ghtan

Hi Serving, Nice to meet someone who share similar views. Interesting the way you brought in Mt 23; did not notice that before. As for the end time, are you thinking that Israel would be tricked into letting a foreign ARMY into its territory? Or do they come in in a different guise? Is there scripture that leads you to that belief?

Are you making things up as you go along? Where in Ezekiel 1 does it say Ezekiel was a priest IN ISRAEL? Certainly not in 1:2 as you claim.

Do read Ezekiel 1:3.

Where was Ezekiel when he saw his visions? Why close your mind to the truth?

Perhaps the Jews understand that most of the prophecies in Daniel have already been fulfilled, e.g. the AOD? Yes Zech does that a lot, which is why he can easily be talking about the end time in 13:1-6 and then skip back to AD70 in v 7-9, IMO.

You still have not said how you would fit 13:7 into your scheme. That verse is next to 13:8 whereas the verses you quote are farther away. The immediate context is more relevant than the wider context.

Presumably you would say 13:1-6 also relate to the end time. Then if v 8-9 is also end time, it means only v 7 in between belongs to Jesus’ first coming. That makes little sense. More likely, verses 7-9 belong together since NIV shows they are poetry whereas the surrounding verses are prose. I find it easier to read v 9 to mean the one-third that survived AD70 were dispersed so that they would be refined and call on the Lord. As for the A/D, a comparison with Luke 21:20 shows that the reference is to AD70.

Does Zech 13:8-9 refer to the end time? Why then did Jesus quote 13:7 in relation to his own arrest (Mk 14:27)? Again, he cannot be wrong. Could be 13:8-9 was fulfilled in AD70.

I think numbers is not what counts. But if you think so, when would the population of Jerusalem become so large that the number of Jews to be killed in a battle for the city would exceed the millions that died in the holocaust? Not for a long, long time. In that case, we should not expect the tribulation anytime soon. Because if the tribulation happens soon, it still would not be the worst ever disaster for the Jews since the holocaust would have set the bar.

We accept forgiveness, not atonement. I take it that since you did not come back with a scripture that says our sins are atoned for when we believe, you could not find one. But we do have Hebrews 10. We should stick to what we have and not what we do not. Anyway, we could argue till the cows come home and probably not come to an agreement on Dan 9:24. At the end of the day, what decides whether Dan 9:27 refers to the end time is whether Jesus was talking about the end time when he quoted the verse in Matt 24. He cannot be wrong. Which brings us back to the reason I joined this thread i.e. to point out that the Mt 24:21 'distress that will never be equaled' logically cannot refer to the end time because with modern warfare the suffering during a future battle for Jerusalem cannot be worse than what the residents in AD70 experienced as described by Josephus.

Once again, atonement for sin and receiving forgiveness are two different events. The former has already been done once for all by Jesus, and Hebrews 10 clearly says. When the word atone/atonement occurs in the NT, the subject is always God/Jesus, not to us.

Jesus atoned for sins once for all on the cross. When we believe in him, we receive forgiveness for our sins. The latter requires the former having been accomplished, i.e. they are not the same thing. Do you know any verse that says our sins are atoned for at the point we believe?

Atonement has already been accomplished. Hebrews 2:17 says Jesus made atonement for the sins of the people and then Heb 10:12 says Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice for sin. AD70 was not the time of atonement of Israel's sin; the cross was.

I think Matthew 24:21 actually fits the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 better. Josephus said the prolonged siege caused women to do the unthinkable and eat their babies, fulfilling what Moses warned in Deut 28:57. Given modern warfare, a future battle for Jerusalem would unlikely last long enough for that to be repeated. So Mt 24:21 has already been fulfilled, in my opinion.

The events of Rev 13 comes AFTER the events of Rev 12. That is why they are placed that way.

Nothing in Rev 12 says Satan takes full control of this world after he is cast down from heaven. He is simply more active in the world. I think Rev 12 talks about the present situation since the cross. Look how it ends in verse 17. Hardly something worth saying after the Rapture as Satan will have been making war against Christians (=the offspring of the woman) for at least two thousand years.

If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting a multi-rapture theory. I really don't think it will happen that way. But we have our own views.

That's the way it should be. Unfortunately many use other scriptures like Daniel and the Olivet Discourse and try to make Revelation agree with them. It should be the other way around.

Thanks for the long explanation. Your scheme can pass for mid-trib if you did not read Dan 9:27 as end time prophecy. (Maybe this is what you mean by refinement.) I take the traditional view that it refers to AD70. Thus I am able to read Revelation for its own message. Makes it easier to understand too. But to each his own. All the best with your book.

Don't worry, I never thought our rapture view has any effect on our salvation. But as you started by saying you came bearing news that there would be no mid-trib rapture, it is natural for me to read your subsequent statements as reasons for that belief. If they are not, what then is the basis of your claim? That there will be some with Jesus before the tribulation is to be expected given that once believers die, we will go to be with the Lord (Php 1:23). Blessings.

Sounds like a standard pre-trib view. Unfortunately, Rev 4:2 says John went to heaven IN THE SPIRIT; if this were meant to picture the rapture he should have gone up in bodily form. And I see Sister has answered your question on the 24 elders; btw nothing in the text says they were in body either. To me the main weakness of pre-trib is that such a rapture is not depicted in Revelation. I wish pre-trib were right - who wants to go through suffering? - but unfortunately I don't see any support for it, least of all in Revelation.

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I have both books you mentioned and they have helped me to formulate my view. That said, I do not think Gleason Archer was convincing in presenting the mid-trib view but instead focused more on why he thought the other views were not right. But it speaks well of him that he took your call as you described. Unfortunately you still have not explained why you shifted from mid-trib to pre-wrath esp why you think the rapture needs to occur later. However, I think mid-trib does not require the rapture to happen exactly mid-way through the events of Rev 4-19, only that it should happen sometime in between. Which means mid-trib expects us to go through a large part of the tribulation anyway. Perhaps you can specify where in Revelation you as a mid-tribber saw the rapture happening and where you see it happening now.

Hi there! I read with interest your journey through the various rapture positions. As a mid-tribber, I am curious what was it that you found wanting in mid-trib that led you to adopt pre-wrath instead.

Those who take the line that the beast is a person will probably have to say that the beast only APPEAR to be killed, i.e. it is some form of deception. Those who think the beast should be a nation would point out that the same thing is said of the Lamb in 5:6, i.e. that it also appeared to have been slain, but we all know the Lamb actually died.

Hi Revelation Man, I think the various descriptions of the beast read more naturally as that of a person. The only reason I think it could be a nation is the mention of his mortal wound. If it is a person, it would imply that he dies and comes back to life. But only God can give life; would God help the devil to deceive the nations by bringing the beast back to life? I doubt it. On the other hand, if the beast is a nation, it is not difficult to see how the devil could cause the fall and rise of that nation. But overall I am still inclined to see the beast as a person.