Marcus O'Reillius

Diamond Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Marcus O'Reillius last won the day on December 25 2016

Marcus O'Reillius had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

744 Excellent


About Marcus O'Reillius

  • Rank
    Diamond Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,310 profile views
  1. You've taken that passage totally out of context with what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse, making it sound like this is the unparalleled time of distress for the Elect. Her "children" are also going to be killed off with pestilence in the next verse. So you suppose this is the same period because of a coincidence of wording. However, it is localized to a time and place - Thyatira. And the whole of the churches should learn the lesson - that unless they overcome, they too will be cast like grass into the furnace. So I do doubt you very much so. There is no direct evidence of a "pretrib" Rapture in the Bible. The gathering from the clouds that Jesus does in Rev 14 comes after the midpoint of Rev 13:14-15, and the Great Tribulation caused by Rev 1315-17. This is congruent with the Olivet Discourse. Likewise, in the opening broad overview of the end in Rev chapters 4-11 (exclusive of 11:1-13), the Great Multitude show up in Heaven out of the Great Tribulation. The message that the Rapture happens after the midpoint abomination and Great Tribulation is consistent even unto Paul in 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-8.
  2. There is only one Great Tribulation as defined by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. And no less an authority than one of the 24 Elders said the Great Multitude came out of the Great Tribulation. To put the Rapture before the Great Tribulation means having to redefine who the Elect are in Matthew 24:31, literally, re-writing the Bible.
  3. This is just blatantly wrong; I say NO such thing. (Can keras get anything right?) Pre-Wrath places the Rapture to Heaven coincidental to the sixth Seal - AFTER the midpoint Abomination - and AFTER the shortened Great Tribulation But BEFORE the seventh Seal is broken which allows the Scroll to be opened and the Trumpet announcements of God's desolations, His Wrath - decreed so long ago - go forth. (and the first Trumpet supplies much of the Wrath of God which goes forth on the second half of the Day of the Lord.)
  4. Thanks Roy.
  5. Well, there is another explanation: it's for us to know when the time is ripe for our Lord's Return - when every eye will see Him. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, The Olivet message in Luke is to lift up your head because your redemption is drawing near. But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.
  6. And Daniel 11:36, I'm still waiting for your study of "Elect" which dictates that we read it as "tribulation saints" in Matthew's account of Jesus' Olivet Discourse.
  7. Your opinion of Scripture is true? I'm sorry; we must begin with the presumption that we've committed an unrecognized error when we present our work. No one - no person here on God's green earth - has it all figured out. No. When we come to the classical Pre-Trib Rapture eschatology, I find that it has no direct support in Scripture. Furthermore, after examining alternative schools of eschatology, the only system that comports to multiple linear prophetic narratives is a Pre-Wrath position. I have developed eschatology further through my special and unique brand of analysis which I call the Sequence-of-Events. I am jazzed because my study, because unlike other eschatologies which have various internal inconsistencies, or have to ignore certain passages; Pre-Wrath has a wide harmony with multiple accounts and no internal inconsistency that it has to explain away. One such internal inconsistency against Pre-Wrath is in the manner in which it dictates that I define a word like "Elect" in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew to something unlike any other usage for the word, and something which cannot be found anywhere in Scripture: "tribulation saints." So your way is true? I don't think so.
  8. "Don't believe everything you think." ~ a written motto posted on a church basement wall. I am not going to blindly follow your 'this means that' and 'that means this' exegesis. Prophecy is not a matter of personal belief. It takes serious study to discern God's Word.
  9. I thought you just said you can't separate the Church from Israel. Romans 11:25 supports a view that has them separate. The fullness of the Gentiles must come in: i.e., the Church on the Day of the Lord, before Israel's "hardness" ceases, and they are saved (in the Millennium). This thinking of mine reflects Progressive Dispensationalism.
  10. It's done all the time. We have Christians and we have Jews who vehemently disavow Jesus as their Christ (Messiah). Scripture includes the latter in its prophecy. Unfortunately for the bulk of them, the Day of the Lord is not a pleasant happenstance, but a dreaded ordeal which will see many of them die. In the Songs of Solomon, chapter 5, there is even a poetic passage which describes the woman who represents "Israel" as "missing" her lover (Jesus) and suffering in consequence. Zechariah 13:8-9 states that two-thirds will be cut off and perish, but the remaining third will be brought through the fire so as to be refined, and will come to the Lord. So again, just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I've made a mistake. If you want to allege error, show me where I've made the mistake and tell me why it's wrong.
  11. Why would that be incorrect when some of the very the people you name were not "Christian": Ezekiel and Daniel for instance. I have done my research on eklektos and I offer this paper I wrote as a thesis on it. So before I simply believe what you think, I would like some constructive criticism on what I have presented which you have ignored. Simply saying I'm wrong because I don't think like you will not suffice. Elect This word is crucial in eschatological exegesis. In the Olivet Discourse, source for more disagreement than not, different peoples are applied to Elect to define the people mentioned there. Rather than build up a systematic theology on how Elect is used in the Bible, all too often the definition depends upon how the commentator’s school of eschatology places the rapture within the scheme of things. This then forces a backdoor approach to say what the word must mean rather than take it as it should mean in its plainest sense. By covering how eklektos is used in the Bible, the general idea is by a systematic approach, the meaning for elect in the Olivet Discourse may be defined. This word study starts with the word definition. While there are differences in translation between versions, the meaning is not terribly maligned between the different forms it takes. Next will be a systematic study covering the three different senses of eklektos as it is used in the New Testament. Finally is an argument against other uses as it commonly appears in some schools of eschatology. First, however, is a little bit of Bible history which incorporates not only the human element but also the fact that Scripture is divinely inspired. Matthew, Mark and Luke were written decades after the conversations they record in a language which Jesus probably did not speak (there is no evidence He spoke Greek). So whatever understanding they had when Jesus spoke to them is conveyed with the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and was further tempered by the fact that a considerable amount of time had passed until the first book of the Gospel was written, which is important in this case. Time becomes important here because of the evolution of the Church. While there is not only disagreement about which account was first, scholars are also unable to pinpoint a year and instead have a range of years which may be more than 30 years after the fact. In Acts 10:47 however, for which we have a reasonable date, that historical account describes how Peter was amazed that the Holy Spirit had been poured out to the Gentiles. This is before Paul's first missionary journey which occurred in A.D. 46-48 (Acts 13:4-14:28). Therefore, when the Gospel was written (even by the earliest estimate) the understanding the authors had then was after the Gentiles had been incorporated into the Jewish body of believers, and led by the Holy Spirit, they wrote ‘Elect’ to convey what Jesus had said. That God has selected those He will save means the Elect are more than just Israel, though they remain as God’s chosen people as a nation. However, that term, as it is used in the New Testament, can incorporate other nations who have been grafted into that special status. Thus, whom God had selected is more than just the twelve tribes. Indeed, as a name, “Elect” better describes the mixed group of believers than any other. Going to the Greek, the word translated as elect in the Olivet Discourse is eklektos. It is translated in the NASB as choice (twice), choice man, chosen (10 times), Chosen One, and elect (8 times) ―ECB p.1646. Geoffrey Bromiley defines eklektos in the ordinary Greek as meaning “choice,” “select(ed)” ―TDNT p.521. Going on further in his work, the Greek Bible authors of the LXX defined it in general as meaning choice products. In the religious sense, the word took three forms, sacred or pure; consecrated; and as a term for “Abraham (Philo), Moses, Joshua, David, etc. as well as the land (Zech. 7:14), for the city of Jerusalem (Tob. 13:13), and, of course, for the people (cf Is. 43:20; Ps. 106:5). Bromiley notes with the Jewish Hellenistic Writings that eklektos increasingly denote Israel as the elect or chosen people ―ibid. The NIV sometimes chooses elect over chosen in the translation and vise versa; the meaning is generally the same. It is recognized by this author that the NASB has a better word-for-word translation but the NIV is used for its ease in general reading. The cited references in the NIV are the same in the NASB though. The underlying Greek does not change regardless of the version. Other mentions of elect and choice in the Bible usually refer to ekloge which has the same root meaning. However the passage in question in the Synoptic Gospel accounts has elect as eklektos. So, with the exception of the relevant Olivet Discourse end-time passages in question, the passages for just eklektos in the NT are presented here for analysis. The NASB translation is shown in parentheses for comparison. Chosen: MT 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen." (chosen) LK 18: 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? (elect) LK 23:35 …if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One" (Chosen One) ROM 8:33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? (elect) RO 16:13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, (choice man) COL 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people (chosen) 1PE 2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God (choice and precious in the sight of) 1PE 2:6 "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, (choice stone) 1PE 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, (chosen) 2JN 1:1 To the chosen lady and her children, (chosen) 2JN 1:13 The children of your chosen sister send their greetings (chosen) REV 17:14 -and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers." (chosen) Elect: 1TI 5:21 Christ Jesus and the elect angels, (chosen) 2TI 2:10 for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, (chosen) 1PE 1:1 To God's elect, strangers in the world, (chosen) First of all, eklektos is used for aspects of God. Jesus is described as eklektos in Luke and 1st Peter and that word is repeated in quoting OT Scripture. God’s angels are correspondingly called eklektos in Paul’s first letter to Timothy. So like Saint, this word conveyed upon the believer also describes Jesus and other Heavenly beings. Likewise too, when so many question their salvation because of sin in their life, it is difficult for the average lay Christian to take title to as being chosen by God over unrepentant sinners. The second aspect to be gleamed here by this compilation of verses is that those that believe in God are choice rendered as a noun or adjective. The first reading of Matthew 22:14 seems to point that God does the choosing. That would imply the definition of chosen as a verb. If Matthew had wanted to indicate that, then he would have been used the verb eklegomai. However, the word here is eklektos which is a noun or an adjective, not a verb. To say Saints are chosen must understand that chosen is also a noun in the English. This then describes Saints as being ‘the selection’ of God as chosen is defined in the English as a noun. This conforms to Bromiley’s definition of the Greek word in translation as well. In the first sense of Matthew 22:14; this summation is given as the conclusion of the parable of the wedding. This has strong overtones to the salvation that is to come with the rapture and indicates in a future sense that God’s salvation will extend past the physical nation of Israel who do not heed Christ’s call. While the gospel message is preached to all, not all will believe. Likewise, all are invited (hearing the Gospel) but not all will be the selected of God, (because they become righteous by faith). In addition, only those that are properly attired, carrying the sense into another eschatological vision, those who have washed their robes clean in the blood of Christ; are admitted to the wedding banquet. The basis for the theological argument for predestination starts in Romans 8:29. Paul’s introduction of the word chosen in verse 8:33 seems to confirm that. While beyond the scope of this book, the idea that God knows who will become His could be entirely satisfied when a distinction is made between viewing time as linear in Man’s observation to the possible view God could have. (This concept is covered in the next chapter under the section called Observer True Point of View.) While each person has a willful choice to make, none can know the choices they will make in the future. God, not bound by our confining present, knows who will choose Him and remain faithful. We are chosen (in the sense of eklektos, being a noun or an adjective) not so much by our choosing, (as in the verb form of the word group: eklegomai) but (to use some definitions of eklektos provided by Bromiley) that we are consecrated (adj.) by justification through Christ, and so become Holy, as in sacred or pure, or choice as in being desirable by God. God certainly chooses (verb) the righteous over the wicked to enjoy life, but this in no way dictates that God limits who has the ability to willfully choose for Him. Of course, specific instances in the Bible do seem to support a theology of strict predestination. Addressing those passages where God does “harden” a person’s heart does not necessarily mean He determines their ultimate fate. It could mean for those people God does harden that He only reinforces their natural disposition. In this case, He knows that they would never choose to worship Him short of forced worship, which is within God’s ability but outside of His character. God desires willful worship. God’s hardening which results in their choosing against righteousness could serve in God’s plan. It might be to bring about a larger change for others or to make sweeter the election of those that do choose Him. Viewing the difference in timeline perspectives preserves the theological idea of free will without limiting God’s capability to bring His plan to fulfillment. Thus, the exercise of will, which does not go so far as to say God is not in control -but only pertains to an individual’s choice, balances with God’s ability to act so that both exist simultaneously. This removes God’s perfect knowledge as being an agent which predestines each individual in an absolute sense and dispels the criticism that the individual has no role in decision making and thus allows them to lays the blame for their lack of salvation back on God. Thus in the second sense from Matthew 22:14, eklektos refers to choice as in the sense of the word as a noun. Peter’s reference in 1st Peter chapter 2 verses 4 and 9 likewise does not mean God chooses (verb), and thus these verses need not dictate a fatalistic world view for the individual. The election of God’s people, being select and prized is accurately conveyed with this word for those invited into Heaven as they are a cut above when compared to those who are to receive God’s judgment. The third sense of eklektos is not as hard as the second. In John’s letters, this becomes a title of address. In Paul’s letter to the Romans verse 16:13, it is an attribute again given to a person. From what can be attributed individually is then done for all. In Peter’s opening address to the Christians in Asia Minor in 1Pe 1:1, this term is used and then reinforced in 1Pe 2:11 where again the term ‘strangers in the world’ is used to define the Church as Peter encourages them to abstain from sin. Paul carries this same overall address in 2nd Timothy and eklektos now is defined as those who obtain the Salvation of Christ and can receive the heavenly glory. Finally, in Revelation, being elect is part of the characteristics of Christ’s army also being termed: called, and faithful. So covering eklektos as it is used in the New Testament leads to an understanding of the word as having a dual application to the heavenly as well as to man. It reflects an elevation for the righteous as viewed by God, and it applies to the Church from the individual to all and goes beyond this world into the next. This then supports this same definition of eklektos as a synonym for the Church to describe the Church in Matthew and Mark’s coverage of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. To understand who the elect are and make a definitive definition, these are those who are the select of God. This would include all those from the OT who are Saints, as well as the NT Church which are also called Saints. (Some would actually cross over this boundary, being the early Church, and from the nation of Israel, Messianic Jews.) To these two sides of the Hebrew tree, root and branches, a third type of people that Paul mentions must be added. These would be people incorporated in Christ through his footnote in Romans 2:14-15, referred to here as the Others. Although many people have lived without knowledge of the Law and hence Christ, still for some their heart is inclined towards Him, and God, judging the heart, includes these faraway people in His select. To differentiate whether these people are gathered up with the Harvest or separated as Sheep, broadens the discussion beyond Paul’s Epistle with three points. ROM 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) The first part of the argument for including the Others in the Elect, depends on Romans 2:14-15 itself. These are people without the Law, like other Gentiles. Even without the Law, there is sin, and the penalty like for sin apart from the Law is the same as those who sin under the Law. However, some of the Gentiles do what is required by the Law, just as those before the Law did like Job and Abraham. Thus, their heart, being very much being made in the image of God, is inclined towards God, and God, judging the heart, takes their heart attitude into account as defending them. The second part reverts to one of the first resurrection passages: Daniel 12:1. Here the Man in Linen states: “everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered.” While the condition of “your people” is also included, depending on which group you assign Daniel (which is covered in the next section), his people may be more than just the Jewish faithful. So in the first case, if those apart from the Law have a heart for God, and so belong with the living as opposed to those who sin but whose heart carries no remorse or conscience, then they would also be part of the Book of Life. The Man in Linen also indicates a time perspective with the deliverance of Daniel 12:1; “at that time.” So in addition in the future, those whose place is fixed within the Book of Life will be delivered. This would indicate the Others are included within that designation. The third argument would be the distinction of where souls go when the body expires. Since most will have died by the time the Rapture comes, what of the person who never hears the Law, yet has a heart for God, where do they go? Jesus indicated only two places for the dead, Paradise and Hades or in the Old Testament, Sheol. Presumably, those with a heart for God would be in Paradise. Just as the thief on Jesus’ right would meet with Jesus that day in Paradise, this would be the natural state for the Living. And as a matter of division on the Rapture, Paul states the dead (meaning the Living who have died) in Christ will rise first in 1st Thessalonians 4:16. So rightly then, any Other would be so included with the Elect on the day of the Rapture. To conclude who the Elect are then, it would be all who gain entry to God’s presence in the Rapture or gathering as Jesus uses it in the Olivet Discourse from Matthew and also have their name in the Book of Life. In the NT, the primarily people who are the Elect there are the Church, because Jesus is the central theme and faith in Him becomes the criteria for admission to God. Also included are the OT Saints and some Others. Thus, for the Christian reading, the NT Church is a subset of the Elect. Not all who are Elect are in the Church as it is defined in the NT. Additionally, as a caveat, not all who simply attend church (small "c") are in the Elect, but only those who are faithful to the end. However, it is safe to say that all who are of the "true" Church are in the Elect.
  12. Revelation is not talking about the sky when it describes where God's Temple is. Nor is where they who dwell in the "sky"... Heaven is not a merely physical location in "space". And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Rev 13:6
  13. That's correct, and the Elect are not all Christians too. Still - if you compare 1Th 4:16-17, 2Th 2:1-8, and 1Co 15:51-52 with the Olivet Discourse, I fail to see how you can say Paul is not talking about the very event Jesus describes. I know you can separate them, because you do, but the only way I see you needing to do that is to avoid a time you do not wish for yourself, or would wish on anyone else. Still, Jesus said the world hates us because it first hated Him; as this is the case: how can we expect to get a free pass? In Revelation 13:7 - it is not the Jews being targeted, but us: It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. That same description of a people is used of the Great Multitude.
  14. You are not stating an event laid out in any linear, prophetic narrative, but a conclusion - the hope of a Rapture before the one 'seven', which you call the "tribulation", begins.
  15. Ahnngghhh! This is entirely messed up. Paul's message to the Thessalonians is for us. We are the ones who remain and are still alive (after the Great Tribulation). The gathering Paul speaks about is not for natural-borne Israel, but the Elect, those Christians who remain steadfast in their faith. There is only one gathering from the clouds, mentioned three times in the Bible, by Jesus, by Paul, and by John.