There will be no Rapture!!!

[TheDivineWatermark]

@FollowerofShiloh 's Post #1938,

So what word do you see in those three verse I had provided, instead? John 4:21, John 4:23 and 1 John 2:18 (2x)?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

@FollowerofShiloh 's Post #1938,

So what word do you see in those three verse I had provided, instead? John 4:21, John 4:23 and 1 John 2:18 (2x)?

In John 4 Jesus is talking to the Samaritan woman about His Hour when worship won't be in the mountain or Temple because we know it's in our hearts.

But 1 John in the 2nd century Greek has no mention of hour.
18 Little children, it is the last time, and as you heard that antichrist comes, even now many antichrists have risen: whence we know that it is the last time.

 

[Mem]

Considering that Revelation's Prologue begins with an address to the 7 churches in Turkey, what significance might the current condition of those have upon our understanding of the rest of the book? I tried wiki to get a lead on exactly what happened with each of the churches but am only going on the general trend not being any sort of expert in regard to those original churches. Where these considered of the Byzantine order seeing that most of those are either in ruins or have been converted to mosques?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Considering that Revelation's Prologue begins with an address to the 7 churches in Turkey, what significance might the current condition of those have upon our understanding of the rest of the book? I tried wiki to get a lead on exactly what happened with each of the churches but am only going on the general trend not being any sort of expert in regard to those original churches. Where these considered of the Byzantine order seeing that most of those are either in ruins or have been converted to mosques?

Interesting and thought provoking question by You because it's extremely important to understand that these 7 Churches are specific to John in his time and not connected at all to future prophecy. I have also done research and even followed the writings of both the Church Fathers and Historians of the immediate decades following 100 A.D. concerning these Churches and the remnants have well ended by the 5th century.

Just like we will never see the true example of the Acts Church from the leadership of the Apostles, we will no longer see examples of these 7 Churches but the """sins""" that God shows us can apply to even today's Pastor + congregations.

So I agree, if I read you correctly, those Churches came and now gone and are no more and never will be again. They literally have no connection to the Prophecies within Revelation at all.

 

[Musicmaster]

Considering that Revelation's Prologue begins with an address to the 7 churches in Turkey, what significance might the current condition of those have upon our understanding of the rest of the book? I tried wiki to get a lead on exactly what happened with each of the churches but am only going on the general trend not being any sort of expert in regard to those original churches. Where these considered of the Byzantine order seeing that most of those are either in ruins or have been converted to mosques?

John wrote what is very telling about the book of Revelation:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen [past tense], and the things which are [present tense], and the things which shall be hereafter [future tense];

This is the divisional outline of the entire book, given that it all divides out nicely into three distinct sections of timelines, with the churches being what was (Rev. 1-3, and are not ruins for archaeologists to study), also in that they had already been in the state the Lord addressed to each one by the time John wrote the book. Then it goes to things which are in the present Church age unto its very end (Rev 4-5). Then on to things to come (Rev 6-22). Amillennialists will disagree with this, but the text and reality both defy that system of thought, as nonsensical as it is.

MM

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

John wrote what is very telling about the book of Revelation:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen [past tense], and the things which are [present tense], and the things which shall be hereafter [future tense];

This is the divisional outline of the entire book, given that it all divides out nicely into three distinct sections of timelines, with the churches being what was (Rev. 1-3, and are not ruins for archaeologists to study), also in that they had already been in the state the Lord addressed to each one by the time John wrote the book. Then it goes to things which are in the present Church age unto its very end (Rev 4-5). Then on to things to come (Rev 6-22). Amillennialists will disagree with this, but the text and reality both defy that system of thought, as nonsensical as it is.

MM

I disagree on the basis knowing in Mishnah we studied the fall of the Adversary that took place either before or just after Creation. We see them attack God's Plan in the Garden (chapter 3), the Nephilim (chapter 6), Tower of Babel (chapter 12).

But Revelation makes no mention of this until chapter 12 as we see the Dragon and fallen stars on Earth prior to the BIRTH of the child (Jesus).
4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it.


So Revelation is not all in line as you claim.

 

[Cameron143]

John wrote what is very telling about the book of Revelation:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen [past tense], and the things which are [present tense], and the things which shall be hereafter [future tense];

This is the divisional outline of the entire book, given that it all divides out nicely into three distinct sections of timelines, with the churches being what was (Rev. 1-3, and are not ruins for archaeologists to study), also in that they had already been in the state the Lord addressed to each one by the time John wrote the book. Then it goes to things which are in the present Church age unto its very end (Rev 4-5). Then on to things to come (Rev 6-22). Amillennialists will disagree with this, but the text and reality both defy that system of thought, as nonsensical as it is.

MM

Do you see any similarities between Deuteronomy and Revelation?

 

[Musicmaster]

I disagree on the basis knowing in Mishnah we studied the fall of the Adversary that took place either before or just after Creation. We see them attack God's Plan in the Garden (chapter 3), the Nephilim (chapter 6), Tower of Babel (chapter 12).

But Revelation makes no mention of this until chapter 12 as we see the Dragon and fallen stars on Earth prior to the BIRTH of the child (Jesus).
4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it.

So Revelation is not all in line as you claim.

I don't give a rat's petoot about the oral traditions of our ancients. If you can prove Revelation doesn't mean what it states, then prove it! It's just that simple. The Church, which was inclusive of both believing Israelis and Gentiles was fully integrated into a living body before John was given those visions of three different timelines, so throwing the Mishnah into the mix is pure nonsense!

If you choose to gauge the caliber of my Israeli roots on the basis of my rejection of Mishnah, then so be it. Again, your opinion on that has no bearing upon anything whatsoever apart from your own inner thought processes. One must separate the meaningful history that can be gleaned from Mishnah of the people's and their thought processes back then, and throw out the rest that has no place in our life in Yahshuah and has no bearing upon John's record of what He was shown.

Mishnah is earthly in tenor and foundation given that it's about traditions, not inspired writing from the very Lord we serve. Revelation, on the other hand, touches upon Heaven and earth, and shows the wrath of the Lord out of which we as the Church will be delivered out from because He did not "appoint" us into that. If you want to remain here, then that's on you, not anyone else. Stay if you like. Pray the Lord will leave you here if you so desire. I really don't care because I care more about your freedom to choose than to try and force you into seeking to be where you don't want to be.

MM

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

I don't give a rat's petoot about the oral traditions of our ancients. If you can prove Revelation doesn't mean what it states, then prove it! It's just that simple. The Church, which was inclusive of both believing Israelis and Gentiles was fully integrated into a living body before John was given those visions of three different timelines, so throwing the Mishnah into the mix is pure nonsense!

If you choose to gauge the caliber of my Israeli roots on the basis of my rejection of Mishnah, then so be it. Again, your opinion on that has no bearing upon anything whatsoever apart from your own inner thought processes. One must separate the meaningful history that can be gleaned from Mishnah of the people's and their thought processes back then, and throw out the rest that has no place in our life in Yahshuah and has no bearing upon John's record of what He was shown.

Mishnah is earthly in tenor and foundation given that it's about traditions, not inspired writing from the very Lord we serve. Revelation, on the other hand, touches upon Heaven and earth, and shows the wrath of the Lord out of which we as the Church will be delivered out from because He did not "appoint" us into that. If you want to remain here, then that's on you, not anyone else. Stay if you like. Pray the Lord will leave you here if you so desire. I really don't care because I care more about your freedom to choose than to try and force you into seeking to be where you don't want to be.

MM

I know you don't care and it reflects on your answers you provide. They are as horrendous reading as it was watching my son when he played t-ball baseball and kept hitting the T-Stand instead of the ball.

 

[Musicmaster]

I know you don't care and it reflects on your answers you provide. They are as horrendous reading as it was watching my son when he played t-ball baseball and kept hitting the T-Stand instead of the ball.

At least my not caring is on the basis of your freedom to choose rather than upon the sinful lack of love, or a tyrannical desire to control you. There's a difference. One is noble, the others are sin. I chose the noble path rather than the paths of sin.

MM

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

At least my not caring is on the basis of your freedom to choose rather than upon the sinful lack of love, or a tyrannical desire to control you. There's a difference. One is noble, the others are sin. I chose the noble path rather than the paths of sin.

MM

I love debating with you because you debate like a Jew even though you denounce it every step of the way. I am at fault for pushing the buttons to set you off but in all fairness, knowing the Tanakh testifies who the Coming Messiah (Jesus) was and seems vital to understand the connection. I hardly say my people but rather state the Old Covenant Book, Chapter, and Verse. Any ways, you are breathe of fresh air and I cherish our bickering.

 

[Musicmaster]

I love debating with you because you debate like a Jew even though you denounce it every step of the way. I am at fault for pushing the buttons to set you off but in all fairness, knowing the Tanakh testifies who the Coming Messiah (Jesus) was and seems vital to understand the connection. I hardly say my people but rather state the Old Covenant Book, Chapter, and Verse. Any ways, you are breathe of fresh air and I cherish our bickering.

What I denounce, in reality, is anything that is not inspired writing, but only by comparison.

The traditions of our people varied from tribe to tribe, with the priesthood at the higher tier than tribal, and ultimately the Torah at the top, but not always revered as the one and only defining authority. The tendency to try and "fill in the gaps" with specifics for those who routinely demand answers to such things as "How many steps can I take on Shabbat before it becomes 'work' as a violation of Torah?" All of that stems from a lack of vision for the spirit of Torah.

As is written, the letter "killeth," but the Spirit "giveth life."

The traditions tended to be so deeply steeped in much of what we see within the RCC, historically speaking. A progressive building upon the heap of traditions always leads to inconsistencies, contradictions, along with lots and lots of interpretations from our contemporary rabbis. My lineage of rabbis, some secular and some overly religious, and everything in between, but almost always legalistic, have been somewhat of a thorn in my flesh upon reflection throughout my past.

Being a "Messianic Jew" (and I lay claim to that label very reservedly given that I don't subscribe to ALL the beliefs within ALL groupings who lay claim to that label), I'm forced to look toward inspired writing as being vastly more authoritative than anything else written by men who had not seen Yahshuah.

MM

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

What I denounce, in reality, is anything that is not inspired writing, but only by comparison.

The traditions of our people varied from tribe to tribe, with the priesthood at the higher tier than tribal, and ultimately the Torah at the top, but not always revered as the one and only defining authority. The tendency to try and "fill in the gaps" with specifics for those who routinely demand answers to such things as "How many steps can I take on Shabbat before it becomes 'work' as a violation of Torah?" All of that stems from a lack of vision for the spirit of Torah.

As is written, the letter "killeth," but the Spirit "giveth life."

The traditions tended to be so deeply steeped in much of what we see within the RCC, historically speaking. A progressive building upon the heap of traditions always leads to inconsistencies, contradictions, along with lots and lots of interpretations from our contemporary rabbis. My lineage of rabbis, some secular and some overly religious, and everything in between, but almost always legalistic, have been somewhat of a thorn in my flesh upon reflection throughout my past.

Being a "Messianic Jew" (and I lay claim to that label very reservedly given that I don't subscribe to ALL the beliefs within ALL groupings who lay claim to that label), I'm forced to look toward inspired writing as being vastly more authoritative than anything else written by men who had not seen Yahshuah.

MM

For me what you speak about would be the Talmud and its doctrines based off of Rabbi interpretation and ancient wise tales. But the Torah and Tanakh is 100% Inspired of God. And Mishnah only deals with the Torah and Tanakh. Most Talmudic teaching doesn't happen until well after the understanding of what we know in Christianity as the Old Testament.