Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

131 Excellent


About ScottA

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Author: Walking Like Einstein

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ScottA

    The chronological order of end time events

    The matter is one: The return of Christ and the rapture are one event - but come to "each in his own order." In other words: 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." ...Therefore, just as all men did not die in one event, but "each in his own order", "so [also] in Christ all shall be made alive." So...it is true that all are counted dead or alive as one as in one event, but also each in his own order during the times of the world. Thus the "chronology" is only correct if spoken in context, whether timeless as one and with God, or each in his own order as in the world. Meaning...that if you are going to speak in terms of the chronology of events in the world, in order to be correct, the events must be spoken of as "each in his own order" and not as one event. On the other hand, if we are to speak in terms of the greater timeless truth of God (and not that of the world), we must consider all things as we have been told is the greater truth: that these things which we experience day to day as "each in his own order" were [actually] "before the foundation of the world." Only in this way do we "rightly divide the word of truth"...for we know what we experience in the world, but we also know that only God is true. So, as "all truth" comes to men, "the renewing of our mind" is that we come to know all things in Gods [timeless] terms, as increasing, but decreasing in terms according to what we experience in the world. Therefore, if you wish to clarify a word from God...the whole idea of a chronological order of events is akin to an evil generation seeking a sign, and should not even be considered serving God, but rather as serving the world. So, if you wish to serve God, explain worldly things as "each in his own order." But if you wish to explain things according to God, explain them then as one event - not during the history of the world, but "before the foundation of the world." For this is how the Lord spoke. And if you cannot do this, or do not understand - do not speak, but listen.
  2. ScottA

    The chronological order of end time events

    You have not reconciled the two passages. They are given by Paul to two different groups, but are the same word from God. Both passages pertain to the so called rapture of the church...and that is the subject of discussion. You should be putting the two passages together. But because you put asunder, you error.
  3. ScottA

    The chronological order of end time events

    That does not reconcile with: 1 Corinthians 15:23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
  4. ScottA


    Steve, You're thinking too small. A wise person can be in the middle of a section of road that they have never been down very far back and not been ahead to see what is around the next bend, and come up with what makes sense to them, but it doesn't take you there, and it doesn't tell you what you don't know. That's you. The better analogy is to imagine that we were all born into a big room where no one had ever been or seen outside. It wouldn't matter what theories or even evidences the room had to offer...it wouldn't tell you what is outside. In fact the only way that knowledge of what was beyond the room and the scope of human possibility, would have to come from the outside in. Now imagine someone claimed to have such information - not by extrapolated theory, but by actual information being passed from the outside in. That is what the bible is. It is a written record of information coming into the world from the outside. Believing it or not is a choice. But sitting around in a room telling those who have more information that they are stupid...well, that's just not very smart.
  5. ScottA

    Is this racist?

    No, not at all. There is no racism, only hate and insecurity. Race is just an excuse used as a weapon when there is really nothing else. Be honest as a child. In fact, a better super hero would be a child whose character is bigger than life - super.
  6. ScottA

    Your best advice in 4 or less words?

    "The flesh profits nothing."
  7. ScottA

    The Times of the Gentiles...Luke 21: 20-28

    The Sense Jesus’s disciples asked him what would be the sign of his second coming and the end of the age. He responded with a sermon we call the Olivet Discourse. This passage is about what will happen to Jerusalem at the Midpoint (half way point) of Daniel’s 70th Week. This brings up the first misunderstanding that many commentators have about the passage; that it refers to AD 70 and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and not to the future 70th Week of Daniel. Because the events pictured in the passage are similar to events in AD 70, these commentators believe it refers to that time. In doing so, they miss an incredibly important verse, “so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.” All of prophecy wasn’t fulfilled in AD 70 so Jesus could not be exclusively talking about that period. The passage must refer to the 70th Week which is yet future. That is when all that is written is fulfilled. Part of the reason many commentators don’t want to believe this refers to the future is what the passage says about Jerusalem, “they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all nations.” No one wants to imagine another holocaust, yet this is what the passage is picturing. But, regardless of whether we like it or not, we must remain true to God’s Word; it says a second holocaust is coming. Knowing that the passage does not refer to AD 70 changes our opinion of what the phrase “Times of the Gentiles” means as well. If the entire passage was talking about AD 70, when Jesus said, “Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled,” this would imply that these “times” would extend from the trampling in AD 70 until today. Now that we know that Luke 21: 20-24 is about the future, this theory (that the Times of the Gentiles is from AD 70 till Jesus returns) loses a lot of its validity. Let’s trace what the passage says. We first see that Jerusalem will be made “desolate.” It’s people will be killed and sent to concentration camps in other nations. The passage then further states that during “those days,” the Gentiles will trample Jerusalem. The passage doesn’t say that Jerusalem has continually been trampled, it says that during “those days” (during this invasion at the midpoint of Daniel’s 70th Week) the Gentiles will trample the city. The Reference Now that we know the “sense” of the passage, let’s see if we can find further clues as to the meaning from reference passages. The primary references to these verses are found in Daniel: Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city . . . to seal up vision and prophecy . . . (Dan. 9: 24 NASB) These are days of vengeance (Gk: EKDIKESEOS, meaning “justice or avenging”), so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. (Luke 21: 22 NASB) This first reference implies the Jesus is explaining Daniel’s prophecy about the 70 Shabua. The second does as well: The people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. (Dan. 9: 26 NASB) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. (Luke 21: 20 NASB) You are probably saying “wait a minute, Daniel 9: 26 is talking about AD 70.” Really? Are we making the same mistake commentators previously made about Luke 21: 20-24? The first 69 weeks (Shabua) of this vision END with Jesus’s death. The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 is 40 years outside of Daniel’s 70 weeks, so how can verse 26 be part of the prophecy which is about the 70 weeks? I believe verse 26 is speaking of the destruction yet to come. This is another parallel showing Jesus is explaining the 70 weeks in Luke 21: 20-24. In the middle of the week (70th Week) he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate. (Dan. 9: 27 NASB) We have already stated that Luke 21: 20-24 shows what happens at the Midpoint of Daniel’s 70th Week. This confirms the timing. Until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate. (Dan. 9: 27 NASB) Until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21: 24) The perfect parallelism continues through the end of both passages. So now we know the end point of the Times of the Gentiles, it is the return of Christ and the destruction of the Antichrist. What is the link between these two things? They (the saints) will be given into his (the Antichrist’s) hand for a time, times, and half a time. But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyedforever. (Dan. 7: 25-26 NASB) This is the linking verse that I think Jesus had in mind. “Times” and “destruction ” both appear in this one passage. So are the “Times of the Gentiles” the same as “time, times, and half a time?” Yes, I believe they are. Is there more proof? Yes, there is: Jerusalem will be trampled (Gk: PATEO) under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21: 24 NASB) It has been given to the nations; and they will tread (Gk: PATEO)under foot the holy city for forty-two months. (Rev. 11:3 NASB) This is the next reference. We can see that the trampling of Jerusalem is 42 months. We already know that “time, times, and half a time” is 1260 days, 3 1/2 year or 42 months. We have a match. We can now say with fair certainity that the “Times of the Gentiles” is equal to the last half of Daniel’s 70th Week (42 months) and not the time from the Babylonian invasion and not the time since AD 70 as is so frequently taught. Times What did Jesus mean by “times” when he used this word? We have already seen that the Greek word translated “times” is KAIRON meaning “appointed times.” In the Hebrew this word is MO’EDIM which also can mean “Feasts of the Lord.” Could Jesus have been talking about the Feasts of the Lord? Since we know each “time” is a year, was Jesus talking about a cycle of all 7 Feasts that take a year to complete? It is very likely. We also know that the primary fulfillment of the first four Feasts have already taken place. Three more Feasts (Yom Teruah, Yom Kippur, and Tabernacles) still remain to be fulfilled. It is incredibly likely they will be fulfilled during the 70th Week of Daniel. So when Jesus referred to the “Times” of the Gentiles was he also referring to Feasts of the Lord that will be fulfilled when the Gentiles are in control of Jerusalem? He may have been. The “fullness of the Gentiles” is for believers.................... “Times of the Gentiles” is about unbelievers. by Nelson Walters..... Gospel in the end times.Com ( so who is Nelson Walters.......here is a clip from his bio...... "Sometimes I believe God chooses the most unlikely person you can imagine to do His work, someone totally un-gifted by nature. Into that person he pours his spiritual gifts so that there is absolutely no question that the work is of God. This website and my books are an example of that principle, and I am the one totally un-gifted by nature. At the time I began this process, I had never written a book, created a website, or prepared a piece of prose in my life. When God gave me the vision that I needed to assist in awakening the church, I felt like Moses before the burning bush – totally unworthy of the task ahead. Fortunately, He is worthy. He has provided everything I needed, from the revelations of scripture to advisers with the technical skills necessary to present my material. Praise to you Lord, Jesus! ..................... "I was willing to be used." ... That is sooooo wordy! If this is any example of how people think, no wonder the simple truth has evaded men for centuries. The times of the nations...simply come after those who came "first" - Israel My chosen. "But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." Which time came, when Jesus said, "It is finished."
  8. ScottA

    Why Didn't I See This Before?

    God's word would not be limited to anything other than whether or not it was inspired or given by God. If it were even possible, there may be a weak case against the epistles, but not for the gospels or the book of Revelation. There also needs to be consideration given to the time when God's law is written on our hearts. In other words, placing a limit on God to only speak through His word written on tablets, would in fact violate the unforgivable sin of denying the Holy Spirit. As for the ceremonial law vs. the ten commandments - all are fulfilled in Christ, for He said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
  9. Welcome Tatoh! If you have not asked this of God, ask, and it shall be given to you.
  10. "God is spirit" and Christ said, "My words are spirit." - Do you have a problem with that?
  11. That little quote is just the one that sums it up best. If you are going to rebut a little proof text, do your homework.
  12. You do bring up a good point to seriously consider, that being: What really qualifies to be considered "literal", God and His kingdom, or His created world which is not of His kingdom? In other words, should something "created" even be considered having the same "literal" existence, or be equal to, its Creator? That would be like saying a photograph of a sunset is just as literal as the actual sunset - when, no, it is just a piece of paper with ink on it resembling that which is actually literal - meaning, it's literally paper and ink and not even close to being literally a sunset. But I can just hear the argument: "Being created doesn't make it a metaphor. If a rock hits you in the head, it's not a metaphor, it's a rock." But there is two things wrong with that answer: The whole "metaphor" claim is off the table - for God has told us that "all things come in parables." And the object of any parable is not even the subject. Meaning that all of creation is the manifestation of a multitude of principles that have little or nothing to do with the would-be literal objects thereof. Assuming that what would appear to be "literal" in the world, is the measure of what is actually "literal" with God, is either self-centered, short-sighted, or lacking in respect for God being higher than we are. And since God has made it clear that He is "no respecter of persons"...this approach too, is off the table. ...Which only leaves one possibility: that the scriptures are exactly what God has said they are: His word, which He then elaborates to say is "in parables", is "confounded", and is "spirit." Meaning that it is not the object of the scriptures that are literal, but only the subject that is literal...which "is not of this world."
  13. It's really quite simple. The bible itself answers your question: "All things come in parables." Which is the result of God "confounding" "all language" (even the scriptures) at the tower of Babel. Therefore, the scriptures "must be discerned spiritually."
  14. ScottA

    Just How Close is the RAPTURE?

    Tell me then, in which of the parables that Jesus spoke is the object of the parable also the subject?
  15. ScottA

    Just How Close is the RAPTURE?

    So says the wordsmiths and dictionaries. But there is no there there. We are not talking about travel. Though the kingdom of heaven is considered to be "above", and God is "higher", these are only metaphors. The same is true of the word rapture, it is a metaphor for the experience one has in going from this world into the presence of God.