For then shall be great tribulation

[doulos]

doulos, Therapon asked for scriptures: Satan is going to set up a world kingdom under Antichrist cannot be found anywhere in the Bible! If I have missed it somehow, show me chapter and verse.

I provided them.

I understand that the futurist view you espouse considers the man of sin, antichrist, etc… as the same entity. Unfortunately that view cannot be supported by Scripture.

On the other hand Scripture and history both support the view that beasts in prophecy are kingdoms. (see previous post in this thread)

Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever
.
God/Word tells us beasts are kingdoms and history proves God's word true then wouldn't a beast also be a kingdom in Revelation? Can you show me where God/Word changed the definition of a beast from a kingdom to "THE antichrist", the man of sin or the false prophet? If not then wouldn’t the use of sound hermeneutic principles require we use the definition Scripture itself provides for beasts?

 

[Blain]

Unlikely as it may sound, it might be the answer is the Lord gave me, but from your post you won't like it much. <smile>

Well what was his answer? I doubt i it won't bother me too much, i also hear ppl say fools look for signs. But i am not looking for signs exactly, but i understand where they are coming from

 

[nathan3]

"Originally Posted byMardabo"

Your comments have the hallmark as coming from a believer in Preterism which denies that any future prophecies concerning Jesus' second coming are yet to be fulfilled, having been completed in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. That is a false view. I bet you know what is being referred to as the anti-Christ. etc

I just wanted to make sure , that you knew the comment you responded to was not mine, but it was : Therapon's... The quote got messed up.

 

[peterT]

I understand that the futurist view you espouse considers the man of sin, antichrist, etc… as the same entity. Unfortunately that view cannot be supported by Scripture.

On the other hand Scripture and history both support the view that beasts in prophecy are kingdoms. (see previous post in this thread)

Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever
.
God/Word tells us beasts are kingdoms and history proves God's word true then wouldn't a beast also be a kingdom in Revelation? Can you show me where God/Word changed the definition of a beast from a kingdom to "THE antichrist", the man of sin or the false prophet? If not then wouldn’t the use of sound hermeneutic principles require we use the definition Scripture itself provides for beasts?

There is always an egomaniac the devil is an egomaniac and he what’s to be God he wants the glory.

There are lots of scriptures in the bible saying there is an antichrist and an antichrist shall come

The bible speaks for its self but people keep interpretation it away to make the antichrist go away so they won’t have to deal with him.

An antichrist shall come

The prince of this world cometh

The devil is cast out into the earth for a short time with great wrath .

The man of sin comes before that day (jesus)

Ten antichrist kings in the end give their power and strength to the beast and are of one mind Rv17

Out of the ten kings another king comes up that makes was with the saints and overcomes them Dan7.

He has power to continue forty and two months and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints Rv13

And if you have no faith in the religious establishment and there interpretation of daniel8 to 12 then there is more.

But I’m shore someone will interpret it all away so there is no antichrist

 

[Therapon]

Therapon

The preterist accuse you of being a dispy futurist and the futurists accuse you of being a preterist. I wonder if anybody actually takes the time to read and understand what you actually espouse. If it wasn't so sad I'd be ROFLMHO

Only the Lord knows how many souls have been led to the Lord through our books, but it's a bunch. To the Lord goes 100% of the glory, of course! I couldn't have written a thing were it not for His guiding hand.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I understand that the futurist view you espouse considers the man of sin, antichrist, etc… as the same entity. Unfortunately that view cannot be supported by Scripture.

On the other hand Scripture and history both support the view that beasts in prophecy are kingdoms. (see previous post in this thread)

Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever
.
God/Word tells us beasts are kingdoms and history proves God's word true then wouldn't a beast also be a kingdom in Revelation? Can you show me where God/Word changed the definition of a beast from a kingdom to "THE antichrist", the man of sin or the false prophet? If not then wouldn’t the use of sound hermeneutic principles require we use the definition Scripture itself provides for beasts?

Kingdoms are ALWAYS ruled by mean. Rome was ceasar. The first kingdom. even daniel told Nebuchadnezzar he spoke of him.

[SUP]36 [/SUP]“This is the dream. Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. [SUP]37 [/SUP]You, O king, are a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory; [SUP]38 [/SUP]and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all—you are this head of gold.

even though the head is babylon, or the first kingdom. also explained later as the first beast..

Daniel 7 speaks of a man who comes out and forms the final beast. this man leads the beast, and the beast is the kingdom.

 

[tribesman]

My take: christians has always and will always live in tribulation on this earth, until the Lord comes back. An event that can happen basically any moment. Be prepared.

 

[Elizabeth619]

St. Jerome referred to the rapture back in the 400's.

The English word “rapture” is derived from the Latin word “raptus,” but it is also related to the Latin word “rapiemur,” which is the word St. Jerome used for “caught up” (KJV) when he translated 1 Thessalonians 4:17 in the Latin Vulgate Bible. While the use of the word “rapture” in casual conversation has changed in meaning since St. Jerome’s time, its original definition and application to Jesus’ return for His Church has remained.

That makes sense. Considering much of the premil belief comes from books that are not even part of the bible. Like the Book of Enoch. Much perversions of the gospels occured after the 1st century. Kinda makes you realize why the reformation happened.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That makes sense. Considering much of the premil belief comes from books that are not even part of the bible. Like the Book of Enoch. Much perversions of the gospels occured after the 1st century. Kinda makes you realize why the reformation happened.

it could be said, the amil belief did not start until the 3rd century.

as for why a reformation.. someone had to break the back of rome.. or we would still be killed for believing in the true gospel of christ.

 

[Elizabeth619]

it could be said, the amil belief did not start until the 3rd century.

as for why a reformation.. someone had to break the back of rome.. or we would still be killed for believing in the true gospel of christ.

Amil has been traced back to the 1st century, and was the dominant view of protestant reformers

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Amil has been traced back to the 1st century, and was the dominant view of protestant reformers

lol, well considering both can be traced back to 1st century (supposedly), and amil was a catholic belief. and most reformers brought most of the catholic beliefs with them. this does not suprise me.

as I said before. if we would go off history. we would all be catholic. history supports them more than anyone, does that make them right?

 

[doulos]

peterT and eternally-grateful
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
When people realize our battle is a spiritual battle then maybe they will begin to understand. The final kingdom that comes against us is a spiritual kingdom not an earthly kingdom. That kingdom has been targeting all who refuse to submit since THE false prophet established it roughly 1400 years ago. Despite the fact that THE false prophet is long dead, they are still united under him in there cause to advance his satanically inspired kingdom.

"The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Sir Isaac Newton

“Those things of God which are now dark and obscure will hereafter be made clear, and easy to be understood. Truth is the daughter of time. Scripture prophecies will be expounded by the accomplishment of them; therefore they are given, and for that expectation they are reserved. Therefore they are told us before, that, when they do come to pass, we may believe”. - Matthew Henry

I’ll leave the fortune telling to those who want to stand on guesswork theology so they can play prophet.


Therapon
Sadly it appears that many in today’s world are making the same mistake many of the first century Jews made. So long as they allow their doctrines to blind them they will not realize what is happening until after it is to late.

 

[Elizabeth619]

lol, well considering both can be traced back to 1st century (supposedly), and amil was a catholic belief. and most reformers brought most of the catholic beliefs with them. this does not suprise me.

as I said before. if we would go off history. we would all be catholic. history supports them more than anyone, does that make them right?

Yet it was state earlier St. Jerome spoke of the rapture..... He was catholic. Augustine later converted to amil for many reasons. One was it seemed premil spent more time concentrating on physical pleasure in the world than spiritual.
The reason for the protstant reformation was due to the false beliefs of the Catholic church.
And the reformation was to break away from the Catholic church. They realized the doctrine was false.

What Catholic beliefs did the reformers take with them? Was it murdering people? Worshiping Mary?

Keep in mind that the majority of the popular false prophets today get their predictions from the premil view. It wasn't an amill believer that predicted the rapture in May 2011. It wasn't the amil believers that created the Y2K conspiracies. It wasnt the amil believers that label every world leader as THE anti christ. It isn't the amil believers that think Obama is going to force everyone to bare the Mark of the Beast on March 23rd. It certainly wasnt the amil believers that said the Pope would be named Peter... which was proved FALSE yesterday.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yet it was state earlier St. Jerome spoke of the rapture..... He was catholic. Augustine later converted to amil for many reasons. One was it seemed premil spent more time concentrating on physical pleasure in the world than spiritual.
The reason for the protstant reformation was due to the false beliefs of the Catholic church.
And the reformation was to break away from the Catholic church. They realized the doctrine was false.

What Catholic beliefs did the reformers take with them? Was it murdering people? Worshiping Mary?

Keep in mind that the majority of the popular false prophets today get their predictions from the premil view. It wasn't an amill believer that predicted the rapture in May 2011. It wasn't the amil believers that created the Y2K conspiracies. It wasnt the amil believers that label every world leader as THE anti christ. It isn't the amil believers that think Obama is going to force everyone to bare the Mark of the Beast on March 23rd. It certainly wasnt the amil believers that said the Pope would be named Peter... which was proved FALSE yesterday.

lol.. Just because SOME are bad apples does not mean the belief is false. All belief systems have people who distort the view and make it seem like it is not what it is. look what the jews did to the NT truth? By adding some lie.

Not all premils are rapture believers in that sense. Scripture teaches a rapture (caught up in the clouds) it just does not say when it will be.. Of that day and hour no man knows.. He comes as a thief in the night etc etc.

what beliefs?

trinity, Infant baptism, Amil, Tradition (as proof) , History (as proof) , many brought the eucharist with them, though not as indepth. there are many beliefs which came out..

 

[Elizabeth619]

lol.. Just because SOME are bad apples does not mean the belief is false. All belief systems have people who distort the view and make it seem like it is not what it is. look what the jews did to the NT truth? By adding some lie.

Not all premils are rapture believers in that sense. Scripture teaches a rapture (caught up in the clouds) it just does not say when it will be.. Of that day and hour no man knows.. He comes as a thief in the night etc etc.

what beliefs?

trinity, Infant baptism, Amil, Tradition (as proof) , History (as proof) , many brought the eucharist with them, though not as indepth. there are many beliefs which came out..

There is biblical evidence of the trinity. I do not by any means condone infant baptism either.

You seem to think anyone that has amil beleives that same thing. That's untrue. Like you said about a few bad apples..

I think what we have here on both sides is stereotyping. I keep amil beliefs, but that doesn't mean I accept other catholic beliefs. You say not everyone who keeps the premil belief supports the rapture.

I think I got us off topic. lol I leaving.

 

[tribesman]

...what beliefs?

trinity..

You don't believe in the trinity???

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You don't believe in the trinity???

lol, yes. As I said, All beliefs have some truth.. Do I believe it because of the roman church? no. I do not take my bible beliefs from history. That was a roman flaw. Listen to us or else.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There is biblical evidence of the trinity. I do not by any means condone infant baptism either.

You seem to think anyone that has amil beleives that same thing. That's untrue. Like you said about a few bad apples..

I think what we have here on both sides is stereotyping. I keep amil beliefs, but that doesn't mean I accept other catholic beliefs. You say not everyone who keeps the premil belief supports the rapture.

I think I got us off topic. lol I leaving.

lol.. Sis, I am going to be honest with you, If people would stick to the word of God, and stop bringing up history. I would not even discuss this., it does not prove a thing. I use the catholic and historical thing, because people love to use it against me.. it is a counter argument,, and to be honest, Both sides using this have flawed issues, because non of it can be proven.

 

[Therapon]

Amil has been traced back to the 1st century, and was the dominant view of protestant reformers

Amillennialism is probably still the dominant view worldwide. Premillennialism was popularized in the West sometime in the 1600s by a Dutch Reformed priest named Jean DeLabide (sp). The Dutch reformers recognized premillennialism as heretical so DeLabide was promptly excommunicated or his efforts, but the views gained favor with Dispensationalists where it in great part remains today. The 1909 Scofield annotated Bible is singularly responsible for popularizing dispensational eschatology in American evangelical churches, premillennialism included.

 

[Therapon]

Canadian theologian, Dr. T. T. Shields humorously commented: "From a position of entire ignorance of the Scripture to a position of oracular religious certainty -- especially in eschatological matters -- for some people requires but from three to six months with a Scofield Bible" The Gospel Witness (Toronto Canada, April 7th, 1932).

Albertus Pieters wrote, "From start to finish it [the Scofield Bible] is a partisan book, definitely, both openly and under cover, an instrument of propaganda in favor of an exceedingly doubtful eschatology . . If Darby and his school are right, the entire Christian church for eighteen-hundred years, was wrong on a vital part of the Christian faith" Candid Examination of the Scofield Bible, Albertus Pieters, (Union City, PA, Bible Truth Depot, 1932) pp25, 27.