Jump to content

Joulre2abba

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joulre2abba

  1. No., you didn't set out to give your knowledge verses my knowledge about speaking in tongues. That would have at least been civil. But what you addressed was how wrong you thought I was in what I said. Using ad hominem to do it. No matter how much you might disagree with what I've said there's no reason to be bad tempered about it. It distorts and minimizes whatever 'speaking the truth in love' you might have been attempting to do. Resulting in your words only being a noisy gong.
  2. What I was describing was how to tell the difference between your own thoughts and the direction of the Lord. I wasn't talking about speaking in tongues as such but how to co-operate with the Holy Spirit when speaking in tongues. That does involve some human participation. It's best to learn during private prayer time, then the more you can discern, the more likely God will use you while in the congregation. Paul didn't teach much on how to do that, he just wrote that the child of God should be led of the Spirit of God. There were some things that Jesus did that is not given in the OT as support. I answered in such a way that indicates that I'm speaking from observation as well as personal experience in how God leads me. I wouldn't know about anyone giving fake interpretations. Anyone who is quick to judge them as fake is far less likely to be used of God to give a genuine interpretation. What I shared in my previous post is how to co-operate with the Holy Spirit as he gives words of utterance. How to hear and recognize God's words and tell the difference between those and one's own thinking. And thereby be less likely to give an interpretation that is from one's own ideas and notions. That involves participation with God in yielding one's mind and whole body. So it's not correct to say that the natural person has nothing whatsoever to do with the process. I was speaking of private prayer time where getting interpretation is allowed in knowing what you're praying about. That way you can pray in the spirit and in the understanding also. Getting promptings of scriptures to say, etc. You have confused it with intercession which is usually done without knowing what or who you're praying for or about. I had spoken of some believer's using angelic languages while speaking in tongues.. You replied by stating the same thing but then said that I was wrong. It seems there is much that you are confused about. You assume that I've only attended pentecostal churches. However, I also have experience from attending a Methodist church where they neither taught nor spoke much about the Holy Spirit. Prayer that asks for God's will provides what isn't taught in a church. In the churches that I've attended, having scriptural support is very important. And it's personally important to me to know what God's will is so that the devil can't take it away. Contrary to what you suppose I am not of the sort of personality to be all caught up in experiences. Although I've enjoyed those appropriate one's that I've had. Many have happened while in prayer, not expecting anything but willing to receive what comes.
  3. Doing something in hopes to jar the others senses off of their closer to right than not direction.. is not being honest or sincere in my book. That sort of thing I think is what the proverbs calls a negative practice, then trying to lighten it by saying "Well, I was only kidding." If you really had some truth to tell, then you wouldn't need to jar anyone's senses. You'd just use strongly supportive verses and let them do their job. You assume that I saw what you call the obvious but after some reflection on what actually happened.. I see what you really did. And I do understand your position, but I still don't agree with it.. so no, we're not on the same page. I'm back on the track where I was before you used the 'jar your senses' tactic.
  4. Did you ever earlier say that they were Jews, as well as now? If you didn't then that is the reason for my mistaking you for believing the same as the other poster I'd also posted to.
  5. Hi, I'm back and I'd like to go at this again. To say that I seem to have made a mistake.. There remains for me to say that you seem to have done the same. In your previous post you stated that the two witnesses were not able to go into the Jewish portion but only stand in the Gentile court. Where is the verse(s) text(s) that says that verbatim? I've not come across any that would prevent two Jewish witnesses to be just as equally allowed to go where all other Jews have the privilege to go. Didn't you say that they aren't allowed because they are sent only to the Gentiles? Where is the explicit text for that? You've only given far removed verses to assert that it proves your claims. I conclude that you have to use such because there are no explicit verses to support your opinions. And further, how does doing that led credibility to your statements?
  6. The topics are two different ones. #1 Elijah was prophesied to come before the end of days. That is why they thought Jesus was a prophet in the spirit of Elijah, (whether or not they connected this..) he didn't die but was taken up to heaven alive. #2 When Elijah and Moses appeared to talk with Jesus it was just days before his crucifixion. Moses had died. Do you see the differences there? It turns out that Jesus both died and rose from the dead then was taken up to heaven alive. So, Elijah and Moses represents that. To us.. therefore he will come again to raise up all who have died in Christ, and, all who are alive at his coming and along with the risen, shall be changed from flesh bodies to like glorious bodies as His. But.. what does that have to do with this..? [you replied] ".. they are not Elijah and Enoch.." "Its Elijah and Moses imho, why else would they be seen at the mount with Jesus (configuration) just before his death?" A: The topic at hand, via my question above is, With what scripture(s) do you derive that the two witnesses (by any names from the OT or NT) are Gentiles? * "So, why would you assume I do not understand that the coming Two-witnesses are Jewish? Again, you once again seem to have conflated an issue brother." A: Well, that has made it necessary to read again, again. With the result that your post that I have replied to concerning the two witnesses.. and those I replied to within the same hour what had been posted by another concerning his saying that the two witnesses are Gentiles. It's clear to me now that I had posted to you while still thinking of his assertions. So that when you said that I had conflated the first time .. even while rereading through your post the first time.. I was still conflating so I had not recognized that you had not said what he had. So yes.. I AM THE GREAT CONFLATOR. [said to the tune of The Great Pretender] Conflating what I thought I knew so well. So it seems to be not what I thought, you see. And for that, I go to embarrass-hell. Excuse me while I walk through the flames and hit my head against the wall for awhile.
  7. * "The word fire which comes out of a military commanders mouth is just that. "FIRE" Anyone can say "FIRE". A: But, the two witnesses are not military commanders. They are prophets. Like the prophet of the OT who called down fire to burn the sacrifice he put on it, to be a sign to the pagan priests so that they know who the real God is.. not their pagan gods. * "But the armed forces who takeaway the daily sacrifice will cause fire to come down from heaven by either of the commanders just saying the word fire. It's a common practice." A: But what Bible evidence is there concerning the common practices of prophets? Daniel said only that the daily sacrifice will be taken away or ceased. There are no words there to indicate by who or how. It's known in a letter of the apostle Paul that the lawless one (a.c.) will enter the Tribulation temple and sit in the seat - the Jewish temple furniture - mercy seat that double serves as the place of making altar sacrifices, and declare himself to be God. * "They can even place the abomination of desolation in any city they wish and kill everyone in that city. They will in fact destroy many cities in that manner." A: Provide the verse(s) that say it.. verbatim. I don't recall any such references so the words are strictly your own. * "Let's keep in mind who is in control of Jerusalem for those 42 months before we believe they are holy. https://biblehub.com/daniel/11-39.htm He doesn't sound like Elijah to me." A: The anti-christ has over-all control, but he doesn't have control of the two witnesses. The a.c. sends armies to kill them but the two witnesses have fire coming out of their mouths that burn that army to a crisp. The a.c. is also plenty busy with calamities because of the two commanding similar plagues to occur as those when Moses and Aaron dealt with the Egyptian Pharaoh. The two witnesses are the strong opposition of the anti-christ who is enraged as the Pharaoh. Are you of the opinion that neither Moses nor the two witnesses are holy? Or, would it sit better with you if a military general and all the arsenal he could muster would completely mangle the a.c.'s little red wagon? If you'd be more comfortable with that.. then I wonder what you think about what Jesus does to the world's armies, the false prophet and the anti-christ when he returns in his Second Coming. Would you say that he's not holy because he puts the kibosh on all of them?
  8. I didn't address that because I am in agreement.. however, you think they are Gentiles but that is what I disagreed with in my previous post that you made this reply to.
  9. There's a lot of your post that is unrequested, so I'm only replying to what is relevant to my previous post. * "It could just mean the Fourth Beast took the place of the other three in Daniel and wound up ruling all the area in the end times." "I never say I know something till I know it." A: Contradict yourself much? * "The Beast in some manner overcomes three, so I don't see that tbh." "It could just mean the Fourth Beast took the place of the other three in Daniel and wound up ruling all the area in the end times." A: "all the area" is pretty generic.. always a safe statement. I've only mentioned concerning the first events stated in Daniel because it, to my perspective could fit in measure with current events. First, the three are uprooted/removed. .. Now.. due to the fact that it's not happening yet.. There's no need for me to have bothered to mention, but I will here.. Second, the same three that removed, are (later) overcome and brought back in. * "It could just mean the Fourth Beast took the place of the other three." The Beast uses those three as his greatest achievement as it were, to enlarge his own previous one little horn. Which makes him the big cheese among all the other nations who have only one horn, even though they are not given any particular size. But in the Beasts apparent case, size matters.
  10. If I am, then it's far less than what you have thrown together. In what scripture(s) do you derive that the two witnesses are Gentiles? Mind you I say that the verse I request must use the word- Gentile. Further, why would you think that the Jews (having experienced so much history of hostility from Gentiles) would even pay attention to any Gentile who tells them that they need to repent of their sins? Not only that.. but God surely knowing it, why would he send two Gentiles for a truly mission impossible (not the movie difficult but successful kind) of situation? It makes far more sense for them to be of their own ethnicity, knowing the culture and history which provides a means of relating fully with the Jews. Even as Jesus was born of a woman of that ethnicity, raised in that culture and understanding the history. But (according to your views) if it would really work for Gentiles to effectively persuade the Jews.. then why wasn't Jesus born of Gentile parentage? Maybe (according to your views) he would've been more successful if he had been. [It makes just as much sense to suppose that Jesus could have been born a Gentile as to say that Elijah had been.] * "Now recognize the words John is told to write, "MEASURE" that is very important, John is told to measure something, and in essence it is the Two-witnesses callings or their Ministries on earth. Rev. 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. A: These things are not to be interpreted allegorically but literally. The text clearly says that John "measured the temple of God" - the building.. "the altar" - where sacrifices took place.. "and them that worship therein" - that would be the Jewish High Priest(s). Yet you allegorically state that John measured the Gentile two witnesses callings. But you don't provide any scripture to support your assertions. Where is the scripture that states that John measured the callings of the two witnesses? And I do mean, verbatim. * "2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." * "The Wailing Wall is a part of the old Gentile Court the Gentiles were allowed to come to and pray etc. etc. A: During the OT and gospels, it was only the proselyte Gentiles who could qualify to approach and pray. The Romans or Greeks could not. They didn't want to anyway unless to desecrate it. And what do we see now in the Gentile courtyard? The building of those of another religion who, to say it mildly, do not treat the Jews well. * "So, John is giving us the Two-witnesses parameters of who they are called unto via their ministry, their job is to get Israel to REPENT. Malachi 4:/5-6 says as much, Behold I will send you Elijah BEFORE the great and dreadful day of the Lord, and he will turn Israel back unto God." A: More of your outlandish allegory. The text clearly identifies Elijah being of Jewish descent, not of Gentile. The disciples of Jesus wanted to know if Jesus was Elijah. That was logical because both Elijah and Jesus were Jews. Therefore with the Malachi verse in mind.. how could two non-Jewish witnesses reconcile the Jewish fathers, ie, ancestors with the Jewish children, ie, descendants? Your assertions are iesogesically derived based on a presuppositional bias against the Jews.. that smacks of replacement theology. * "So, the measurement is THER CALLING, go to the Jews ONLY, for only THEY can worship in the temple and at the altar, LEAVE OFF the Gentile Court means the Two-witnesses have not been sent to preach repentance unto the Gentiles, but to pray down Judgment against them." A: Your inserted meaning is not supported by the text. But.. I can just picture it.. as the Jews are heading toward the temple to worship God., because they can.. the two Gentile witnesses are standing in the Gentile court area.. dodging the judgement that comes upon the Gentiles (which includes the two witnesses).. as they try to get the attention of those Jews to tell them that they need to get near God. I could speculate their responses.. The Jews would either get justifiably angry for the complete non-awareness expressed by the Gentile two witnesses projectionist condemnation.. or have a good laugh over the sheer hilarity of it.. and also be thanking God that he metes out due comeuppance upon them as representatives, for all of the ill-treatment suffered at the Gentile hands for centuries. * "The building above is the Temple, the area surrounding it is the Gentile Court." A: The building pictured in your post is of the previous First temple during Solomon's reign., all of the equipment.. was provided by King David. It therefore shouldn't be used to indicate the Tribulation temple that John was told to measure. * "Yes, he is mistaken on a lot of his End Time Eschatology." A: You share a remarkable equality with him.
  11. - "In the bible it says the Holy Spirit was on Simeon, in gospel of Luke chp 2. vs 25-27. Why didnt the bible says The Holy Spirit was IN simeon? A: The Holy Spirit could not be in someone until the Day of Pentecost when they were all filled, and they spoke with tongues as He gave them utterance. - "I do believe its possible to have the Holy Spirit on us, but not in us." A: There are many NT verses that say "In whom", "In Him", "In Christ".. they tell the believer what is for their benefit. Throughout the OT no one could be saved but the Holy Spirit could through God's word that was meditated upon, influence the person's thinking and make a verse become real to them. God would speak personally to that person concerning the words in the sentence. For instance, Simeon was one day as every day reading a bible chapter with purpose to understand it. Like God told Joshua to do. It's known from Lk.2:26 that the Holy Spirit had revealed to him that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. When I was doing my own Bible study I read that and asked God how he had revealed that to him. And the next day when I was reading Ps.91:16 I got my answer. Ps.91:16 "With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation." There are other ways in which that verse could be accurately applied, and that concerning Simeon is one of them. - "and then filled with Holy Spirit is not just a leading and guidance its becoming like Christ, its living a perfect life with less sin." A: You seem to vacillate between if it's possible for "in" or not. - "I do believe its possible to have the Holy Spirit on us, but not in us." Never the less, what you said concerning what "in" by filling, can produce, is essentially right, but still there is more to it than that to achieve consistent less sin.
  12. - "it is the Spirit who is speaking the tongue through the person as well as the interpretation" A: Those words can give people the idea that they don't do the speaking but rather the Holy Spirit does. To that idea is the reply. No. The Holy Spirit gives the utterance awareness to the person from within their inner man, and it is up to them to speak what they hear. When I say that they speak what they hear, that does not mean that it's audible to the outer ear but it is to the inner ear. When your inner ear hears it's very much like being aware of your own thoughts. That's why someone might say when they hear it "Was that you, Lord, or was that me?" It takes getting familiar with what you hear to where you can clearly tell the difference between your thoughts and the Holy Spirit utterance or interpretation. In the same way that you can eventually tell the difference between two different friends or family members who call you over the phone. - "If the Holy Spirit is not the one speaking, then there will be no interpretation (unless something hinkie is going on)." A: The Holy Spirit uses your word knowledge and your level of spiritual understanding to speak to you. The more that you don't know, the less that you will hear from Him. Most of the time it's those who don't know that usually want to speak an interpretation of a tongue, so it usually ends up being hinkie. That is just immaturity, not evil. - "A saved person utilizing their prayer language (tongues) will not give any interpretation, because...as Paul says, he is speaking to God, not to others." A: Paul said that those who speak in tongues when they're alone can use their faith to receive the interpretation to know.. if they want to.. what they said or get some gist of what it's about. It works like the public version but it's on a private level. So there is no requirement that it must be interpreted, but, if the person who spoke in tongues wants to know what was said in tongues, then they can use their faith for it. It's possible that such a private practice gets accurate to where the person is promoted by God to use the method on a public basis. - "And Paul says that some people don't speak earthly tongues only, but some pray in languages that are not found upon the earth, he calls them "tongues...of angels" A: All of the tongues that are mysteries.. are not earthly tongues. The tongues of angels is used during intercessional prayer to speak their language to give them commands in assisting in the matter of what the intercession is about and who it's for. The person using the tongues of angels will switch to a different sounding utterance that is markedly not like their usual tongues. And the person often doesn't know what they said, but the angel definitely does. It's all on a secret mystery basis so that the devil doesn't know and therefore his sabotaging everything is reduced. The person who intercedes should not share with anyone what they prayed about or who for.. unless or until they meet the person that they prayed for and hear their testimony. The better that the person can keep such secrets the more they will be called upon by God to intercede. So it's definitely worth not blabbing what you experienced during interceding.
  13. One thing that you do have right is that while there was multiple kinds of speaking in tongues according to 120 individuals.. the visitors each heard in their own languages. But other than that your speculative wording is evidence of how much you don't know on many levels. You are merely using your experience to try to figure out the events of what was recorded. And you even decide to reject something based on your own ideas of what it all means. Peter spoke in the less educated man's common Galilean dialect. All who had come from other neighboring countries did so every year to celebrate Pentecost. It so happened that the Jewish moed was fulfilled on that day. In that they all came every year that would have to mean that they were bi-lingual in order to communicate effectively. Because no one had available travel booklets that contained 25 most likely things they might want to say in the course of their visit. The Aramaic language is kin to Hebrew which all from those other countries would know well how to speak because they're all Jews. They all read and heard preached in Hebrew and Aramaic the Torah and Tanahk. They didn't have copies written in their other nation language. Because the idioms and metaphors and other forms of wording used in Hebrew cannot be translated well into other languages. For instance.. the Greek has only "Theos" for the Hebrew word "Elohim". The Greek cannot even properly do YHVH. The English can't either. For centuries the English has only used LORD. And God. What was it before the German gave us God? Yes the German word for good is Goht. Sounds like God. There is so much that can be lost in a translation. When the speaking in tongues had occurred, the visitors only said that what they heard was concerning praise of the wonders of God. No evangelism. Then Peter addressed them all concerning the explanation of why they were acting drunk. Then at the end he equivalently gave an alter call for those who would like to be saved. All through his message he wasn't speaking in tongues. Because he didn't need to since they well understood Galilean. Also. Remember what Paul said in a teaching/preaching situation.. "I would would rather speak 5-10 words in understanding than 10,000 words in a tongue." Tongues are not to be used to evangelize. When English speaking tongue-talking evangelists go to Spain or France, wherever, they take bi-lingual translators with them. And like Peter did, they give a message of salvation and also offer the speaking in tongues.
  14. I haven't got the information on easy copy/paste from a prewritten notepad. Just look at when the Roman Empire faded out and the ten kingdoms showed up. The ten being the first ten nations to join the E.U. Just archive the news reports.. They (Brussels +) are the iron/strength while (Greece +) are the weak/clay. The iron tyrannically enforces harsh policies onto the clay. The UK/Brexit is mentioned in Daniel.. (1 of 3) that will leave. There's talk that Italy may be Italexit. And also Germany (Gerexit?)
  15. Missiles, I'm sure. The speculation train has completely gone off it's track and tries to move forward by spinning it's wheels in the tall thick grass. Why would the people marvel at seeing missiles? Have they been living under a rock that missiles are something that they've never seen before? By injecting actual scripture.. In the OT Elijah called fire down from heaven.. however that does not mean that it was modern weaponry of missiles (mwm). Even with putting the action into the future.. that still doesn't mean that mwm would be used. The text doesn't compare the fire to be like or as something else. So the reader is grammatically stuck with "fire". Besides the fire comes out of their mouths. So if missiles are coming out of their mouths as you use your modern assertions.. the two witnesses would have to be transformed into (I'm not a war arsenal expert) whatever military apparatus the missiles are put in till they are blasted out. Yet Rev.11:3 states that the two witnesses will prophesy .. and that they are clothed in sackcloth. Clearly they are people. I wonder what your brain imagines when you read in Rev.19:12 that Jesus' eyes are a flame of fire. What is being talked about there.. bursted fireworks instead of gloriously glowing pupils?
  16. Your assertion that the two witnesses are gentiles is problematic. The verse you cite says that they are clothed in sackcloth. That is distinct to the Jewish culture concerning prophets. Such as John the Baptist. The gentiles who trample the outer court would refer to those who built the dome of the rock on the pavement where the Jewish Temple used to occupy. - "If I'm not mistaken, those gentiles are the second beast with two horns. AKA the false prophet." A: You are mistaken indeed. Because you seek to connect the two witnesses to being gentiles with your only reference of them as being obviously evil. Plus you somehow erroneously manage to change two witnesses to the one second beast who has two horns on his head. However, if you follow the two witnesses along in their time on the earth. They are the two olive trees (anointed of God) who oppose the anti-christ and the false prophet.. till they are killed then are resurrected and ascend into heaven. While the anti-christ and the false prophet are thrown into hell by one of God's strong angels.
  17. "the record shows many in history have set dates, and been convinced of His Return in their lifetime only to be proved wrong." A: The setting of dates is wrong.. the error of doing that has indeed been proven many times. I see such predictions although they shouldn't be trusted.. as having one good thing about them.. they keep the awareness updated. We've got scriptures to look at until we see the day approaching. It keeps the believer checking their life for impurities and work to stay pure.. to be ready. And thereby not be like the foolish virgins who didn't think the Bridegroom would come when he did. The apostle Paul believed that Jesus would come in his lifetime. He wrote "..we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together.." The apostle John wrote in the last chapter of Revelations that Jesus is coming soon, and for the Bride to say "Come Lord Jesus." For that reason it is scriptural to regard it as being imminent.
  18. A: The resurrection on the last day is only found in Revelations 20:5-6, which is very much different from the pre-trib raising of the dead and rapture of all the church age saints that yes, does happen before the Tribulation. The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thes.2 that the church is what keeps the lawless one from revealing himself. But, Paul continued, when he (the church- Body of Christ) is taken out of the way by rapture 1 Thes.4, then the lawless one appears. Daniel writes of the lawless one making a covenant with many for one week., ie., Daniel's 70th week. And the 7yr. Tribulation goes from there. You can't have a Tribulation without the anti-christ. So the pre-Trib rapture is vital for a continuation of prophecy fulfillment.
  19. The seventh trumpet vss.15-19 of Chapt.11 is immediately following the two witnesses ministry on the earth during the 7yr. Tribulation. The twenty-four elders of Rev.11:16 are representative of the old testament and new testament church age believers. They got raised up and raptured before the Tribulation began.. (Mat.27 & 1 Thes.4; 1 Cor.15) {pre-trib rapture} * "but scripture shows them ALL being rewarded at the 7th trumpet, and ALL being resurrected on the last day, and ALL being changed at the last trump." A: Scripture does not show the same event for all. However, you try to show that the same thing happens to all in one event by ignoring the different texts in the different new testament books written by different authors, and different timeframes, when each event occurs. Regarding the Jewish idiom "the last trump".. it is not the same event as "the 7th trumpet" of Revelation. The context of each chapter where both are found makes that obvious. Every Jewish moed is observed every year. Their Passover coincides with our Easter. Their Pentecost coincides with the birth of the church. So their Rosh Hashanah coincides with the rapture of the church. The Jews observe the last trump every year. It occurs during the moed of Rosh Hashanah or the Feast of Trumpets. It is celebrated every time of the year coinciding with our autumn. The idiom refers to the blowing of a shofar horn in a series of specific notes, the last note is held the longest. The longest note is called by the apostle Paul and the Jews today- "the last trump". The celebration is at the time of harvest. Also including the dead being raised up at the time of it's fulfillment. When it's fulfilled before the Tribulation it cannot be fulfilled again at the last day of the Tribulation.
  20. A: What Jesus said was to the Jews because the church didn't exist yet, it only refers to those who would die within the time of Daniel's 70th week because that is when there is only a resurrection that occurs at the last day of Daniel's week/7yr Tribulation. You're so hung up on the 'last day' term so I'll accommodate you... including verse references to show categories. When Jesus was resurrected Mat. 27:51-52 was when all of the old testament saints were raised up with him.. it was the last day of his entombment. The new testament saints are the church age Christians... 1 Thes.4; 1 Cor.15 is for all of us.. the rapture will happen on the last day of the church age. The tribulation saints will be resurrected as said in Revel.20.. the last day of Daniel's 70th week. No. All saints are not resurrected on the last day of Daniel's 70th week because each different verse, clearly shows different timeframes that each occurs.
  21. A: Again.. Jesus did not say that he would raise all believers on the last day. The phrase 'last day' is from Jewish eschatology as Martha understood it. At that time there was no church so they only knew what Daniel wrote of that is for the most part concerning the Jews. What Paul and John wrote of concerning the church is 'a mystery' that the Jews didn't know about. The pre-trib rapture is the event that happens to the church, that will end the church age. It does not somehow make impossible the later resurrection of Rev.20:5-6. <- the one that Martha was talking about. The dead in Christ that Paul speaks of in 1 Thes.4; 1 Cor.15 are saying what will happen to the Christian believers of the church age. From the fulfillment of Pentecost in Acts 1-2 until today so far, it is the church age. No Christian living in the church age will go into the 7 year Tribulation because that is not the church age.. it is Daniel's 70th week that is also called the time of Jacob's trouble. It's primarily concerning the Jews. Any Gentile believers are only called 'saints', not 'the church', 'not Christians'. Any Christian that teaches a tribulation rapture for the church age Christians have an erroneous doctrine. * "we know the dead in Christ must be resurrected before the rapture can take place so we know there could be no rapture before the last day as pre trib has put forth." A: Since you put any raising from the dead or resurrection into an occurrence that would happen at one time at one day - - 'the last day'.. it's clear that you are putting all of the eggs into one basket. I do agree with you that there is no rapture immediately before, nor after the Revel. resurrection. That is why you say that there couldn't be any pre-trib rapture. Because you are using the Jewish eschatology, not understanding that theirs is different from that of the Christians of the church age. To rightly understand what each apostle tells us, we must rightly divide the word of God.. especially in the case of eschatology.
  22. * "Yes, I was connecting the statements made by Jesus in John 6 that all that believe would be resurrected on the last day to 1 Thess. 4." A: As previously stated. Jesus nor Paul ever used the phrase "on the last day". * "But when we read what Paul said that we shall ALL be changed in a moment, in a twinkle of an eye, at the last trump, then we know that PART of the saints do not get resurrected at one time, and then the other part of the saints get resurrected at another time." A: There are no dead that don't get raised up.. and there is no part which doesn't get changed within the event that Paul described in 1 Cor. 15. "..we shall all be changed.." When reading with understanding of who "we" is.. then we know that he's talking about the dead in Christ which get raised up.. and also about all believers who are alive. When you said "then we know that PART of the saints do not get resurrected at one time, and then the other part of the saints get resurrected.." There are any number of times that I don't use verse references when I'm posting on a topic. But in this case it's vitally important to use scripture verses because you are describing two different events each taught by two different apostles, that happen in two different timeframes. In 1 Cor.15, nor in 1 Thes.4.. Paul teaching both, he doesn't say "part of the saints". So where has the phrase come from? I would say that it comes from preachers/teachers who don't meticulously read a text within context so they think that any mention anywhere in the Bible is talking about the exact same thing. Continuing on.. When the event described in 1 Thes.4 occurs.. there are no words which say that part get resurrected at another time. However, what is stated by John in Revelations 20, is a separate event of resurrection altogether. This is the only way that the remainder of your paragraph can be theologically correct "and then the other part of the saints get resurrected at another time..." In order to make it easily understood.. just think of the 1 Thes.4 event happening on one 24hr day (just for fun lets use 'Tuesday').. and the Revel.20:5-6 event happening on another 24hr day (lets use 'Friday'). Eschatologically the two events do happen on different days. The first occurrence happening at the end of the church age. The second occurrence happening at the end of the 7 year Tribulation. They are not the same event and cannot be occurring both on the same day. When someone is not specific in separating the events then anyone could wrongly assume that they happen at the same hour,day,week,month,year.
  23. I appreciate you taking the time to post what I didn't take the time to post as I don't have it prepared on any wordpad folder to simply copy/paste. My postings are always what I think of at the moment so they aren't too lengthy. Your comment above is an opinion concerning the pretrib rapture doctrine, it is not what is actually taught. For instance, it is not taught as being 'secret'. That is what those who don't accept it as biblical call it. You seem to disagree with scripture that the church as the Bride should wear a white dress, and not have any spot or wrinkle when meeting the brilliantly white clothed Bridegroom Jesus Christ. I don't know about you but I'd say that Christians are experiencing uncomfortable things these days.. some more than others depending on where groups or individuals live. Jesus said that while we are in the world we would have tribulation. But then too the apostle Paul said that God has not destined us for wrath.." orgé: impulse, wrath Original Word: ὀργή, ῆς, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: orgé Phonetic Spelling: (or-gay') Definition: impulse, wrath Usage: anger, wrath, passion; punishment, vengeance. {Strong's Greek from Biblehub} ".. but for obtaining of salvation through Jesus Christ." That 'salvation' is in context of 1 Thes.4:13-18 concerning the church being 'caught up'.. The word salvation is 'soteria' Cognate: 4991 sōtēría (from 4982 /sṓzō, "to save, rescue") – salvation, i.e. God's rescue which delivers believers out of destruction and into His safety. {Strong's Greek from Biblehub} You have taken the definitions of harpazo and rapture in an attempt to make a difference.. but anyone who can read can see that there is no difference.. due to the variety of English words that a person can use to say the same thing but you do it in order to make fit into your interpretation based on your doctrinal bias. You even seem to resent that the pretrib teaching is of the popular culture of current times. However you skirt around the fact that the Apostle Paul first taught it, which makes it biblical and not just popular. You seem also to enjoy repeating the phrase "a bastardization of".. in your earlier post you used the phrase concerning the Latin word for harpazo.. and now you compare the English word 'rapture', saying that it is a bastardization of the Latin term. You're trying so hard to impress and influence that anglicized words from another language is bastardization. Particularly because it's got the word 'bastard' in it. Intending to shock someone into deciding not to use the word rapture. But I'm not and never was bothered to use an anglicized word. In actuality the linguistic level is neither here nor there and therefore not a valid point to be continuing to make in your argument. Forgive what may perhaps seem to to be an accusation to you. We are each of us doing the best we can to communicate what we know which can at times override our awareness of courtesy.
  24. Nahum prophecies judgementary destruction of God upon Ninevah. Only Ninevah. The word world is used metaphorically to refer to only those nearby cities who'd hear of it and cheerfully applaud it's demise. Read all three chapters.
×
×
  • Create New...