in 1 Thess 4:16?
Rev. 11:15-16

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven,
saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and

of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. [16] And the four and
twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces,
and worshipped God,

> The 2nd coming doesn't happen until Rev.19, after the
> vials of Rev.16.

I have no idea of what's going on in your mind, and I don't want to know..
His coming is being shown in both Rev 11 & Rev 19. And it is before the
plagues in the vials of wrath, for the vials contain His wrath: "And I saw

another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven

last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God" (Rev. 15:1). The
arrival of His wrath is shown both in Rev 11 & Rev 19.

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

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

And even if the 7th trumpet of
> Rev.11:15 were the last trump of 1Cor.15:52, which it
> isn't,

It is that trump.

> Rev.11:12 occurs before the 7th trumpet, while
> the resurrection of the church has to occur after the
> last trump - 1Cor.15:52,

No, they are happening together, first one part of what is happening is
shown, then another part is shown, but they happen at one time. For example,
if you're watching a baseball game on TV, and someone hits into the
outfield. What you will often see is both a camera shot of the ball being
chased or fielded and a camera shot of the hitter and folks on base running
the bases. It's all happening at the same time, but we are shown one after
the other.

What you miss in 1 Cor 15 is that the changing to the image of the heavenly
happens to all in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, which we are shown
in Rev 11.

>which won't be until after
> the 7th trumpet, at the second coming - Mt.24:30-31.

Which we're shown in both Rev 11 & 19

> Rev.11:12 is simply a resuscitation and translation of
> the two witnesses alone, like the resuscitations of
> Lazarus and Tabitha - Jn.11:43, Act.9:40, and like the
> translations of Enoch and Elijah - Heb.11:5; 2Kgs.2:11.
> It's nothing more.)

Wrong, blind one. The two in Rev 11 ascended bodily into heaven.
They are His (Rev 11:3) who ascend into heaven (Rev 11:12) in the first
resurrection at His coming: "'Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that
are Christ's at his coming" (1 Cor 15:22).

> > Fred quoted some early church writers
>
> (The quotes you gave look like ones you already posted
> to this thread, and to which I gave some answers to.
> Did you want me to reply to the quotes again, or did
> you want to first reply to what I said?)

No I didn't see them, but they need no response.

--

[St Dog the Wet]

Melchizedek wrote:
> "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@yehooD0Tcom> wrote in message news:12823bh...@corp.supernews.com...
> Pulpitfire wrote:
>>
>
> Randy, when you abandon the false doctrine of the 'rapture,' your
> questions will appear to be honest -- rather than troll bait.
>

About 3 1/2 years after Modern Rome comes to rule the Modern
World, Satan will proclaim himself to be "God," and will begin to
murder Christians who refuse to worship Him. (2 Thes 2:4, Rev
13:6-15) Those events will mark the midst of Daniel's 70'th Week.
Then, after Three and a half years of terror, war and
destruction, while God pours out the vials of His Wrath on the
Beast’s Kingdom, The End will come. Mat 24:29-31.

When the Lord comes he will bring those who were resurrected in
the First Resurrection with Him, (1 Thes 4:14-17, Rev 20:4) and
those of us who remain alive in the hills around Jerusalem will
be transformed (Mat 24:15-16, 1 Cor 15:50-54) and the dead will
be resurrected. (Rev 11:7-15, 18) We who remain and we who are
resurrected will rise to meet the Lord and the First Century
Saints who come with him. (Mat 24:31, Rev 14:1-5) Satan and his
armies will be defeated, and, with the false prophets and those
who rejected God and His Son, will we cast into the lake of fire.
(Rev 19:11-21, 20:9-15) This earth and the physical universe will
be destroyed in fervent heat, and we the saved will inherit the
new heaven and earth (2 Peter 3:3-12, Rev 21:1-7 et al) ON THE
SAME DAY, THAT DAY, THE DAY OF THE LORD!

There will be no "rapture," no "millennial reign."

This generation shall not all pass away until all the prophecy of
the coming of the Lord is finished.

In the words of John, "Even so, Lord, Come."

owd
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
.

[Read The Bible]

> Dog the Wet said:
> THE BIGGEST LIE
> Perhaps the Grandest Lie ever presented to mankind,
> and God's People, is that God is the cause, and is
> to be blamed for, the Great Tribulation

(I think the biggest lie was when "the serpent said
unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die" -
Genesis 3:4, for it is that lie that caused the fall
of man and all the ensuing suffering and death that
mankind has been enduring for the last six thousand
years, and which brought the whole creation into
"the bondage of corruption", "for we know that the
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
together until now. And not only they, but ourselves
also" - Romans 8:21-23.)

(It is Satan's lie, that we shall not surely die,
which keeps us sinning down until this day. We might
think "Oh, my sin doesn't matter; I'm going to be
reincarnated anyway. Everything will work out okay in
the end; I've got thousands of lives in which to get
things right. What's the hurry in getting all
righteous? I feel like sinning." And so we go on our
way without any fear of retribution for our sin:
"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed
speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is
fully set in them to do evil" - Ecclesiastes 8:11.)

(Of course, the truth is there is no reincarnation,
for "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after
this the judgment" - Hebrews 9:27, when "we must all
appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that
every one may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he hath done, whether it be good
or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord..."
2 Corinthians 5:10-11. This holy terror will keep us
fron sinning, for "by the fear of the LORD men depart
from evil" - Proverbs 16:6. But when we believe the
lie of the devil and think that we won't ever really
die - then why would we ever fear God?)

(For believers in Jesus Christ, when we commit a sin,
and then by the fear of God depart from it and stop
doing it, we have hope that God can forgive us and
cleanse us from our sin: "If we confess our sins, he
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness" - 1 John 1:9;
"By mercy and truth iniquity is purged" -
Proverbs 16:6.)

(But for believers in Jesus Christ, when we commit a
sin, and then refuse to depart from it, as long as we
wilfully continue in it, we can receive no forgiveness
for it, "for if we sin wilfully after that we have
received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth
no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful
looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which
shall devour the adversaries" - Hebrews 10:26-27;
"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die, but if
ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the
body, ye shall live" - Romans 8:13.)

(Satan's biggest lie is whispered even into the ears
of believers in Jesus Christ: "Hey, it's okay to keep
on with your pleasure; it's not harming anybody, and
you know there's 'no condemnation to them which are
in Christ Jesus' - Romans 8:1. I promise you that you
shall not surely die, even if you continue in your
sin. So why not enjoy it a little bit?")

(And in this way many of us keep on going in our sin,
even as we keep on going to church, and reading the
Bible, and praying, and singing hymns, and doing all
sorts of good works for the Lord -- even in all of
these things we remain completely unaware that in the
end we will be rejected by the Lord because we never
repented from our sin: "Not every one that saith unto
me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which
is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy
name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many
wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I
never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity"
- Matthew 7:21-23. Because of this warning, even such
a great servant of the Lord as Paul said: "I keep
under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that
by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself
should be a castaway" - 1 Corinthians 9:27.)

(Some say, "Oh, no, Jesus couldn't be talking about
believers when he says 'I never knew you', because He
does know believers now. He won't ever reject
believers." But, "I never knew you" could be idiomatic
hyperbole, like when a parent disowns a child by
saying "I don't know you" -- it could be saying "I
reject you that completely".)

(So even if we are believers and serve the Lord in
some ways, if we at the same time continue in sin and
never repent from it, we will ultimately be cast away:
"The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he
looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not
aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him
his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be
weeping and gnashing of teeth" - Matthew 24:50-51.)

(Or, for some of us, in the end we might find that we
had only thought we were believers, when we weren't
really: "They profess that they know God, but in works
they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and
unto every good work reprobate" - Titus 1:16. We could
have been deceived by the devil that as long as we
thought we believed in Jesus it didn't matter what we
did or didn't do -- we could just go on sinning with
impunity.)

(If we had believed that, it was because we hadn't
realized that Jesus "was manifested to take away our
sins, and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him
sinneth not. Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him,
neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive
you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as
he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the
devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For
this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he
might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is
born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed
remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is
born of God" - 1 John 3:5-9. "Whosoever is born of God
sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth
himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not" -
1 John 5:18.)

(For believers, there is and will be "no condemnation"
only for those who remain "in Christ Jesus, who walk
not after the flesh" - Romans 8:1, "for if ye live
after the flesh, ye shall die" - Romans 8:13. We do
not remain in Christ Jesus when we continue in sin,
for "whosoever abideth in him sinneth not" -
1 John 3:5-9. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise
perish" - Luke 13:5.)

(But then the serpent rises up again, whispering in
our ears, "Oh, no, ye shall not surely die. You are
too precious to the Lord. He'll let you off. Don't get
all legalistic now; why not enjoy your pleasures for
a season? Remember, you are under grace -
Romans 6:14.")

(But then the Word answers: "Shall we sin, because we
are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid" -
Romans 6:15; "For if we sin wilfully after that we
have received the knowledge of the truth, there
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain
fearful looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He
that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two
or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment,
suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath
trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted
the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was
sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite
unto the Spirit of grace?" - Hebrews 10:26-29. Thank
God that we can stop sinning willfully, stop depising
His grace, and repent: "If we confess our sins, he is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness" - 1 John 1:9.)

("Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and
one convert him, let him know, that he which
converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall
save a soul from death" - James 5:19-20. Note that
James is addressing "brethren" - believers - and
refers to "one of you". He is saying that someone who
turns a believer from continuing in the way of sin,
"saves a soul from death". This means that the soul
of a believer who never repents will die. "Except ye
repent, ye shall all likewise perish" - Luke 13:5.)

(Then the serpent whispers: "Ssssss! No, no, ye shall
not surely die...")

(To those of us who would continue to give heed to the
serpent, and ignore the Word of God, Jesus would say:
"Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye
cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil,
and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a
liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you
the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth
me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not
believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words.
Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of
God" - John 8:43-47.)

[Read The Bible]

> Dog the Wet said: Perhaps the Grandest Lie ever

> presented to mankind, and God's People, is that God
> is the cause, and is to be blamed for, the Great
> Tribulation

(We know that the 3rd and final stage of the great
tribulation, the 7 vials of wrath, is from God: "And
I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the
seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of
the wrath of God upon the earth" - Rev.16:1. But the 7
seals and the 7 trumpets, the 2 earlier stages of the
tribulation, may not all be the work of God.)

(While Jesus is the one to unseal the 7 seals -
Rev.5:9, does this require that He's the one
performing all of the ensuing events, or could He
simply be permitting them to happen at that time? Note
that at the 5th seal, martyrs ask God when He's going
to start His judgment on the earth, and they're told
to wait a little longer until more people are martyred
like they were - Rev.6:9-11. So this would mean that
God's judgment hasn't begun yet. So the prior war,
famine, and death of seals 2 through 4 - Rev.6:3-8 -
could have been the work of the devil and evil men.
Men could have started the war under the influence of
the devil, and the ensuing famine and death could have
been the natural consequences of the war. In this way,
Jesus couldn't be "blamed" for any of seals 2-4.)

(But He might have been responsible for the 1st seal
- Rev.6:1-2, which may not have been bad at all, as it
may have represented the gospel spreading to all
nations before the end began - cf. Mt.24:14.)

(With the unsealing of the 6th seal, something very
bad happens, possibly a gigantic volcanic explosion,
and men call it the wrath of God - Rev.6:12-17. But
can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it has
to actually be the wrath of God? For, just as the
people in Job 1:16, 19:11 were wrong in what they
said, couldn't the people in Rev.6:17 be wrong in what
they say?)

(We know that God had no wrath against Job, nor was it
God who sent the fire to burn up his sheep - it was
Satan who sent the fire; yet nonetheless Job mistakely
thought that he WAS suffering the wrath of God, and
his servant thought that it WAS fire sent by God,
instead of Satan. So could the 6th seal also not
really be the work of God, but of Satan, who would
love nothing more than for people to blame God for
something evil that he did?)

(It's possible, but we can't say with certainty that
the 6th seal is even necessarily an evil work, for it
very well could be the righteous wrath of God, and we
don't ever want to blaspheme the Holy Spirit by
ascribing a work of God to Satan - cf. Mk.3:22-30. So
we'll have to leave the 6th seal unproven either way.)

(Some may say, "Well, what if the 6th seal really is
God's wrath. Then how can believers be on the earth
during that time and 'not be appointed to wrath'? -
1Thess.5:9." If the 6th seal really is God's wrath,
believers may not be affected by it by having
protected places to go into: "Come, my people, enter
thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee.
Hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the
indignation be overpast" - Is.26:20.)

(Or, even if believers are harmed or even killed by
the 6th seal, and the 6th seal is God's wrath, it
still doesn't follow that their suffering or death had
to have been God's wrath against them. Just as no
doubt there were some righteous people like Jeremiah
who suffered during the fall of Jerusalem - which was
God's wrath, but that wrath was in no way directed at
Jeremiah; he just happened to be in the place where
the wrath was directed.)

(And, for a believer, even dying in the 6th seal would
not be a bad thing, for "to die is gain", "having a
desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far
better" - Philip.1:21,23. So even if the 6th seal IS
God's wrath directed against unbelievers, and even if
a believer dies in it, that will actually be a
blessing to the believer and in no way be God's wrath
against him: cf. "Blessed are the dead which die in
the Lord from henceforth. Yea, saith the Spirit, that
they may rest from their labours, and their works do
follow them" - Rev.14:13.)

(A good thing to always remember is that the full
verse of 1Thess.5:9 says: "For God hath not appointed
us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus
Christ." Therefore, as long as we, in the end, "obtain
salvation", it doesn't matter what happens to us
during the tribulation -- whether we live or die, it
can never be said that we were appointed to wrath.)

(This, and all of the things we said about the 6th
seal in relation to believers, would also apply to the
7 vials of God's wrath - Rev.16. But note that the
vials are specifically directed against unbelievers
and other things, and won't have to affect believers
at all, especially if they've entered their protected
places - Is.26:20. Even the giant hailstones of the
7th vial - Rev.16:21 - could miss every believer, for
who has better aim than God? And if the great
earthquake of the 7th vial - after which the mountains
aren't found, Rev.16:18,20 - will leave untold numbers
of unbelievers unharmed - e.g. Rev.19:19, then it
could certainly leave untold numbers of believers
unharmed as well.)

(Regarding the 7 trumpets, which occur between the
time of the 7 seals and the 7 vials, they probably
arise from the 7th seal - Rev.8:1-2. We saw earlier
that the 7 seals didn't have to be God's wrath even
though they were unsealed by Jesus. Therefore, could
the 7 trumpets also not have to be God's wrath even
though they're sounded by God's angels? Could the
trumpets simply be God's way of announcing the events,
which He will simply allow to happen at that time?
Will trumpets 1-6 actually be caused by Satan?)

(Note that trumpets 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 - Rev.8:7-9:21 -
all ruin 1/3 of this or that. Could this be because
Satan is the one doing the ruining, just as he was
allowed to ruin 1/3 of the angels? - Rev.12:4. Note
that the 5th trumpet's locusts are from the bottomless
pit, and are led by be the angel of the bottomless pit
- Rev.9:1-11. Could this be one of Satan's fallen
angels, so that the whole locust episode is the work
of hell, and not God's work at all?)

(Also, note that the 4 angels who perform the events
of the 6th trumpet had been bound in the river
Euphrates - Rev.9:14. Could this be because they're
fallen angels, so that the whole horsemen episode is
also the work of hell, and not God's work at all? At
the very least, it can be said that there is certainly
no requirement that any of the first 6 trumpets are
the work of God, though there is still the possibility
that they could be part of his wrath against
unbelievers.)

(Just as we saw the 1st seal could be a good work of
God, so the 7th trumpet could be His good work as
well, for it announces good and righteous things -
Rev.11:15-18. The 7 vials of God's righteous wrath may
come out of the temple-opening of the 7th trumpet -
Rev.11:19, 15:5-16:1.)

> Dog the Wet had said: Perhaps the Grandest Lie . . .

> is that God is the cause, and is to be blamed for,
> the Great Tribulation

(We've seen that God certainly can be "blamed" for
part of the tribulation, but may not be able to be
"blamed" for all of it, as Satan may possibly be the
one performing a lot of it. But whatever the case,
Satan will no doubt use the suffering of the
tribulation to turn people against God, saying that
all the suffering is completely unnecessary, and just
goes to prove how evil God is, and how God doesn't
want the best for mankind, as Satan will claim he
does - cf. Mt.16:23.)

(Satan could also say that the eternal suffering of
the damned - Mt.25:46 - is completely unnecessary as
well, and further proves that God takes pleasure in
his torturing of mankind. Even some Christians might
fall for these arguments when they begin to suffer in
the tribulation; they could begin to think: "How could
a good God allow me and my little ones to suffer so
brutally, and for so long? What purpose could all this
suffering possibly serve?")

"And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and
hungry, and it shall come to pass, that when they
shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and
curse their king and their God, and look upward. And
they shall look unto the earth, and behold trouble
and darkness, dimness of anguish, and they shall be
driven to darkness" - Is.8:21-22.

"He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not
worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and
followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that
findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth
his life for my sake shall find it" - Mt.10:37-39.

"Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery
trial which is to try you, as though some strange
thing happened unto you. But rejoice, inasmuch as ye
are partakers of Christ's sufferings, that, when his
glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with
exceeding joy" - 1Pet.4:12-13.

[Pastor Dave]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:43:41 -0500, Gringo
<ther...@amor.net> spake thusly:

>On 10 Jun 2006 06:14:06 -0700, "Read The Bible"
><bible...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>The end time will never happen. Good gets too much
>enjoyment out of killing innocents with
>earthquakes, mudslides, floods and just about
>everything else that gives the old fart a good
>chuckle.

The end times already happened.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"Let me give you a definition of ethics: It is good
to maintain and further life; it is bad to damage
and destroy life." - Albert Schweitzer

[St Dog the Wet]

Bull wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2006 03:35:47 -0700, "Read The Bible"

> <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Dog the Wet said:
>> THE BIGGEST LIE
>> Perhaps the Grandest Lie ever presented to
> mankind,
>> and God's People, is that God is the cause, and
> is
>> to be blamed for, the Great Tribulation
>
> (I think the biggest lie was when "the serpent
> said
> unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die" -
> Genesis 3:4, for it is that lie that caused the
> fall
> of man and all the ensuing suffering and death
> that
> mankind has been enduring for the last six
> thousand

I can not deny the magnitude of that first lie of Satan.

However, if you will consider the details; you will notice that
that first lie was a rather simple deception.

The Biggest Lie is a combination of Two Lies.

This Lie of the "Millennial reign of Christ on this earth" is a
Lie which Satan will fulfill himself, as he attempted to do with
Napoleon, then Hitler's 'Third Reich.' When Modern Rome rises,
and Satan possesses the body prepared for him, then he will claim
to be "God" and demand to be worshiped as "God." This act will
bring the Great Tribulation upon God's People who will refuse to
worship him. Mat 24: 7-10, 8-14, 14-21,

The Lie of the "rapture" (the escape from The Great Tribulation)
blames this Tribulation on God, and those who have believed it
will be confounded when they enter the tribulation they believed
they would escape.

Thus, Satan has lied to Both God's People and the people of the
world AND committed blasphemy to do so.

THAT is what makes this 'the biggest lie."

THE BIGGEST LIE

Perhaps the Grandest Lie ever presented to God's People -- and
mankind -- is that God is the cause, and is to be blamed for, the

Great Tribulation which the false "God" of Modern Rome will cause.

For the entire past generation, perhaps the last 80 years, the
writers, teachers and preachers of "the rapture" have been

selling this Doctrine of Devils to mankind. Embedded in the false
hope of their escape from Tribulation is concealed the cause and

source of the suffering the Church is to escape.

The entire world has become aware of the false hope of the
Church's escape, and they laugh at the ridiculous visions of cars

running empty on streets while Christians are whisked into the
sky. The world laughs; but they are not so blind or ignorant that

they miss the not so subtle statement that it is God who brings

this Tribulation on the world.

So the World knows Christians believe that God is the source and
causes of the Tribulation coming on the world. And who taught the

world this lie? Was it Satan? No, as far as the world knows, it
was Christianity.

If you are one who has refused to abandon these lies you will

also endure the laughter and ridicule of those who hate you --
when they discover you can not escape.

It Is Done: There will be no more delay.

A servant of the Lord
His witness
oldwetdog

[Dichard Rawkins]

Read The Bible <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<1150022147.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

> I think the biggest lie was when "the serpent said
> unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die" -
> Genesis 3:4,

That wasn't a lie. They did not die "in that day" as God had said, and
furthermore, it was the GODs of the creation myth that prevented them from the
eternal life that was waiting over in the Tree of Life, not the serpent.

--
***Free Your Mind***

Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2507

[ Followup-To: alt.bible ]

[Dichard Rawkins]

Read The Bible <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<1150022147.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

> It is Satan's lie, that we shall not surely die

No, it is Paul's lie, a lie taken up with fervor by the Christian church in
their doctrine of eternal life through belief in Jesus Christ.

[Libertarius]

Read The Bible wrote:

> > Dog the Wet said:
> > THE BIGGEST LIE
> > Perhaps the Grandest Lie ever presented to mankind,
> > and God's People, is that God is the cause, and is
> > to be blamed for, the Great Tribulation
>
> (I think the biggest lie was when "the serpent said
> unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die" -
> Genesis 3:4

===>TOTALLY FALSE.
This is the old Christian lie!
You guys always ignore
the false threat by YHWH ELOHIM that they would
die THAT DAY, from eating his fruit.
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
you shall not eat of it:
for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die."
(World English Bible)
The fable clearly says it was the talking snake
that told them the truth:
"The serpent said to the woman,
"You won't surely die,
for God knows that in the day you eat it,
your eyes will be opened,
and you will be as God, knowing good and evil."
This is confirmed by two details:
1. They obviously did NOT die that day; and
2. YHWH ELOHIM himself is compelled to admit
what he neglected to tell them, but the talking snake
told them.
"Yahweh God said,
"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
The earthlings became LIKE ONE OF THE ELOHIM (GODS).

So, PLEASE READ THE STORY
and stop falsifying it and
lying about it. -- L.

[Glenn (Christian Mystic)]

To St Dog The Wet,

We agree, for the most part, what may surprise many is that we are *already*
in at least, the very first year of the Tribulation.

Many think that what is holding back the "revealing" of the Beast (the son
of trouble) is the Church...thus think it must be 'raptured' first.

Wrong the "revealing" is when his power clicks in (as he will already have
been revealed, to those of us, doing as Christ instructed, to *watch*), and
what will hold him back, may well be already at work, the Two Witnesses of
God, their speach is as fire, burning their enemies, their prayers are
answered with weather conditions, plagues, and etc. which work against the
Beast.

It is when these two are murdered by the Beast, that the Beast's political
power takes off... But God still will not let him of the success he aims
for.

In Rev.22:8-9 the angel John almost worships tells him not to, as he is only
a man of John's family of prophets. Christians work for God, all through the
Tribulation, opening seals, blowing trumpets, and pouring out jars, as well
as preaching warning to the world.

The believers aren't raptured to escape it, but rather they are *put to
work* during it.

The Pre-Tribs (which I had mistaken you as being one) blind many believers,
who *should* have their eyes *wide open* watching, and preparing the way for
Christ's return !

As to the thousand years (Rev. 20:1-10), that Satan will be in chains, why
do you appear to deny it ?

<snipped, old stuff>

[Glenn (Christian Mystic)]

I messed up, St Dog The Wet, in order to be sure that I see your response
ASAP, could you please add alt.christnet & alt.christnet.bible ? I rarely
leave alt.bible, alt.christnet, or alt.christnet.bible, but I bunce around a
little bit. Presently though I am in alt.christnet.christianlife (where I
noticed the "Azure threads" are missing), is this your home newsgroup ?

"St Dog the Wet" <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:128oh50...@corp.supernews.com...

[St Dog the Wet]

Glenn (Christian Mystic) wrote:
> To St Dog The Wet,
>
> We agree,

We MOSTLY agree...

for the most part, what may surprise many is that we are *already*
> in at least, the very first year of the Tribulation.

Before the Great Tribulation comes the AFFLICTION
Mat 24:8-14
You will notice that verse nine begins with "THEN..."
After the Beginning of Sorrows,
"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill
you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another,
and shall hate one another.

After the Affliction, THEN comes the Abomination.

>
> Many think that what is holding back the "revealing" of the Beast (the son
> of trouble) is the Church...thus think it must be 'raptured' first.
>
> Wrong the "revealing" is when his power clicks in (as he will already have
> been revealed, to those of us, doing as Christ instructed, to *watch*), and
> what will hold him back, may well be already at work, the Two Witnesses of
> God, their speach is as fire, burning their enemies, their prayers are
> answered with weather conditions, plagues, and etc. which work against the
> Beast.
>
> It is when these two are murdered by the Beast, that the Beast's political
> power takes off... But God still will not let him of the success he aims
> for.
>
> In Rev.22:8-9 the angel John almost worships tells him not to, as he is only
> a man of John's family of prophets. Christians work for God, all through the
> Tribulation, opening seals, blowing trumpets, and pouring out jars, as well
> as preaching warning to the world.
>
> The believers aren't raptured to escape it, but rather they are *put to
> work* during it.
>
> The Pre-Tribs (which I had mistaken you as being one) blind many believers,
> who *should* have their eyes *wide open* watching, and preparing the way for
> Christ's return !
>
> As to the thousand years (Rev. 20:1-10), that Satan will be in chains, why
> do you appear to deny it ?

I don't deny the reign of the Saints with Christ.
I don't deny that the Saints reign for a thousand years.

To understand what I mean, see this link:
http://tinyurl.com/q3s8t

Then see these two links
http://tinyurl.com/sxkcz
http://tinyurl.com/mfb9l

See this link last
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/main/about/conclusion.html

[St Dog the Wet]

Glenn (Christian Mystic) wrote:
> I messed up, St Dog The Wet, in order to be sure that I see your response
> ASAP, could you please add alt.christnet & alt.christnet.bible ? I rarely
> leave alt.bible, alt.christnet, or alt.christnet.bible, but I bunce around a
> little bit. Presently though I am in alt.christnet.christianlife (where I
> noticed the "Azure threads" are missing), is this your home newsgroup ?

This is what I consider my "home newsgroup"
but if you like, I will add alt.bible...

owd

[duke]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:13:18 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:

>> (I think the biggest lie was when "the serpent said
>> unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die" -
>> Genesis 3:4

>===>TOTALLY FALSE.

>The fable clearly says it was the talking snake
>that told them the truth:
>"The serpent said to the woman,
>"You won't surely die,
>for God knows that in the day you eat it,
>your eyes will be opened,
>and you will be as God, knowing good and evil."

Interesting. You refer to the serpent telling them they won't die as a false
fable.

>This is confirmed by two details:
>1. They obviously did NOT die that day; and

Actually it was that evening that they were sent out of the garden - death was
their reward.

>2. YHWH ELOHIM himself is compelled to admit
>what he neglected to tell them, but the talking snake
>told them.
>"Yahweh God said,
>"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
>The earthlings became LIKE ONE OF THE ELOHIM (GODS).

Right, believing they can decide for themselves instead of listening to God.

>So, PLEASE READ THE STORY
>and stop falsifying it and
>lying about it. -- L.

You fabrications continue to haunt you, libby.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Libertarius]

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> On 11 Jun 2006 03:35:47 -0700, "Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

> >(I think the biggest lie was when "the serpent said
> >unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die" -
>

> Which, of course, isn't a REAL story.
> But even so, Adam and Eve DIDN"T die.

===>That is the Christian lie!
In fact Talking Snake told the truth,
YHWH Elohim lied.
He said they would die the very day they dared to eat.
It was just a threat to keep them from becoming like the gods. -- L.