“About The Great Tribulation”

  • 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.

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
45
28
The word "stars" in Revelation are used in the following manner:

* The stars in the Lord's right hand represent the seven angels (pastors/overseers) of the seven churches - Rev.1:20

* Jesus as the Morning Star - Rev.2:26

* Meteorites/asteroids referred to as stars - Rev.6:12-13

* A Star representing an unknown object which contaminates the waters at the 3rd trumpet - Rev.8:10-11

* Stars representing literal stars because the sun and the moon are also in the context- Rev.8:12

* A star representing an angel who opens the Abyss at the 5th trumpet - Rev.9:1-2

* Stars representing the twelve tribes of Israel - Rev.12:1/Gen.37:9-10

* Stars representing Satan's angels - Rev.12:3-4, 7-9

It is the context that will reveal however the star or any word is being used symbolically. Therefore, we cannot apply the same meaning every time we see the word star. In other words, just because scripture states that the "stars fell to the earth" does not mean that they are fallen angels.
You refer to eight references to star(s) in Revelation. Most of them are explicitly identified as symbols by the context. Not once is any star in Revelation identified as a literal star! Not once does a literal interpretation make any sense!

You say Rev 6:12-13 calls meteorites stars. First, why should you default to an attempted literal interpretation when Revelation itself never implies a literal interpretation, but always explains things symbolically, when an explanation is given? Hey, bucko that's not a rhetorical question, even though you'll ignore it.

Rev 6:12-13 says, "the stars of the sky fell to the earth". Nothing there identifies those stars as meteorites. A meteorites by nature is not a star. A star is a sun, bucko. If I were to assume a secular cause of your blatantly false teaching, I'd say you're trying to take it literally, but literal makes NO SENSE. So, you redefine a star to mean a meteorite, so that you can take it literally, while doing the devil's work of denying its true symbolic meaning.

You repeat the above pattern of nonsense with Rev.8:10-11, a star fell, turning a third of the waters into wormwood. In your twisted effort to take it literally, you refer to the star as an "unknown object". Hey bucko, it's a known object, it's a star.
 

luigi

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2015
495
84
28
You repeat the above pattern of nonsense with Rev.8:10-11, a star fell, turning a third of the waters into wormwood. In your twisted effort to take it literally, you refer to the star as an "unknown object". Hey bucko, it's a known object, it's a star.
A fallen star/angel provides mankind with illumination/knowledge resulting in 1/3 of the earths fresh water resources to become poisoned.

It is estimated that of the 95% fracking operations that are known not to leak currently, the majority of which will over the course of the next 30 years leak and migrate into fresh water reservoirs, thereby causing far greater levels of toxicity than is currently experienced.

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
 

jb

Senior Member
Feb 27, 2010
4,038
181
63
Here is my point, stated clearly (as it was in my first post):

If you are writing a study on "the great tribulation" and don't address the events in Jerusalem of AD 66 to 70, your study is incomplete.
The Jewish war that occurred from 66-70 AD has nothing whatsoever to do with "the great tribulation" that occurs at the end of this age before Christ's 2nd Coming! Dan 12v1,7, 7v25, 8v23, 9v27, Matt 24v15-21,29-31, 2Thess 2v3,4,8,9, Rev 7v9,10,14, 11v1,2, 13v5,
 

luigi

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2015
495
84
28
A fallen star/angel provides mankind with illumination/knowledge resulting in 1/3 of the earths fresh water resources to become poisoned.

It is estimated that of the 95% fracking operations that are known not to leak currently, the majority of which will over the course of the next 30 years leak and migrate into fresh water reservoirs, thereby causing far greater levels of toxicity than is currently experienced.

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
According to the Lords Word, the forthcoming great tribulation in Revelation 8 and 9 is the result of environmental destruction caused by the love mankind has for the works from his hands (Revelation 9:20).

Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
 

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
45
28
This generation = the one where those signs begin to take place, which hasn't happened yet.
Here's what you insist Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, the generation when these signs take place will not pass until these things take place." That's shamelessly stupid, completely useless, and non-responsive to the question Jesus was asked about when. Oh, and insanely ignorant of the fact that the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That destruction is one of those things, even the central thing.

"This generation" means the generation present when Jesus was speaking. Go talk to your English teacher and she'll explain the grammar to you.
 

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
45
28
The Jewish war that occurred from 66-70 AD has nothing whatsoever to do with "the great tribulation" that occurs at the end of this age before Christ's 2nd Coming! Dan 12v1,7, 7v25, 8v23, 9v27, Matt 24v15-21,29-31, 2Thess 2v3,4,8,9, Rev 7v9,10,14, 11v1,2, 13v5,
Why do you supply a number of verse references which all contradict you?
 

luigi

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2015
495
84
28
The ones here who quote scripture in defense of their perspectives appear mostly calm in their posts, while the ones who do not quote scriptures appear mostly agitated and demeaning in defense of their unsupported by scripture perspectives.
 

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
45
28
The ones here who quote scripture in defense of their perspectives appear mostly calm in their posts, while the ones who do not quote scriptures appear mostly agitated and demeaning in defense of their unsupported by scripture perspectives.
What? You don't think I was calm when I asked JB why he provided a number of verse references which contradict himself?

Was I demeaning? I don't know. He posted verses references that don't support him. Am I suppose to praise him for his errors, or pretend that they do support him?
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
3,057
627
113
Oh, and insanely ignorant of the fact that the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
So they were to "FLEE" when they "SEE" the city "compassed with armies". When do you say THAT [specific thing] happened, the "SEE" "Jerusalem compassed with armies" part?

Because in Luke 21, that is described as happening BEFORE "all these [beginning of birth pangs described in vv.8-11]," yet in Matthew 24:15, the "beginning of birth pangs" (especially when correlated with its parallels) have already occurred well-before the event of v.15 when they are to "SEE" and "FLEE" (and the "THEREFORE" matters, here).

So CHRONOLOGY issues are proving otherwise. I remain unconvinced of your view.


"SEE [Jerusalem compassed with armies]"--then "FLEE"------THEN "the beginning of birth PANGS [plural]"---then "SEE [AOD]"--then "FLEE"
 

luigi

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2015
495
84
28
What? You don't think I was calm when I asked JB why he provided a number of verse references which contradict himself?

Was I demeaning? I don't know. He posted verses references that don't support him. Am I suppose to praise him for his errors, or pretend that they do support him?
You are demeaning to more individuals than just to JB. When you respond with something is "shamelessly stupid, totally useless" and other such demeaning comments, it shows your agitation due to your lack of knowledge through the Word.
Ahwatukee made the point that the temple (and other great buildings) in Jerusalem being leveled with not one stone on top of another, was not made in regards to the generation who would witness the events in Mark 13, Luke 21, and Matthew 24.
You made this assumption without scripture, and furthered your unsupported dogma by insulting the person who made the point.
 

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
45
28
So they were to "FLEE" when they "SEE" the city "compassed with armies". When do you say THAT [specific thing] happened, the "SEE" "Jerusalem compassed with armies" part? Because in Luke 21, that is described as happening BEFORE "all these [beginning of birth pangs described in vv.8-11]," yet in Matthew 24:15, the "beginning of birth pangs" (especially when correlated with its parallels) have already occurred well-before the event of v.15 when they are to "SEE" and "FLEE" (and the "THEREFORE" matters, here).

So CHRONOLOGY issues are proving otherwise. I remain unconvinced of your view.


"SEE [Jerusalem compassed with armies]"--then "FLEE"---THEN "the beginning of birth PANGS [plural]---then "SEE [AOD]--then "FLEE"
Wars and rumors of wars --> birth pangs --> armies encompass Jerusalem --> flee --> temple destroyed
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
28,835
7,217
113
64
Florida
Here's what you insist Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, the generation when these signs take place will not pass until these things take place." That's shamelessly stupid, completely useless, and non-responsive to the question Jesus was asked about when. Oh, and insanely ignorant of the fact that the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That destruction is one of those things, even the central thing.

"This generation" means the generation present when Jesus was speaking. Go talk to your English teacher and she'll explain the grammar to you.
This member has years of intensive study on end-time events that are outlined in the bible. The generation that Jesus was talking about was in the future and was not the generation alive at that time. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD was a minor event.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
28,835
7,217
113
64
Florida
I believe "stars shall fall from heaven" to have a figurative, spiritual meaning. You think that makes me guilty of believing "ABSOLUTE NONSENSE AND TOTAL FANTASY. " If I want to avoid nonsense, I'd have to believe that the stars, all suns, of the sky will literally fall from the sky, and that some or all people won't even be killed by that? Excuse me while a barf and laugh at the same time.

Revelation 1:16 that stars refer to angels “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches...

Revelation 12:4, the stars refer to the evil angels

Genesis 37:9, the stars are Joseph's parents and brothers.

But, those verses must be absolute nonsense and total fantasy, to you. Excuse me while a barf and laugh at the same time, again.
You are very rude and obnoxious to the respected members of this site.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
675
113
The destruction of the temple in 70 AD was a minor event.
Not so T - the nation was demolished - 1.3 million Jews went *poof* the rest went into slavery. It's destruction closed and fulfilled the old covenant and it's prophecies:

(Luke 21:22 YLT) because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all things that have been written.
 

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
45
28
You are demeaning to more individuals than just to JB. When you respond with something is "shamelessly stupid, totally useless" and other such demeaning comments, it shows your agitation due to your lack of knowledge through the Word.
Ahwatukee made the point that the temple (and other great buildings) in Jerusalem being leveled with not one stone on top of another, was not made in regards to the generation who would witness the events in Mark 13, Luke 21, and Matthew 24.
You made this assumption without scripture, and furthered your unsupported dogma by insulting the person who made the point.
The Temple being destroyed is the key event of Mark 12, Luke 21, and Matthew 24. It's stupid to say the temple's destruction isn't part of "this generation" events. It's also stupid, grammatically ignorant, to say "this generation" means a generation other than the one present with Jesus. It's also stupid to say that "this generation" means something as useless as saying "the generation in which is happens is the generation it happens." It's stupid say the wailing wall is part of the temple and that the temple's destruction isn't yet complete, even though it started over a generation ago. So stupid. So stupid is so many ways, and nothing not stupid about it.

I offer scripture-based reasoning, but they just ignore that, or it's over their head. But, they understand the word "stupid." They don't offer any reasoning or scripture that support them.

Tell me the definition of "this".
 

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
45
28
Not so T - the nation was demolished - 1.3 million Jews went *poof* the rest went into slavery. It's destruction closed and fulfilled the old covenant and it's prophecies:

(Luke 21:22 YLT) because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all things that have been written.
Saying the destruction of the temple was a minor event is STUPID. I wouldn't even have thought ancient Jerusalem had 1.3 million people, in the first place. That many were killed, and many were also dispersed, in Jerusalem alone. Minor to have a whole country wiped off the map, but by political coup but buy the destruction of its people? The greatest eschatological event in Jewish history minor? The end of the Jewish race (as proven by genealogies) and the end of the Jewish religion (as practiced in the OT) is minor?

The coming of Christ and the new Covenant coming to the fore is minor?

Yeah, minor compared to an irrelevant and exaggerated whatever in WWII.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
28,835
7,217
113
64
Florida
Not so T - the nation was demolished - 1.3 million Jews went *poof* the rest went into slavery. It's destruction closed and fulfilled the old covenant and it's prophecies:

(Luke 21:22 YLT) because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all things that have been written.
I stand corrected sir it obviously was a major event.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
28,835
7,217
113
64
Florida
Saying the destruction of the temple was a minor event is STUPID. I wouldn't even have thought ancient Jerusalem had 1.3 million people, in the first place. That many were killed, and many were also dispersed, in Jerusalem alone. Minor to have a whole country wiped off the map, but by political coup but buy the destruction of its people? The greatest eschatological event in Jewish history minor? The end of the Jewish race (as proven by genealogies) and the end of the Jewish religion (as practiced in the OT) is minor?

The coming of Christ and the new Covenant coming to the fore is minor?

Yeah, minor compared to an irrelevant and exaggerated whatever in WWII.
This member didn't say that the destruction of the temple was a minor event. I am the one who said that and I already retracted my statement.
 

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
45
28
This member has years of intensive study on end-time events that are outlined in the bible. The generation that Jesus was talking about was in the future and was not the generation alive at that time. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD was a minor event.
I asked you about the grammatical meaning of "this generation" and responded by not answering that key question, but instead boasting of your qualifications by the years you've devoted to unbiblical foolishness. What is the meaning of "this"?
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
675
113
All the old protestants writers understood "this generation" to be the generation alive during Jesus teaching ministry and leading up to the destruction of the temple.

The kangaroo court that tried Jesus was told they would see Him "coming in the clouds of heaven":

(Mat 26:59 KJV) Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
.
.
(Mat 26:64 KJV) Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

For the above statement of Jesus to be true means that he came as he said he would in their ("this generations") lifetime.

Either Jesus got it wrong or it happened as He said it would.