THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE DOES NOT FIT LAST DAYS PROPHECY ABOUT NOAH
- Thread starter DP
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
pls bare in mind we get hundreds of posts everyday and rely on people reporting any mis-behavior, through sheer lack of time.
ALSO often when a report is made and we look through the history of the thread quite often there is no innocent party involved.. As we are mainly christians that use the site we also appreciate the people that take time to create peace in any disputes..
blessed are the Peacemakers
Hello EarnestQ,
First of all, I have never been one to be concerned about what scholars or theologians say. My concern is what the word of God says. I'm in a hurry and so I will only list the following:
Anyone who attempts to apply Christ as the One who is making the covenant has a huge problem. The "He" of Dan.9:27 would have to refer back to the one previously mentioned in v26, which would be the ruler of the people. This ruler does the following:
* Makes a covenant for one 'seven'
* In the middle of the seven "He" puts an end to sacrifice and offering
* In the middle of the 'seven' "He" sets up an abomination that causes desolation (See Mt.24:15)
The same person in the scripture performs all of the above, being that only one person is referred to in the verse. That said, if anyone is to interpret Christ as being the one referred to in the scripture, then you would have him as the one who is also setting up the abomination, which kills the entire idea of the "He" in the scripture as being Christ. Bdelugma translated "abomination" is defined as a detestable, reeking stench that goes up before God.
bdélygma (from 948 /bdelýssō, derived from bdēō, "to reek with stench") – properly, what emits a foul odor and hence is disgustingly abhorrent (abominable, detestable); (figuratively) moral horror as a stench to God (like when people refuse to hear and obey His voice).
Consequently, by interpreting Jesus as the one who is making the covenant, he would also have to be the one who sets up the abomination in the holy place. And by doing so, this act would be blasphemous against the Father and Jesus himself. Therefore, the "He" of Dan.9:27 cannot be referring to the Lord.
I might also mention that, the Anointed One is cut off at the sixty-ninth seven, which takes place prior to the events of the seventieth seven. If Jesus is the Anointed One who is cut off at the sixty-ninth seven, which is Christ crucified, how can he be the one performing the events mentioned during the seventieth seven?
First of all, I have never been one to be concerned about what scholars or theologians say. My concern is what the word of God says. I'm in a hurry and so I will only list the following:
Anyone who attempts to apply Christ as the One who is making the covenant has a huge problem. The "He" of Dan.9:27 would have to refer back to the one previously mentioned in v26, which would be the ruler of the people. This ruler does the following:
* Makes a covenant for one 'seven'
* In the middle of the seven "He" puts an end to sacrifice and offering
* In the middle of the 'seven' "He" sets up an abomination that causes desolation (See Mt.24:15)
The same person in the scripture performs all of the above, being that only one person is referred to in the verse. That said, if anyone is to interpret Christ as being the one referred to in the scripture, then you would have him as the one who is also setting up the abomination, which kills the entire idea of the "He" in the scripture as being Christ. Bdelugma translated "abomination" is defined as a detestable, reeking stench that goes up before God.
bdélygma (from 948 /bdelýssō, derived from bdēō, "to reek with stench") – properly, what emits a foul odor and hence is disgustingly abhorrent (abominable, detestable); (figuratively) moral horror as a stench to God (like when people refuse to hear and obey His voice).
Consequently, by interpreting Jesus as the one who is making the covenant, he would also have to be the one who sets up the abomination in the holy place. And by doing so, this act would be blasphemous against the Father and Jesus himself. Therefore, the "He" of Dan.9:27 cannot be referring to the Lord.
I might also mention that, the Anointed One is cut off at the sixty-ninth seven, which takes place prior to the events of the seventieth seven. If Jesus is the Anointed One who is cut off at the sixty-ninth seven, which is Christ crucified, how can he be the one performing the events mentioned during the seventieth seven?
P
Same here.
There was disagreement on the trinity and canonizing the bible.
You can also imagine what the destruction of the temple did to their eschatological views.
So many things led them down a path of error.
Paul himself straightened out a few of their errors.
That " infallible dead men " deal is getting tedious since it never had an ounce of traction to begin with.
The final nail in that deal is that the Catholics burned tons of ancient writings and their authors as heretics.
Unbelievable that anyone in this late hour would skip over such nobrainers and say " the early fathers believed XYZ,when the Catholics burned anything offending them
FF to today , and us same heretics still stand on the word,only to be called,as were the martyrs,heretics.
There was disagreement on the trinity and canonizing the bible.
You can also imagine what the destruction of the temple did to their eschatological views.
So many things led them down a path of error.
Paul himself straightened out a few of their errors.
That " infallible dead men " deal is getting tedious since it never had an ounce of traction to begin with.
The final nail in that deal is that the Catholics burned tons of ancient writings and their authors as heretics.
Unbelievable that anyone in this late hour would skip over such nobrainers and say " the early fathers believed XYZ,when the Catholics burned anything offending them
FF to today , and us same heretics still stand on the word,only to be called,as were the martyrs,heretics.
Last edited:
Brother Ahwatukee,
Thank you for answering my question about the 7th head/king.
Would you please give me your viewpoint about how the 8th head is one of the 7.
You said that he is of the "lineage" of the 7 heads,
What does that mean?
Will you expand on your definition of "lineage",
If you would please.
Thank you.
Thank you for answering my question about the 7th head/king.
Would you please give me your viewpoint about how the 8th head is one of the 7.
You said that he is of the "lineage" of the 7 heads,
What does that mean?
Will you expand on your definition of "lineage",
If you would please.
Thank you.
I don’t have the ability to convince anyone of anything. All I can do is present information in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and pray he works in a person’s life.
I made my posts for the benefit of those who might be interested in some of the stuff I have uncovered, not to convince anyone of anything.
I am not able to argue anyone into believing anything, nor am I motivated to try to do so here.
I am not confident that the following can be accredited to Christ, so I am reluctant to publicize it, and, I don’t really want to argue with anyone who is so confident in his own theology that he can learn nothing from others.
Do with this as God leads.
Thank you.
You miss the point.
I was explaining that if centuries worth of well respected Bible scholars agree on something, it is reasonable to consider it a possibility.
1) It is absurd to claim I said the early saints can't be wrong. It is just an excuse to not honestly consider what the scholars taught. (This over-exaggerating of a point is a form of deception that is a common among those who are in error.)
2) Presuming yourself to be an infallible "Berean" and accusing those who disagree with you to be teaching error is, again, a common characteristic of those who are in error. Instead of thoughtfully considering an opposing view, they presume their own infallibility and insult and attack those who disagree with them. They have to do this because their main tenets cannot be supported through legitimate Bible scholarship.
3) I never claimed all previous theologians were infallible. Just because Wycliffe, or anyone else in centuries past, was mistaken in one part of their theology, that does not prove they were all wrong in all parts of their theology. But that is your justification for not even considering what has been the historic position of the church. How is that any different from the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, and any other group that comes up with a "new teaching" that is not found in the Bible or the history of the orthodox evangelical church?
Your arguments are invalid because you are making allusions and accusations that are untrue. These are common actions of those who promote error.
4) You accuse "post-tribs" of preferring history over the Bible. You imply that you are superior because you rely only on the Bible and therefore those who disagree with you (no matter how well studied and Bible centered they are) are not as committed to the Bible as you presume yourself to be. My purpose in presenting historical quotes was to show that my assertions were supported by those who knew more about the Bible and related topics than you and I put together.
Arguing that all Bible scholars of the last 2,000 years are not worth learning from, and that ones own Bible understanding is inerrant on any given subject (including any part of the end times) is really a form of arrogance. Imagining ones self to be incapable of being mistaken because he calls himself a "Berean" is no guarantee that one truly does have inerrant insight into the meaning of what the Bible teaches. (What kind of spirit would give a person such confidence in ones own inerrancy?)
This is also a very common characteristic of those who are indoctrinated into deception. They attack those who disagree with them. They do not focus on what the text of the Bible says because it ultimately disproves their position. (In previous posts I showed Darby doing this. I have many more documented examples.)
There is no humility or teachability in the areas of their deception. I speak from personal experience in this. I used to believe in Dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture myself.
Humbly, I really don't want to get into a mud slinging contest with you. I know you will take offense at the above and be unable to entertain thoughts of considering of the possibility of your own mistakenness in even the smallest part of these things.
I understand. It is not easy to face such a drastic realignment of ones values and beliefs.
It took me a while to break out of my own deception from Dispensationalism (and a number of other things).
I know it isn't easy, and for many, it isn't even likely. All I can do is pray for God's truth, love, and wisdom to reign in everyone, everywhere, forever, not the least of which is myself.
I apologize for speaking strongly. I did not know how else to communicate my points.
P
No,what I am saying is the word would trump any erroneous belief.
Note Pauls constant correction of APOSTLES and leaders.
I can biblically dispute All those notions of those men you showcase.
Some of your points are not even applicable due to the fact that they are pointing to the second coming,which we both agree on.
But you gotta admit that wycliff quote was a disappointment. There is a curse for tampering with revelation.
Note Pauls constant correction of APOSTLES and leaders.
I can biblically dispute All those notions of those men you showcase.
Some of your points are not even applicable due to the fact that they are pointing to the second coming,which we both agree on.
But you gotta admit that wycliff quote was a disappointment. There is a curse for tampering with revelation.
P
I don't see our differing end times views as pivotal on our salvation.
In fact,the GT will certainly bring nominal believers into an intensity with God they never had before.
The gathering of the bride and the advent of the AC Kick off the GT,which is the refiners fire,and the harvest of the covenant Jews.
IOW,REDEMPTION is God's continuing plan,right into and during the GT.
In fact,the GT will certainly bring nominal believers into an intensity with God they never had before.
The gathering of the bride and the advent of the AC Kick off the GT,which is the refiners fire,and the harvest of the covenant Jews.
IOW,REDEMPTION is God's continuing plan,right into and during the GT.
You are right on popeye. Below is actually how the interlinear translates it.
Because you have kept the word of the patient endurance of me I also you will keep [out of] the hour of the trial being about to come on the inhabited world whole to try those dwelling upon the earth.
The words "out of" in the brackets above is translated from the word "Ek" which is defined as "out of." Ergo, I will keep you out of the hour of trial that is coming upon the whole world. "Out of" would demonstrate that those who overcome will not even be exposed to the wrath of God via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments.
Have a blessed day Popeye, EarnesQ and all.
Because you have kept the word of the patient endurance of me I also you will keep [out of] the hour of the trial being about to come on the inhabited world whole to try those dwelling upon the earth.
The words "out of" in the brackets above is translated from the word "Ek" which is defined as "out of." Ergo, I will keep you out of the hour of trial that is coming upon the whole world. "Out of" would demonstrate that those who overcome will not even be exposed to the wrath of God via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments.
Have a blessed day Popeye, EarnesQ and all.
The point is that it is YOUR opinion of what the Bible says. You are not infallible in your opinion of what the Bible says. (None of us are.)
Dan 9:27 is a good example. Some godly men believe it applies to Christ, others to anti-Christ. By saying ones own opinion of to whom it applies cannot be wrong is claiming infallibility in how one interprets that passage. This kind of arrogance does not come from the Spirit of God.
I brought in the quotes to show not all godly scholars agree with you. By discrediting them without considering them, you are claiming your understanding of Scriptures is unquestionably inerrant and far superior to theirs.
Knowing nothing about them or why they came to the conclusions they did, you presume yourself to be so skilled in exegesis and spiritual insight that you can learn nothing from anyone else. You assume that what you decide a passage means is inerrant and infallible.
[This perfectly natural human characteristic is known as the Dunning-Krueger Effect.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of those of low ability to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their ability accurately.]
We are all guilty of this, but the more aware we are of our natural tendency to think this way, the more likely we are to overcome it.
To know the truth of the Bible, we can't presume to already know it. It is necessary to grow in the humility of Christ in order for Him to lead us in His truth.
(One way to start doing this is to ask Him to start showing you where you are wrong about things. If one is not humble enough to do this, they will never grow in His truth.)
Post trib resurrection ... Mt 24.
I'll be adding a lot more later, but I cannot "convince" you or anyone else of anything. All I can do is present information that I have found and ask you to "humbly" seek God's truth and wisdom in the matter.
It is up to each of us to confront our own error.
I have already done that regarding Dispensationalism and the pre-trib "rapture". Only God knows if you are ready to do that yourself. If not, I will not be able to argue you out of what you believe about anything.
That's what I mean by "humility". One must admit before God they may not know the truth of any given part of the Bible no matter how convinced they are that they are a true "Berean" and everyone who disagrees with them is unquestionably in error.
I'll be adding a lot more later, but I cannot "convince" you or anyone else of anything. All I can do is present information that I have found and ask you to "humbly" seek God's truth and wisdom in the matter.
It is up to each of us to confront our own error.
I have already done that regarding Dispensationalism and the pre-trib "rapture". Only God knows if you are ready to do that yourself. If not, I will not be able to argue you out of what you believe about anything.
That's what I mean by "humility". One must admit before God they may not know the truth of any given part of the Bible no matter how convinced they are that they are a true "Berean" and everyone who disagrees with them is unquestionably in error.
P
I don't see any postrib resurrection anywhere except after the millennium,which is not the rapture.
Uh,no,just bring your verses and we will check them together.
If you are so right on,as you claim,then to challenge your verses will prove you to be such.......,,,,Right?
The humble/not humble thingy is getting a little tedious.
Uh,no,just bring your verses and we will check them together.
If you are so right on,as you claim,then to challenge your verses will prove you to be such.......,,,,Right?
The humble/not humble thingy is getting a little tedious.