ENOCH2010

12 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

Firstly, climate change is happening and the link to human actions is shown in numerous scientific studies. Some of the more famous studies include:

• B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes" 2003
• V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling" 2006
• Wrigley and Santer, "A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming" 2012

I could go on listing these studies forever but most people don't honestly have the time to read them. And that's ok. Honestly, speaking a chemist, scientists are abysmally poor communicators of even very serious and impactful data as we have to qualify everything with statistics. If you have time to read through a few of these, that's great. If not, I would suggest leaning on the expertise of people that have spent their life studying a subject.   

The impact of fossil fuels on CO2 production and other greenhouse gases has been known for around a century. I simply don't understand why people continue to ignore subject matter experts and years of research and deny the reality of climate change being linked to human activity. The only conclusion I have really reached is that people don't like being given bad news and having to change how they live as a result. 

However, while I can understand the gut reaction to not liking the scientific data available and wanting to ignore it, I cannot understand the idea that somehow this is all an elaborate hoax. Where is the evidence for such a massive conspiracy? Why would subject matter experts over at least half a century team up to do this? If scientists are all getting paid exorbitant amounts of money to lie where is my Lamborghini? And how in the world is this all coordinated? 

Your claims that this is all a hoax are frankly offensive. This isn't a partisan issue. This is simply the data we have. You can choose not to believe the data. That's fine. You do not have the right to disparage the work of these researchers by calling it a hoax without providing evidence for such a claim. That is simply out of line.    

I'm sorry I offended you but I'll use the Bible as my data, it tells us the beginning and the ending of the planet Earth. I think we should leave God in control of things not the left wing.

59 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

This seems rather nihilistic or at the very least deterministic. Climate change won't end the world but it is causing significant hardship for people around the world and that is only going to get worse if we do nothing about it. If our job as humanity is caretakers of the planet then shouldn't we strive to protect creation rather than labeling it a non-issue? 

Man made climate change is a hoax the left is trying to force the world to believe. They have the millennial generation brain washed thinking we are destroying the planet, nothing we can do will effect the planet, we are only a speck on the stage. 

The Bible tells us how this world ends, our carbon footprint has no barring on the out come so why worry about a non issue. 

Only 3 1/2 years are talked about in Revelations 

I've said it before some people make it up as they go. 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. Rev 9:14

Is this verse just allegorical?

He's a pre-tribber he gets to make it up as he goes to make the pre-trib doctrine sound better.

That's a great read Pup.

The Bozrah  battle is the first stop of the Lord. 

the last 3 pages have been 2 pre-tribbers going back and forth over which one is correct, the truth be told they are both wrong. No pre -trib rapture is coming . 

39 minutes ago, Cletus said:

Mat 24:29  Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31  And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet(1Co 15:52), and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

can anyone reconcile this passage with pre-trib for me? 

Nope they just say that is somebody else 

First forget about the pre-trib rapture, then take a guess who that multitude is. 

The foolish virgins are the per-trib believers, when the rapture doesn't happen pre-trib like they hope, they will run out of oil during the great tribulations. The virgins with enough oil to get to the end are the post-trib believers who expect to be here through the GT.

6 hours ago, iamlamad said:

It is true Noah was not caught in that tribulation. But that was NOT THE POINT Jesus was making. The truth is, Noah and what happened to Him has no bearing on who goes first at the end.  I have said over and over, to find the timing to Paul's rapture, WE MUST consult Paul. God is VERY CAPABLE of having more than one "gathering."

Please explain how a gathering from heaven can possibly fit Paul's gathering.

Can you admit that God is able to have more than one gathering?

Heaven in that verse means SKY, where do we meet the Lord at the rapture, in the air (the sky). 

Or the pre-trib doctrine is false 

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

There can't be three if Rev 20 says, this is the FIRST resurrection, and then describes the next resurrection as after the 1000 years being complete, hence the 2nd.

And no, the meaning is not different, the object is. In 1 Thess 4 the dead are first before the living, within the 1st resurrection. In Rev 20 first refers to the complete concept of the resurrection of the dead.

Then what of the living in Christ that make it through the '7 year tribulation' when the dead of Rev 20 are resurrected? If one assumes, as scripture says, there is only one 1st resurrection then the 1 Thess 4 resurrection is the same as the Rev 20 resurrection.

I mean, how do we just add a resurrection when the Greek, as you pointed out says, "prote = the first"? And then you claim it to be the second? 

What? I mean how?

Because Rev.20 is another fly in the ointment of the pre-trib doctrine 

But Jesus told him 

21 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

No, I don't think going that far back is necessary; "no man was found worthy" simply because He had not yet risen from the dead. 

Would it make a difference if I told Jesus told me so.

He wasn't a man at that time. 

The first search was made before Jesus was born, ( no man was found worthy) that's why Jesus came, to be the Redeemer for man kind.

Pardon me for butting in, preterist say everything in the Bible has already been fulfilled, what was the mark of the beast?

47 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

Good post, but I have a question and/or a comment or two.

1 Thes. 4:18  Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

How in the world can a posttrib believer comfort another believer when teaching them that there is no pretrib rapture and they are going to face the Beast and probably lose their head? Ever wonder about this?

Next, what do you make of this verse:

Heb. 9:28  So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

If I thought something else MUST come before Christ comes, this verse would bother me!  Are posttribbers "looking" for Him? I don't see how. Are prewrathers "looking" for Him? How can either of these groups of people be looking for HIM when they expect something else first?  This verse makes me wonder if they will even hear the trumpet. Your thoughts?

Why do you fear death so much, the Bible says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Read the verse again, He shall appear a second time (as in the second coming). 

3 hours ago, DonkeySpeaksAgain said:

It sounds to me like you are saying there is NO rapture because everyone must die first BEFORE going to heaven and receiving their imperishable body? 

To me the question revolves around what is the "hope" that we have in Christ. Then, likewise, what does Scripture mean when it says "blessed hope"? I would say they are different and that the blessed hope is attached to the rapture and the reward of NOT having to "go through" the final tribulation period. If the 69.5 weeks of Daniel were completed at the cross and Jesus was raised, then a rapture event for those who are truly "in Him" can be associated with Jesus being raised to heaven as the two bookends of the Church Age. It also serves as the "sealed" part of the 70 weeks prophecy where we see the prophecy being interrupted by the Church Age. The "last" (Christians) go to heaven BEFORE the "first" (Jews who accept Jesus).

Of course, if you are post-trib or Post Millennial, then you must insist on the blessed hope meaning the same thing as "hope" as you will insist that there is no pre-trib (or pre-wrath) rapture. 

As to the FLESH and SPIRIT parts of all this ... 1 Cor. 15:39 - onward explains it pretty clearly.

The blessed hope is the resurrection 

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

yes I have actually read a great deal about unresolved contradictions found within God's Word and a great many are shown to be not in conflict the one's that remain I am suspect to the inability of contextualization as who and what frame of measure in case and point... 

The circumference of the laver given the measurements is incorrect, 3.14 wasn't used. It should be 31.4 feet 

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

It goes for anything of God …. He holds no error and for those who claim there are errors in His Word I believe we will be shown there are not by God.... The Scripture is His and the non-resolved areas where we cannot answer for now will be resolved to the glory of God.

Have you ever took a look at the measurements given of the laver in the temple. 

It's not in the canon, should it be, maybe. Was it read and studied during Lords first advent, I think so. Should it be read and studied today, I think so, I have read it many times. Some things in it, I think are not correct but a lot can be learned from it.