Steve_S

6 minutes ago, leah777 said:

sounds like a good reason not to carry a lethal weapon to me, including knives. 

I'm not sure one can make an argument that lethal weapons are biblically banned. Even the disciples had swords among them and Jesus did not rebuke them for having them either, indeed He asked specifically about them and seemed to want to ensure that they possessed them (though He did rebuke peter for using it to chop off someone's ear). In antiquity swords were not weapons used for hunting or for kitchen cutlery. It was probably a gladius, the roman short sword, and its sole purpose was to inflict damage on other humans. I'm not promoting the idea that Christians go around armed to the teeth, just stating that there is new testament mention of being armed for defense.

Luk 22:36  Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 
Luk 22:37  For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 
Luk 22:38  So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 

Lest we make the assumption that Christ was speaking metaphorically about purchasing a sword, the disciples produced two physical swords and He told them that would do.

Even in the instance of Peter, the primary rebuke was not that Peter used it, but that He used it to attempt to prevent Christ's purpose (a purpose which in that moment peter did not understand).

Joh 18:10  Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 
Joh 18:11  So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?" 

Mat 26:51  And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 
Mat 26:52  But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 
Mat 26:53  Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 
Mat 26:54  How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" 

38 minutes ago, leah777 said:

If you had to draw on someone in self defense, would you try to not kill them if possible, or would you go for the fatal shot first?

 

I'm pretty sure a normal person (who doesn't have extensive military or law enforcement training and experience) put into a pressure situation such as that can't process information fast enough mentally to "try not to kill" or "not try to kill" someone. Life is not television - these things are usually over in seconds. In high stress situations with adrenaline pumping and so forth, normal people usually aim for the largest and easiest part of a person to hit, the torso, and that generally happens to be where most of the major organs reside.

5 minutes ago, PepperS said:

The issue is killing in self defense, thus the thread title. To protect me and mine, I would not hesitate. 

I was speaking in context of the verses George posted. What I was basically asking is how do you make a determination of the intent of someone else who is invading your home in the middle of the night?

2 minutes ago, PepperS said:

The verse is about theft not murder. If a theif comes into my house to steal, I will give him what he wants hoping he will leave quickly. If this same person makes it obvious that he is there to kill me or a loved one, it is a whole other story. 

The issue is in the middle of the night if you're awoken by someone breaking into your house, how exactly do you determine what their intentions are?

1 minute ago, Larry H said:

Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 

It was possible when using a literal translation like YLT

Rev 1:7 Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen! Young's Literal Translation

This doesn't at all abrogate the fact that in multiple instances a physical return of Christ is specified and indeed a new physical kingdom.

Firstly, using the YLT in this instance doesn't at all negate the idea that Jesus will physically come with the clouds.

Rev 1:7  Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen!

Rev 1:7  Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

This is a literal statement.

12 minutes ago, Larry H said:

According to the Full Preterist theology, and may scholars Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem [perhaps 63] and the destruction of its temple, [Who is to come] . The Parousia of Christ in Divine judgement of the Nation in AD 70. Matthew 23  Matthew 24:1-3

What scholars specifically?

Just now, Larry H said:

Good point, however if it were a physical kingdom as the majority of Christian believe in our future, and Christ the king ruled over the world, then there would be nothing not to believe. It would be rather evident.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing not to believe it" here, could you elucidate on that please?

Quote

The point of the email I think was to show the kingdom is only spiritual in nature. And we are living in it now with all its blessing, the victory is over.

There are a multitude of scriptures that are incredibly counter to this specific theology. I think it's fine to start with just one, though, to keep things manageable in length.

Rev 1:7  Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. 
Rev 1:8  "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." 

How is such a thing possible if the there is no future physical kingdom?

On 12/23/2018 at 12:32 PM, Larry H said:

Jesus said to them that people wouldn't be able to point to it and say that it's over here or over there. In other words, it's not an observable kingdom. And yet, what are Christians "looking for" today? They, like the Pharisees, want to be able to point to it and say that it's here! If it were an observable kingdom, then Larry everyone would believe.

The problem with the underlined statement is that the premise is incorrect. There was an observable kingdom in the first century, it just wasn't the expected observable kingdom and even if it were, it wouldn't have mattered.

Luk 16:30  And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 
Luk 16:31  But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' " 

A great many people who watched Christ perform miracles, including raising people from the dead, did not believe. Not only, but even in spite of the fact that Jesus Himself rose from the dead, they did not believe.

Mat 28:11  Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened. 
Mat 28:12  When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 
Mat 28:13  saying, "Tell them, 'His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.' 
Mat 28:14  And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure." 
Mat 28:15  So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. 

The Sanhedrin was well aware that Christ had been resurrected, just as He'd said He would be. What was their response? Faith? No. Their response was to attempt a cover up.

Jesus performed a great many signs (including raising a man who had been dead four days - to which the answer of the leadership in Jerusalem was a plot to kill Lazarus himself). Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies.

The multitude in Jerusalem observed the kingdom themselves.

Joh 12:12  The next day a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 
Joh 12:13  took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out: "Hosanna! 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!' The King of Israel!" 

Not only did they observe it, they declared it. A few days later, their response was to call for His crucifixion.

On 12/23/2018 at 12:32 PM, Larry H said:

I believe Preterism for many has solved the problem by provide evidence in scripture that said many prophecies were fulfilled in the first century.

If the problem mentioned here is the idea that an observable kingdom would lead to faith of all who see it, then that premise itself is the problem.

Praying.

14 minutes ago, Cletus said:

some good stuff has come out in this thread.  when i read your response ... the sole purpose for being evil... this scripture came to mind:

Isa 54:16  Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

i have heard many interpretations of this scripture... the waster being men of war, the enemy, tyrant rulers, etc.  since you mentioned it, it think it would be good to go ahead and hash it all out.  if it is talking about the enemy then there is a scripture that states it and we should put it in light of whats already been discussed, but if God is speaking of men here, and He can go either way, to deliver into their hand or disappoint them, then there is no scripture.

I am curious as to what you say about this scripture as well as anyone else who would like to comment.

I would be hard pressed to read Satan into this verse, particularly with the context of the chapter (and those chapters before it, which themselves I doubt need explanation), but more specifically this part of this chapter.

Isa 54:14  In righteousness you shall be established; You shall be far from oppression, for you shall not fear; And from terror, for it shall not come near you. 
Isa 54:15  Indeed they shall surely assemble, but not because of Me. Whoever assembles against you shall fall for your sake. 
Isa 54:16  "Behold, I have created the blacksmith Who blows the coals in the fire, Who brings forth an instrument for his work; And I have created the spoiler to destroy. 
Isa 54:17  No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is from Me," Says the LORD. 

In short, this chapter as a whole is speaking of the restoration of Israel.

Verse 15 speaks to the fact that whoever comes against Israel at this point (after their restoration) will not be sent by God, and will fall for their sake, which is in stark contrast to a good chunk of the history of Israel, there having been multiple times God used others to judge.

Verse 16 speaks to the fact that God creates the one who builds the weapons (the blacksmith) and the one who uses the weapons (the spoiler/destroyer/waster, depending on what version you prefer - shachath in transliterated Hebrew).

Verse 17 speaks to the fact that no weapons (almost certainly an allusion to the previous verse) "formed against you shall prosper."

This entire sequence (going back several chapters) is certainly worthy of about two or three textbooks worth of study. However, to answer your question, I don't think an argument can be made that this is speaking of Satan, not even if you pull it out of its local context (which there is no reason to do).

1 minute ago, Butero said:

Of course they are not, because they are God's elect.  Lucifer couldn't have fallen unless God intended things to happen as they did, because he is all powerful.

That doesn't agree with scripture, though. There is a fundamental difference in the two situations. Nowhere does the scripture say that he was created for the sole purpose of being evil. That's an inference that is made, but that inference is countered by a multitude of scriptures, which renders it invalid. God is perfectly capable of creating someone perfect, but with the ability to make a choice which would then render them imperfect, and He is also perfectly capable of taking those who have chosen to sin and making them perfect (which He has done).  The scriptures teach that this is the case, as has been posted all through this thread. This is not an "either/or" situation because the scriptures themselves speak directly to it not being an "either/or" situation. Attempting to use human logic to attempt to discern God's nature and intentions is always something that should be avoided and human logic is where this sort of theory arises. We have the scriptures and in this particular case they teach highly specific things which cannot be avoided and have, again, been posted all through this thread.

26 minutes ago, Butero said:

Is there scripture that says that, and wouldn't that mean a loss of free will?  If Lucifer was really perfect, and sin had never been done before him, a perfect and sinless creature can get to heaven and by an act of free will rebel.  A million years down the road, they might decide they don't like how God runs things, and turn against him, and get kicked out of heaven.  Either God is fully in control of his creation, and that is where our assurance comes from, or he is not, and we will always have free will to sin, even in the next life.   

Heb 10:12  But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 
Heb 10:13  from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 
Heb 10:14  For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. 

The sort of perfection one receives as a result of Christ's perfect sacrifice is eternal in nature. Our (those of us being sanctified) preservation comes from Christ, not ourselves.

Jud 1:1  Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:

2Ti 4:18  And the Lord will deliver me from every evil work and preserve me for His heavenly kingdom. To Him be glory forever and ever. Amen!

1Pe 1:3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 
1Pe 1:4  to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 
1Pe 1:5  who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 

Joh 10:27  My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 
Joh 10:28  And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 

There is absolutely, without a doubt, scriptural support to show that the perfection imputed to those who are saved through faith in Jesus Christ is eternally immutable. Christians are not going to "fall" in eternity because we are conformed to Christ, who is Himself absolutely perfect.

This one has ran its course.

6 hours ago, Whistleblower said:

Think your full of yourself : )

Removed from thread.

On 11/29/2018 at 6:29 AM, nebula said:

Yeah, I know lots of old and new songs have it. It just puzzles me that no one else seemed to notice that the Scripture says "wolf" rather than "lion" until I came upon Mandela Effect theorists. I'm hoping to find a more believable explanation, one that explains how this false belief got started such that it pervaded everyone's thinking, no matter how many times they read Isaiah.

Hi sister, nice to see you back around.

Rather than attempting to answer this specifically, I would ask a question - how many Christians have read the entire book of Isaiah more than once and then how many of those have done diligent, in depth studies on all or parts of it?

I would suggest an alternative means of going about this. I'd just ask folks in person about it, without mentioning the book of Isaiah at all. Those who remember a hearing about lion lying down with a lamb (which will probably be a huge percentage of people), I'd ask them what book (and if they know that, what chapters) those verses are in. My suspicion is that you will get your answer on why everyone remembers it that way.

Edit: Also have a look at 19th century commentaries on those verses (I'll save you the suspense, they talk about the wolf and the lamb). I found a spurgeon sermon in literally about five seconds on the very topic.

53 minutes ago, 1sheep said:

So how serious us your gluttony. 50,60, 70 lbs? You are morbidly obese? Its not just a short coming. Interesting use of words when we discuss YOUR SIN 

You are a food addict. Actually you are sinning against your wife as well.

But yet you will continue to prick at the brethren women whose hair. Or lack if skirt doesnt meet your legalistic guidelines you have created in your unlearned mind while your waistline expands.  

Removed from thread.

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

This is the common understanding, but I disagree with it. Rev. 13:5 tells us that the Beast "was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months." This mouth is the spokeman of the Beast, not the Beast itself. Just as Aaron was the "mouth" of Moses:

Ex. 4:16 "So he shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God."

Daniel 7's Little Horn is this human spokesman of the Beast, which spokesman is to only endure for 1260 days/3-1/2 times. But this spokesman is not the Beast itself, which is a far more powerful spirit. Daniel 7 makes that clear; Rev. 13 is not so clear, so most people miss it. The Little Horn is merely an appendage upon the head of the Beast; it therefore cannot be the Beast itself.

I would have to disagree with this.

Rev 13:5  And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. 
Rev 13:6  Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. 
Rev 13:7  It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. 
Rev 13:8  All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 

We can make direct correlations here. Revelation 13:5 says he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, yes, however, Revelation 13:6 says "he opened His mouth." Then we are told that it was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.

If we look to Daniel 7, we can see a couple of things about the little horn.

1.  He is speaking pompous words.

2.  He is making war against the saints.

Dan 7:8  I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.

Dan 7:21  "I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,

If the horn is the mouthpiece and not the beast himself then it's the mouthpiece that is making war against the saints and not the beast himself, but that's not what revelation 13 says. It says that he will open his mouth up and speak blasphemous words and will *also* make war against the saints, both of which are attributed directly to the little horn, meaning that the little horn must be him.

This one has ran its course and is nowhere near the OP at this point (nothing at all wrong with the requesting of prayer, though).

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

We are going to see real power like never before.

How so?

1 minute ago, Cletus said:

did you forget to lock it?

Yep, lol.

17 hours ago, Diaste said:

I understand. Seems we will have to wait and see. The questions remains; "And the nations of them which are saved..." Where do these 'ethnos' come from?

Revelation 21 is addressing the new heavens and earth. This is not inhabited by anyone who has taken the mark, or anyone else who is not saved.

17 hours ago, Diaste said:

In what form do you think the mark of the beast manifests? RFID? Tattoo? Spiritually? Something else?

Well, it's certainly indicative of a spiritual state, so i believe that box is checked to be sure, but I don't believe it is *only* spiritual. I think it's always helpful to take a look at the scriptures regarding it.

Rev 13:16  He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 
Rev 13:17  and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

In this case, it would appear to be a tattoo of some sort, a physical mark. I don't generally view scripture allegorically unless the scripture itself gives us reason to and in this case, I certainly do not believe it does, insofar as it is pretty explicit - it's going to be a mark, his name, or the number of his name. I tend to view this sort of like a cattle brand.

Having said all that and stating once again that I believe there will be a physical mark, I certainly would not rule a technological component that is involved in taking the mark, be that RFID or some even newer or as yet undeveloped technology. This would certainly make sense in light of the prophecies regarding buying or selling.

So, in short, it is almost certainly two of those options (physical mark which is an outward expression of a spiritual condition) and could be all three (meaning it could possibly include a technological component).

I believe this one has ran its course.

15 hours ago, Diaste said:

The description of the two beasts in ch. 13 and their actions needs to occur through the first half of the week, continuing through GT.

I disagree with this to at least a limited degree, insofar as we are only told that this person demands worship after the abomination is committed. The mark itself is concurrent with this worship. If he is already demanding worship in the first half of the week, there would be no israeli remnant to flee to the wilderness (chapter 12) because they would all be dead already for refusing the mark. I agree that these two are almost certainly very active in the first half of the week and probably even before, but we also know that a covenant is confirmed with Israel by the beast specifically to begin the first week and that there is a temple in (at least part) the first half of the week where sacrifices are occurring that are *not* for the beast. We know that when the abomination occurs, Christ orders those in Judea to flee, which means that before this point there is no necessity of fleeing. If he were demanding worldwide worship and executing anyone unwilling to do so at this point, the necessity for flight would've seemingly been long before this.

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

And if I get the gist, you seem to be saying that as the pressure on unregenerate mankind grows, they exhibit a directly proportional opposition, and in this case move further and further from repentance, so as to remove any hope they might, or could, repent.

Agreed. In a corporate sense, not individually. And aren't we happy for that? Just imagine if we personally had to pay the price for Jim Baker's indiscretions, or Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Matt Murdock, or any of the other wolves out to devour sheep.

 

I tend to believe that once the mark is taken and these people become part of the collective who worships the anti-Christ, there is no hope for repentance from them (I believe this because they are condemned to eternal damnation at this point explicitly, which has already been discussed).

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

Maybe the 'not-christian' sector of global society does not have to repent, I'll give ya that, but the angel doesn't speak to repentance(this thought came to me last night), the 1st angel speaks to, "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."

The angel calls for fear, glory and worship. Now maybe that can only occur if one repents, I don't know, but this messenger does not call for repentance, specifically.

I would say this point is moot because I believe that it would be impossible to fear, worship, and give glory to God once you have taken the mark and declared for the anti-Christ. The third angel gives an explicit warning on what happens to those who take the mark. I'm not sure what purpose such a warning would serve were it to be given after the mark has already been enacted and taken by all who will take it.

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way. 

Happy thanksgiving to you as well!

47 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Sure, but it does help to explain where the nations in the millennium originate. Not saying this is true, but I must ponder the idea of surviving wrath sans calling on the Lord. He has destroyed the world once before, leaving only 8 survivors, His anger was not stayed. Perhaps it's necessary to renounce prior behavior, just to survive and avoid destruction.

Quote

I don't know. I don't know that the flood can be used as a parallel here because Noah was just.

Gen 6:9  This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.

Hebrews 11 gives a more exacting, though very succinct expansion upon what this really meant.

Heb 11:7  By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Then we have slightly more information from 2 Peter.

2Pe 2:4  For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 
2Pe 2:5  and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 

Noah was saved through the flood. Noah was a just man, was faithful, feared God, and was a preacher of righteousness. I'd be hard pressed to make comparisons to those who enter the millennium (if they have taken the mark) to this man.

54 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Perhaps. The Revelation is not a strict chronology, however. It does not necessarily follow that just because ch.14 follows ch.13, the events of 14 immediately follow 13. In fact it's likely that the detailed treatment of the two beasts in Rev 13 fits between the 4th and 5th seal, well prior to the three angels, as I will attempt to show.

I agree that it's probably not a strict chronology, but I do believe that it is generally chronological. I believe that at least parts of chapter 11 (the beginning of the testimony of the two witnesses specifically) starts before the mid point. I believe they are killed after the abomination (this is the *only* way that the timing can work out unless the abomination is not at the strict middle point, but at some point earlier, which may be possible, but i find it to be unlikely given the entire counsel of the eschatological passages surrounding the event). The chapter ends with the second woe and the sounding of the seventh trumpet, probably the third woe.

There is a pause while a description of the dragon, beast, and false prophet are described in fairly great detail during chapters 12 and 13.

It seems likely to me that chapter 14 comes on the heels of this description because their power is about to come to fruition. One final warning is given in chapter 14 for repentance and then we see the commencement of the bowl judgments starting with chapter 15 (though the actual descriptions of what happen with each one occur in chapter 16).

I agree that this is a loose chronology at best, but it certainly seems to fit a reasonable progression of events.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Even given the previous point you made I still don't see that as possible since the first angel proclaims judgment has come.

Judgment has indeed come at that point and is about to come to its full fruition. I don't see a real problem with such a timing. The second woe occurs after the deaths, resurrection, and ascension of the two witnesses. Judgment really starts even before the abomination, though, most likely, just not to the same degree. The judgments that are falling upon the earth are likely a part of the warning themselves as opposed to being entirely separate from it. Nearly every time we see a judgment occur mankind (except the saints) doubles down in their opposition to God. This is persistent throughout virtually the entire tribulation.

6 hours ago, Last Daze said:

Do you correlate that to the second seal?

No. For two reasons.

Firstly, all of the first four seals seem to be worldwide in scope to one degree or another. I tend to think the second seal is probably going to be an indication of a multitude of conflicts. In other words, I think peace itself, the ability of nations to get along will basically be gone. The only "peace" that can be found will be after the rise to power of the anti-Christ and it will be false and fleeting. He is involved in several wars if Daniel 11:36 onward is in reference to him (which I believe it to be).

Secondly, I think that at least Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38-39 are prior to any of the seals being broken. It's possible (in my mind at least) that these two specific events may be the final harbingers that the end is upon us (the end in the context in which I speak being with reference to what would probably the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel becoming imminent).

Some people make a pretty good argument that Psalm 83 was fulfilled in the Israeli war of Independence, the Six Day war, and/or the Yom Kippur war or combinations thereof. Some people also make pretty good arguments against that assertion. I'm torn on it personally.

Ezekiel 38 has decidedly not happened yet, but it would seem like the major players in that prophecy (russia, iran, turkey) have already formed a tacit alliance against israel to at least a limited degree. This doesn't mean it's imminent, but it's interesting that the three main players from this are all physically operating in a country that sits opposite the highest mountain country in the land of Israel, which is basically the path of invasion through which they seem to come.

Eze 39:4  You shall fall upon the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops and the peoples who are with you; I will give you to birds of prey of every sort and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.

Russian troops patrol the Israeli border in the Golan as we speak. Seeing that sort of thing happen (there are actual photographs), even if it does not have immediate significance, is the next nearest thing to surreal, particularly when you consider the fact that such a thing would not have seemed possible 10 years ago and would not have seemed at all likely even 5 years ago.

The second verse of Ezekiel 39 seems to indicate that they will be "turned around" and brought up from the far north. I don't think it's entirely necessary or that it *must* be interpreted in this way, but if I see Russia attempt to pull out of syria and then have some "unexpected" reason in which they have to return in greater numbers, that is certainly going to raise my antennae.

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

If indeed people who have chosen to accept the mark and worship the beast do desist and repent they will be saved, but they WILL NOT inherit the kingdom nor rule and reign with Christ.

They will only be saved from being destroyed in the wrath of God and have the sentence of eternal punishment stayed till the 2nd resurrection, and final judgment. They will live on earth as the nations that populate the land with the destiny of being deceived once again by Satan at the end of the 1000 years. They will neither be immortal, powerful nor enlightened; just regular folks.

I cannot find scriptural evidence to support this assertion. It may be true, but if it is, the scripture is 100 percent silent on it. In other words, I don't believe repentance is necessary on their part to enter the 1000 years alive if they are to do so.

8 hours ago, Diaste said:

The hour of his judgement is come...By this point, at the moment of judgement, the whole world is sporting the mark except for the elect; now why would an angel call for repentance at this point if salvation, from their destruction by wrath, was off the table?

I would have to disagree with this insofar as I don't think it can be proven that the mark has even been given out yet. 

Firstly, it seems to me that the mark doesn't go out until the beast demands worship and the only point in time in which the scripture shows that he demands worship is from the point of the abomination forward.

Rev 13:14  And he deceives those who dwell on the earth—by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived. 
Rev 13:15  He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 
Rev 13:16  He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 
Rev 13:17  and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 

This would indicate that the messages of the three angels in Revelation 14 may be a final set of messages for the earth prior to the going out of the mark, from which there is no turning back from the perspective of salvation. I think the context of Revelation 14 indicates this in what could be called a subtle manner (though I don't view it as all that subtle). Starting with the third angel, which we have covered. I'll post the verses for context though.

Rev 14:9  Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 
Rev 14:10  he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 
Rev 14:11  And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." 

This is a warning and the warning itself is indicative of the eternal implications, not the temporal implications. Why is this warning about eternity if at this point the mark has went out and eternity is now off limits to those who have received it? On to the indication.

Rev 14:12  Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. 
Rev 14:13  Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, "Write: 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' " "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them." 

From now on is an interesting phrase there. All who die in the Lord are blessed, we know this. The fact that "from now on" is added likely indicates a change in the situation. If people were already blessed to die in the Lord, why is this period going forward now mentioned? I think it's likely that at this point forward the consequences of being a Christian are going to become incredibly dire temporally. At what point in (future) history are we told that the consequences for being a Christian will be most dire? After the mark goes out.

To put it as shortly as i can, lol, I think it's likely that this third angel makes his announcement before anyone receives the mark, maybe days, hours, or minutes before, as a reminder that worshiping this false Christ and accepting what basically equates to his mark of ownership will have eternal consequences from which there is no turning back. This is consistent with the character of God as revealed throughout the entire counsel of the scriptures.

8 hours ago, Diaste said:

 I understand. But I didn't get the idea that people will repent FROM 'did not repent', that would be foolish. I'm merely pointing out the truths extant:

Gentile nations will exist after the end.

They will not be Israel.

They will not be the elect.

There is only one unforgivable sin.

Nations are saved.

No word from the Godhead can be ignored, or elevated over another; and no conclusion is accurate unless all evidence is considered. In considering the evidence presented the conclusion is not unwarranted no matter how provocative.

I don't disagree with this general expository outlook, my main problem is with the idea that repentance is even necessary for those who receive the mark to enter the millennium. I have other questions on it as well, perhaps one could call them assumptions, but those would be outside of the scope of this conversation.