The Tribulation and the Church, WHEN?

[cv5]

Anytime preterists debate futurists there is never a good outcome.
Preterists have too many grand canyon leaps for any cohesion in eschatology.

When those leaps are pointed out, they go default ,ironically,into attack the message/messenger

Iamsoandso pointed out azamzimmoto was not postrib rapture adherent. I really dont know what either if them are.
Preterist? Part prederist?
Anti dipsie?
Partial dipsie?

And what is a dispensationalist?

Is a future rapture view a dispensationalist?

Whata you wanna bet that if you ask the dipsie bogie man crowd "what is a dispensationalist" they will give you 20 different answers,and have a supreme need for the 2 references in the nt of that very word to mean something other than "dispensation"
(A dispensing of time)

Yes. They toss around terms and mock sincere attepts at correction generally. I put them on iggy. Also....I never perceive any evangeism with that crowd. Just throwing around tainted doctrine with the intent to deceive.

 

[Absolutely]

No gut instinct at all, direct contextual exegesis.

Hebrews claims he was a coming and come he did with no delay.

(Heb 10:37 For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay. )

I don't make things up but accept what the scripture says.

Now if a theology claims a "little longer" and "no delay" means 2000 years and counting then language has no meaning and the scripture can't be trusted.

It is tedious to ascribe those delay/no delay ,soon/not soon dynamics to make a decision on doctrine and make a pillar out of it.

What is " soon" to heaven/eternal dynamisc to "not soon" in human reasonining.
Same for "delay"

 

[Absolutely]

400 years of bondage.
Israel in egypt under bondage.

Musta seemed like eternity.

Now take 400 years out of 6000 years.
(6.7 %....an eyedropper full)
What is long
What is short

Relative....all relative

A doctrine based on mans perception of relativity

I have yet to hear one person that invokes church history/church father's belief SYSTEM that acknowledges the fact that they, making judgement calls were percieving dynamics framed in their minds with israel destroyed and removed.

Uh,hello...Israel is restored as a nation,people,and end times player.

 

[Absolutely]

IOW The fact that we can trace back the early church fathers to a future pretrib rapture is a testimony that some of them (futureist pretribbers), musta seem Israel restored at some point.

How ironic that a future pretrib rapture is more revelatory than ancient minds of dead men

 

[Absolutely]

Now you see why Israel "needs" to be relegated to the dumpster.
Israel becoming a nation changed the way we look at end times.

 

[Absolutely]

So framing a view over the bulk of ancient church fathers writings outside the bible,is precarious.
Shaky ground indeed

 

[KJV1611]

Yeah, there's a distinction between...

--1 John 4:2-3's "that Jesus Christ in flesh having come [perfect participle]... that Jesus Christ having come [perfect participle] in flesh"

[and]

--2 John 1:7's "who confess not Jesus Christ coming in flesh [present participle]" ['this is the deceiver and the antichrist']

I’m not sure why you’re saying those two verses are different.

The context of both verses is deceivers that ARE in the world (PRESENT) and ARE denying that Jesus has not come in the flesh (PRESENT) and these are A DECEIVER (not The Deceiver) and is AN ANTICHRIST (not The Antichrist).

2Jn 1:7 (KJV) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

I can only assume that your trying to force the mythical “The Antichrist” into the verse, when it clearly IS NOT speaking of him.

 

[KJV1611]

Yeah, there's a distinction between...

--1 John 4:2-3's "that Jesus Christ in flesh having come [perfect participle]... that Jesus Christ having come [perfect participle] in flesh"

[and]

--2 John 1:7's "who confess not Jesus Christ coming in flesh [present participle]" ['this is the deceiver and the antichrist']


____________


On the subject of some of your other points...

let me ask you this. Do you believe the following two passages are speaking of identical things in the bold? [/by the bold (Matt10:27 and Lk12:3 identical things)?]

Matthew 10:25-27 -

25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

[and]

Luke 12:1-3 -

12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.

3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.


Are these (the bolded) speaking of identical things?

It's the same event or conversation but the things being talked about are not the same. In other words one passage contains a set of details and the other passage gives more details of the conversation.

Below is my opinion of what each means.

27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

Two types of messages Christ gave the disciples:

1. Things Christ said to them in darkness - probably hidden through parables or symbolic language. The disciples were to speak these things IN LIGHT - unveiled, straight forward.
2. Things spoken in the ear - The ear can hear it and understand it - straight forward language, not hidden.

3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

The first part of this verse explains how to understand the things spoken in darkness - parables or symbolic language, They can only be understood IN THE LIGHT - I believe in the light refers to the word of God.

The last part repeats the same thing mentioned in the other passage - The things head in the ear that can be understood, preach it! I believe this means these clear straight forward words are THE KEY to understanding the "dark" sayings... veiled sayings.

 

[KJV1611]

See 1 Samuel 8,,,they want a king like the other nations,,,and their going to get him (John 5:43).

Jdg 9:8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.
Jdg 9:9 But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
Jdg 9:10 And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.
Jdg 9:11 But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?
Jdg 9:12 Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.
Jdg 9:13 And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
Jdg 9:14 Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.
Jdg 9:15 And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

We are told that the king that would rule over them was the bramble (a prickly scrambling vine or shrub). In this foreshadow, there is another SHADOW - Abimelech. Abimelech WAS NOT the bramble, he was a shadow of the bramble.

So what does that tell us about the future King of Israel? It tells us that THAT KING is a SHADOW of the bramble.

When Pilate asked if the Jews wanted him to release the King of the Jews, they said not this man Jesus, but Barabbas - Barabbas was a SHADOW of the bramble.

Who is the King of the Jews right now? Is he not "the ruler of this world"... who was his shadow when the Jews could have released Christ - Barabbas.

Not saying it's so but just giving you something else to consider. Remember that according to the foreshadowing in Judges, the bramble never was manifest on this earth, only his shadow.

 

[KJV1611]

Well it does say "he" and "the man of sin".

The Christian man has been revealed, he is the man that has given his life to Christ.
He doesn't exalt HIMSELF above all that is called God, or all that is worshipped; he is not his own God and does not sit in the temple of God showing himself that he is God.

Even though I used the word he, his and man (singular), am I talking about one single man or ALL Christian men?

 

[azamzimtoti]

The Christian man has been revealed, he is the man that has given his life to Christ.
He doesn't exalt HIMSELF above all that is called God, or all that is worshipped; he is not his own God and does not sit in the temple of God showing himself that he is God.

Even though I used the word he, his and man (singular), am I talking about one single man or ALL Christian men?

I'm not sure what you are saying here K16, if I get the gist of your previous posts, is that we are the temple of God as per Paul quoting Ezekiel and that there is not going to be another physical temple in Palestine for the MOS to sit in, so it's possible for the MOS to sit in an individual Christian?

(2 Cor 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? 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.)

Paul in the above is quoting this:

(Ezekiel 37:26-27 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. )

 

[KJV1611]

I'm not sure what you are saying here K16, if I get the gist of your previous posts, is that we are the temple of God as per Paul quoting Ezekiel and that there is not going to be another physical temple in Palestine for the MOS to sit in, so it's possible for the MOS to sit in an individual Christian?

(2 Cor 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? 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.)

Paul in the above is quoting this:

(Ezekiel 37:26-27 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. )

I’m saying that “Christians” can sit on the throne of God - their own hearts, they can exalt themselves ABOVE the word of God and change it to say whatever they want it to say.

Think about this, what event causes the man of sin to be revealed? A falling away. When the falling away happens whatever that is (I have my own idea of what that is), THEN the man of sin is revealed.

I’m not saying that I have the MOS figured out, I’m just bringing up other possibilities that are outside the box because I don’t believe the real man of sin is remotely close to the dispensational man of sin.

Hopefully some things will come up in this discussion that might help us all understand it better.

 

[azamzimtoti]

It's interesting how in writing to the Corinthians that Paul conflates prophecies from Ezekiel and Jeremiah as being fulfilled in his time and ministry:

(Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God)

(2 Cor 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? 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.

I’m saying that “Christians” can sit on the throne of God - their own hearts, they can exalt themselves ABOVE the word of God and change it to say whatever they want it to say.

Think about this, what event causes the man of sin to be revealed? A falling away. When the falling away happens whatever that is (I have my own idea of what that is), THEN the man of sin is revealed.

I’m not saying that I have the MOS figured out, I’m just bringing up other possibilities that are outside the box because I don’t believe the real man of sin is remotely close to the dispensational man of sin.

Hopefully some things will come up in this discussion that might help us all understand it better.

It's ok to think outside the box brain storming etc. I think Paul was expecting apostasy in his days.

(1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils )

Paul was dealing with apostasy in his letters:

(Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel )

(1 Tim 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.)

From Peter:

(2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.)

And this was prior to the war of 66-70 AD and the on going Jewish persecution which would put stress on believers.

 

[azamzimtoti]

While Paul does not specifically state what he means by apostasy I think Peter gives the definition some meat:

(2 Pet 2:1. . . even denying the Lord that bought them . . )

(Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.)

So it's quite possible there were people that were denying his name.

 

[KJV1611]

While Paul does not specifically state what he means by apostasy I think Peter gives the definition some meat:

(2 Pet 2:1. . . even denying the Lord that bought them . . )

(Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.)

So it's quite possible there were people that were denying his name.

I believe you are a preterist aren’t you? Where does the MOS fit in the preterist view?

 

[azamzimtoti]

I believe you are a preterist aren’t you? Where does the MOS fit in the preterist view?

I think most preterists place it in the 1st century.

Another thing that I believe points to a 1st century context is Paul stated the mystery of lawlessness was already at work and that the man of sin was soon to be revealed. There is no doubt Paul ties with "MOI already at work" with the MOS.

(2 Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. )

 

[azamzimtoti]

A broader context of the letters to the Thessalonians reveals a soon coming of the Lord (even though Paul states is was not at hand yet) is the following promise of relief from trouble/persecution from the Jews and those they instigated:

(2 Th 1:4-5 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer)

(2 Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you )

(2 Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels )

(2 Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ)

(2 Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power)


In the above Paul is stating that those who were troubling THEM, would be recompensed with tribulation when the Lord was revealed.

Now, ask yourself this, did Paul's promise of relief from persecution for them come or not? Was he making false promises?

Who dwelt in the presence of the Lord? Back then it was only the Jews/Israel that could be said to have dwelt in the presence of the Lord, who were destroyed along with their city and temple.

(Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.)

 

[breno785au]

I can see you got your ability to divide eschatology truth (especially the 2nd Coming of Christ and events concerning it) out of a lucky bag!

That is very disrespectful.

Learn to respectfully disagree.

 

[KJV1611]

...and, of course, I don't see many posters making any points with regard to what concerns "present day unsaved [/unbelieving] Jews," but rather, what prophetic scripture has to say about Israel's FUTURE per passages such as Romans 9:26/Hosea 1:10 (distinct from 9:25 about the Gentiles [/Hosea 2:23b]), and [about Israel's FUTURE in] Hosea 5:15-6:3, and Daniel 12:1-4,10 [distinct from v.13], and Ezekiel 37:12-14,20-23, and Isa26:16-21 and Romans 11:15[25] and John 6:39 [distinct from v.40], and Micah 5:3 [distinct from verse 2] and... etc

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

One lump (flesh descendants of Israel) two components.

1. Vessels of Honor - Jews that are the children of the promise.
2. Vessels of Dishonor - Jews that ARE NOT the children of the promise.

Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

God calls the Gentiles his people and calls Israel beloved again.... The question is WHEN. Hosea 1:11 tells us exactly WHEN this happened.

Hos 1:11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

It happened when the children of Judah and the children of Israel were gathered together UNDER ONE HEAD. The first coming of Christ.

Also, I just noticed that Gomer's child Jezreel is a picture of Christ.... Great shall be the DAY OF JEZREEL!

 

[KJV1611]

...and, of course, I don't see many posters making any points with regard to what concerns "present day unsaved [/unbelieving] Jews," but rather, what prophetic scripture has to say about Israel's FUTURE per passages such as Romans 9:26/Hosea 1:10 (distinct from 9:25 about the Gentiles [/Hosea 2:23b]), and [about Israel's FUTURE in] Hosea 5:15-6:3, and Daniel 12:1-4,10 [distinct from v.13], and Ezekiel 37:12-14,20-23, and Isa26:16-21 and Romans 11:15[25] and John 6:39 [distinct from v.40], and Micah 5:3 [distinct from verse 2] and... etc

Hos 5:14 For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him.
Hos 5:15 I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.

When did God live in the flesh with Israel, then leave them and RETURN to HIS PLACE?