childoftheking

(1) The rapture theory, comes from what we read in the English version. I believe the rapture theory is an English theory. The English speaking nations haven't really suffered for their beliefs. That kind of leads me to believe, the rapture theory is the hope to keep from ever having to suffer. (2) I believe when I use this KJV Revelation 20:4, and the Greek Revelation 5:10, they kind of mesh and fill in the blanks. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. ^ this is the beheaded and they reign with Yeshua for a 1,000 years. 10 Thou dost also make them a kingdom and a priesthood for our God, And they shall be reigning on the earth." ^this mentions these are the ones reigning on earth. We know it is for 1,000 years with Yeshua. Verse 4 and 10 really seem to be insync with one another. So, to answer your question, I believe it speaks of the Beheaded. (3) Are you talking about the "Key of David," which is the king of Babylon known as Nebuchadrezzar. And Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah speak of him and Daniel: Daniel 2:35 The feet are the two branches from whence the ten toes come. "the Parable of the Fig Tree" What about Nebuchadrezzar?

Do you agree the Apostles Peter, Timothy, and Paul...including Paul's letters Baptized in the Name of Yeshua in the Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament? It is what the Greek Papyrus claims, that is 1600 years older than your KJV. I therefore propose this question: If the Apostles Baptized in Name of Yeshua. Wouldn't it be logical they were following what the original passage of Matthew 28:19 claims, "In the Name of Yeshua?" And Paul claimed, he DID NOTHING, WROTE NOTHING, SPOKE NOTHING and that it was ALL YESHUA GUIDING HIM!! We see Paul Baptize in Name of Yeshua. If Yeshua is GUIDING PAUL, and Paul Baptized in Name of Yeshua, that would make Yeshua a DOUBLE MINDED GOD ((if)) He actually did instruct to Baptize in the Trinity. It's clear that Yeshua is not DOUBLE MINDED!! Just as clear that Matthew 28:19 was changed like the proofs I offered. Because Yeshua would not instruct His Disciples to Baptize 1 way and the Disciples as Apostles Baptized differently. The same with Paul, Yeshua instructed Paul to Baptize in Yeshua's Name like Paul claimed Yeshua was GUIDING HIM. They clearly OBEYED YESHUA!! But they could ONLY have obeyed, if Matthew 28:19 ORIGINALLY said, to Baptize in Yeshua's Name!!

I never knew that. Thank You for sharing that. I know I am related from my Grandmother's side (Peirson's), but actually never studied the origin of the Marsh name.

The atheist has every right to question who we claim our God is. They have every right to question why we believe in a God that no one can physically see, hear, interact with at this junction of existence. They have every right to propose their own theories and use science so Believers have to use the Holy Spirit to guide them in response. Over the years, I have seen atheist literally tear up those claiming to be Christians because the majority of Christians DO NOT HAVE God knowledge, they have man made knowledge passed down ignorantly from the pulpit. I like to go and read and witness these Believers getting their ideologies handed to them. Serves them right for taking a ministers word for it and for not being a student of God by studying themselves. When someone actually has real answers to offer the atheist, this is when you see God moving. When they have man made answers to offer, this is when you see the wheat being separated. If those who mod feel it's best to protect some believers that is fine, but having your behind handed to you once in awhile can be a very good thing. I get tired of this Christian belief of SISSIES, Yeshua took on the Pharisees and NEVER backed down. He is our example. If You choose to follow God, you better GROW A BACKBONE or run and believe something else. Because we are to be TRIED and put through the FIRE!! And the atheist are a great warm-up to the outside world!!

AMEN!! The moment I read/hear someone exclaiming the Pre-Trib theory, is the very moment I understand that I am looking at a COWARD!!

It's actually called the WRATH of Satan: Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. The other WRATHS mentioned in Revelation, pertain to the coming, Armageddon, Armageddon, and Judgement sending those to the Lake of Fire. And if we speak of Yeshua being the SAME yesterday, today, and tomorrow...we must not forget that Yeshua went through His own Tribulation that ended at the Cross, He allowed EVERY Apostle but one to be tortured, beaten, and eventually brutally murdered. Then from the Book of Acts to the 1st/2nd Centuries, Yeshua allowed numerous Believers to be done the same as the Apostles (we call them Martyrs). Even today, OUTSIDE of the USA, thousands of people have been brutally murdered for believing in God and not following their nation's religion. The USA will get their day coming!! But nevertheless, Yeshua has allowed His followers to be brutally tortured, beaten, and murdered. And if He remains the SAME, Tribulation won't be very much fun for many believers. How fair would it be to yank 1/3 of the worlds population and DO SOMETHING He [[has NEVER]] done before? The moment I hear someone preach Pre-Trib, I automatically see a COWARD!!

Indeed, and why I believe that God will keep us hidden even if we are in plain sight. And the beheaded, appear to be those who weren't really saved to begin with. It gives you the imagination of people who have heard the Gospel, thought they had time to live before choosing God, and a sudden realization takes place when they are confronted with 2 options (take the Mark or be beheaded). Obviously, the power and miraculous things we read the 2 Olive Branches (2 Witnesses) have and possess come only from the Holy Spirit. That means the Holy Spirit will be here during the Tribulation. Which is a very good indicator, that the majority of believers today, would also be in the Tribulation if it began very soon. And that means, we still need to do our best to bring the lost to God.

Why? Wouldn't you be much more help being under the radar and trying to witness to those who need God? I would think it would be difficult to lead someone to Christ, with no head attached to their shoulders!! But that is just me...

Wow, they sound kind of narcissistic, which are very toxic types of people. Do they have an issue with you believing in God?

Indeed, I definitely enjoy learning other people's views from their perspective of our Lord and Savior. I can sometimes put things out there that does require the patience of the reader. But my intentions are never to cause harm or ill will. So when I see someone offended or believe they could be, I want to make it right as soon as I possibly can. Thank You for understanding and accepting my apology!! Rich

Thank You!! I am wrong a lot, even though I believe what I do until proven wrong. But I have no issue to ever admit that I am wrong, when it does happen. I can thank that on having a good foundation of Grandparents, parents, uncles and aunts all grounded in the Lord!!

My bad!! From the scripture reference you gave, when discussing with the other poster, it appeared to seem sketch. But now that you explained, I see that I was incorrect and wrong. I do apologize for that, and hope you understand it was a complete misunderstanding!!

That is a very good question. I believe outside of the Two Witnesses, the ones actually martyred would be the Beheaded. But they are mentioned in Revelation 20, not Revelation 7 speaking about the great multitude. And Revelation 7 does not claim these Tribulations Saints were even killed, let alone martyred... Revelation 7: 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. ^ These Saints survived the Tribulation...according to verse 9, it's a great multitude that cannot even be numbered. The Beheaded: Revelation 20: 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received hismark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Ummm, THOSE ARE NOT BELIEVERS!! Look at verse 15 and 16 specifically: 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: Why would BELIEVERS tell the MOUNTAINS and ROCKS to FALL ON THEM and HIDE THEM from the WRATH of GOD? ***Someone obviously is CHERRY PICKING SCRIPTURE, and doing a horrible job at it!!*** Revelation 6: 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Hey Daniel Marsh, Marsh is a unique name. There is a family where I come from who owns several grocery stores called "Marsh." You are not related to them by any chance? If so, then you are related to me hahahahahaha

MORE EVIDENCE: There is literally a couple hundred quotes claiming Matthew 28:19 was changed!! These are just some from Biblical Scholars and Professors and from those whose jobs were to simply research the Church history!! Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: The following quote is often used in support of Matthew 28:19 being corrupted. Note also that the words in parenthesis are added but not by me. It appears Ratzinger was referring to the creed and not this verse. So I would not use this quote in support of a corruption as many have. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the third and fourth centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83 Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church: By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule.” Dr Hall further, states: “More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, “In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ.” This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate (“On rebaptism”) shows.” Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.” Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015: “The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture...” “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text (“in my name” rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:...” James Moffett's New Testament Translation: In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: “It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +.” New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19: “Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity...” Tom Harpur: Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his “For Christ's sake,” page 103 informs us of these facts: “All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) Baptism was “into” or “in” the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in My Name” and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: “The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion.” The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723: Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-“into My Name.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the fourth century.” The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5: The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. “The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord.” Also we find. “Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the triune form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer triune formula was a later development.” “The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, Baptize and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: As to Matthew 28:19, it says: “It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism.” The same Encyclopedia further states that: “The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under “Baptism,” says: “Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.” The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states: “It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus,”...” The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: “Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed...” page 435. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition.” Theology of the New Testament: By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confessed to very plainly. “As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295: “The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the fourth century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted.”

Irenaeus (ca. 130-200) Tertullian (ca. 160-220) Victorinus (ca. 270-303) Your quote below only appears in threads here, thus it is questionable until you prove it from http://www.newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q="The+baptismal+formula was+changed from+the+name+of+Jesus+Christ+to+the+words+Father%2C+Son%2C+and+Holy+Spirit+by+the+Catholic+Church+in+the+fourth+century"&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9&siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the fourth century." https://www.google.com/search?q="The+baptismal+formula+was+changed+from+the+name+of+Jesus+Christ+to+the+words+Father,+Son,+and+Holy+Spirit+by+the+Catholic+Church+in+the+fourth+century"&filter=0&biw=1163&bih=483 http://www.newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q="baptismal+formula was+changed"&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9&siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F Read Last Paragraph, this is from a Booklet the Catholics used to send out to members. Someone gave the copy I am using to my Grandfather, who passed it to my Father, and now I have it.

The KJV is a translation of another translation. And words are in that translation that cannot be found in the original nor the first translation. Paul said, Yeshua is the one who is guiding him. In the Book of Acts, Paul Baptized in Name of Yeshua. Which means according to Paul, Yeshua instructed Paul to Baptize that way. The Disciples also Baptized the same as Paul. But Matthew 28:19 says something completely different. Yeshua said, A DOUBLE MINDED MAN IS UNSTABLE IN ALL OF HIS WAYS. If Yeshua did say what we read in Matthew 28:19, but then instructs Paul, Peter, Timothy in Book of Acts to Baptize differently, that would make YESHUA DOUBLE MINDED!! This is why I know the KJV has been Maliciously Corrupted. Because, Yeshua would not say one thing and then tell Paul to do something else. Whoever (Catholics) changed Matthew 28:19, has made Yeshua a DOUBLE MINDED GOD by what we see Paul doing in the Book of Acts (because Paul claims, he is ONLY DOING what Yeshua instructs him to do)!!

Interesting, but I see people suffering from fire, heat, plagues, pains, sores, no water because it turned to blood... What I DO NOT SEE, those who are suffering, NONE OF THEM are repenting!! So much for these people suffering being a part of the GREAT MULTITUDE of the Tribulation Saints!! 8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. 10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, 11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds. Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Revelation 9:21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts. In fact, NOWHERE IN REVELATION does it claim anyone REPENTED, it claims in every situation, they REPENTED NOT!! Kind of difficult to get Tribulation Saints from NO ONE REPENTING!!

The HEBREW is as accurate as it absolutely gets, because scribes and the Hebrew people have kept their Scrolls safe all throughout history!!

BTW, this response matches the movie series "Left Behind." Nice Touch!! But I believe, actual believers will be there to witness and lead the lost to Yeshua during the Tribulation

Those to me, also fit into the ones who will be beheaded classification

I am on the fence about this because to become a believer, there must be believers in the Tribulation when it begins. And since I believe we are going through the Tribulation, we will have some opportunities to witness and bring those to Yeshua. I agree then!!

Show me where the word SECRET is found, that actually does not apply to His Second Coming at the end of Tribulation? Just because we have some clues (that some skew as pre-trib)(reality speaking to Second Coming) the Second Coming is a secret Coming, because no one will ever know until it actually takes place.

That is true, but on things that church historians kept, like the changing of Yeshua's words in the 4th century we can bank on, since we know historians before the 4th century kept records of such things.