Jump to content

wingnut-

Royal Member
  • Posts

    7,673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Everything posted by wingnut-

  1. More astounding that someone would think they know better than Jesus, but ok lol.
  2. This is factual. Matthew 26:30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 31 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ 32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Zechariah 13:7 “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me,” declares the Lord of hosts. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones. 8 In the whole land, declares the Lord, two thirds shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left alive. 9 And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. They will call upon my name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are my people’; and they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’” Already happened, 1st century, that is factual.
  3. Zechariah 4:11 Then I said to him, “What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?” 12 And a second time I answered and said to him, “What are these two branches of the olive trees, which are beside the two golden pipes from which the golden oil is poured out?” 13 He said to me, “Do you not know what these are?” I said, “No, my lord.” 14 Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”
  4. No problem brother, and the answer is yes, I do not believe a third temple is necessary regarding the beast of Revelation. There is nothing in Revelation to tie the beast to a temple, that is all based on assumption. From the moment Jesus died on that cross the veil of the temple was torn in two, by a divine act. From that moment on any significance of a physical temple ceased to exist to God. Paul is one of the NT writers who teaches us that we are now the temple, so when he wrote this passage we should understand that he is not speaking of a physical temple. I would look to the example in scripture, Judas, and expect the man of sin (lawlessness) will follow the model of a betrayer, one who poses as a Christian but is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing. When he declares himself to be God, it will be rather obvious, but there is nothing to say this must be done in a physical temple. Setting himself up in the temple most likely speaks to a position of hierarchy within the Christian faith. Isn't that the model of all false prophets or false messiah's throughout history? Every single example is someone whose roots are in the faith, they then gain a following by persuading people they are special and voila, a cult is born. Just consider what Paul says after and see if it is not consistent with all the information. II Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. He can do things to convince people, but his signs and wonders are false, and he is using deception. So God sends a strong delusion to the wicked, this encompasses all of mankind, and even those who reject Christianity will be convinced by this man to believe what is false. Whoever this is, he will come from among us. The term "holy place" does not equate to a temple, Jerusalem is referred to as a "holy place" or "holy city" so the holy place will most likely be somewhere within the city. Only if the modern interpretation of Daniel is true. If there is a more accurate understanding of chapter 11 that has no flaws as every presentation I have ever seen does, then I would go with what aligns to the whole of scripture. Things can happen again, but if we know a prophecy has been fulfilled then it has been fulfilled, anything that resembles it in the future doesn't change that. Think of it this way, you're not looking to the future for a virgin birth and Jesus to be born again, and neither is anyone else, so why should Daniel or any other prophecy be treated differently? Why would we recognize the significance of who our Savior is at birth, but devalue His death and resurrection when it is the most significant event ever?
  5. Well, charlie has not really addressed this directly by his own admission he has focused on Daniel. He has taken some heat for that, but if we are honest with ourselves charlie has actually taken the proper approach per scripture. Jesus seems to point us to the fact we need to understand Daniel before we can make sense of the Olivet discourse, so charlie is right to do so. However, I already see how Matthew fits in with Daniel, but since so many people are stuck on future they really aren't willing to address the actual sequence we are given and ignore the historical fulfillment found within the Olivet discourse. Many of the things people still believe are future and base their eschatology on took place in the first century. In large part it is because everyone just relies on the account from Matthew and do not account for the other two accounts from Luke and Mark. So start with this from Luke's account. Luke 21:10 Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. 12 But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake. When you compare the three different accounts it is clear when they are speaking to the same things, even if they don't use the exact same wording in regards to each detail. But the point is, using the specific sequence we get from Luke, we know that everything that follows verse 11 has to be examined in a broader context of time that begins in the 1st century. In verse 11 Luke refers to terrors and great signs from heaven, which points us towards events in Revelation such as the two witnesses and the false prophet calling down fire from heaven, angels flying overhead with warnings, events involving the sun, moon, and starts, wormwood, etc. Matthew and Mark refer to those two verses as birth pains or the beginning of sorrows. But when you take all three together it speaks to where it starts and where it ends, covering a large amount of time. What Luke describes in verses 12-19 coincide with what Matthew refers to as the falling away, and this occurred in the 1st century, in fact, it began with the disciples themselves. Matthew 26:30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 31 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ 32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” 33 Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” 34 Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” 35 Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same. Of course this was prior to the Holy Spirit indwelling them, but the point is that we are given a very real example of the same sequence Paul wrote of in II Thessalonians take place prior to the crucifixion, including the one and only example in scripture regarding the son of perdition, or son of destruction. John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. The other thing in regards to what took place in Matthew 26, in the passage above, Jesus points us to a prophecy from Zechariah as being fulfilled. This very passage is used in regards to future eschatology models, despite Jesus saying it was fulfilled in Him. Zechariah 13:7 “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me,” declares the Lord of hosts. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones. 8 In the whole land, declares the Lord, two thirds shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left alive. 9 And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. They will call upon my name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are my people’; and they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’” In the first 6 verses of chapter 13, Zechariah prophesies about a cleansing from sin and a fountain being opened to the house of David and Jerusalem. Does any of that sound like what we see regarding the everlasting covenant? Also, I recommend you examine and consider everything that took place at the last supper that night. Matthew 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” Does this sound like it is related to what we are discussing, or what Daniel speaks of in chapter 9? As you can see there are a lot of reasons I already viewed chapter 9 in this way, but I did find your use of "traditional" interpretation interesting. Actually, what you are referring to is a modern interpretation, not more than a few hundred years old. For roughly 1800 years or so, the modern interpretation was not the accepted interpretation of the church. Charlie sees the RCC as the culprit, and on that we disagree, because there were other players involved in this newer and futuristic view which I see more as a result of Darby and his introduction of dispensationalism. Which by the way was considered heresy by the majority of Christendom at the time, it began to gain more of a foothold when Israel became a nation again and people saw it as a possibility. Prior to that there was no nation, no expectation of a nation, and thus no expectation of a third temple and other aspects of the future model. While one can look at it and say the church just was unaware and understood all the prophecy incorrectly because of their short sightedness, it really doesn't hold water because the futurist view has a fatal flaw in regards to a third temple. WE are the temple now, scriptural fact that cannot be reconciled, so naturally they wouldn't have considered even if a temple were built that it would change a thing. And another scriptural fact, you don't find a physical temple in Revelation to be desecrated, that is something people are reading into the scriptures.
  6. I think it has merit, but it really hinges on the interpretation of chapter 11 and whether or not there is an explanation for what we read there. As far as chapter 9 goes, if you read that prophecy on its own merit and in the context it is written then what charlie presents is the more sensible conclusion for chapter 9, the issue arises with chapter 11. The question you have to ask yourself is this, have you heard an explanation for chapter 11 that you completely agree with? I don't just mean a part of it, I mean have you ever heard a complete breakdown of that chapter you agree with? Perhaps this has always been the real issue in regards to Daniel, exactly what that final seven represents. So bear with me, and consider the everlasting covenant from these Ezekiel passages. Charlie pointed you to Jeremiah 32 which does speak to it, but I think the two passages from Ezekiel reveal a more direct connection to some of the terms we find in Daniel 11. Ezekiel 16:59 “For thus says the Lord God: I will deal with you as you have done, you who have despised the oath in breaking the covenant, 60 yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish for you an everlasting covenant. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you take your sisters, both your elder and your younger, and I give them to you as daughters, but not on account of the covenant with you. 62 I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the Lord, 63 that you may remember and be confounded, and never open your mouth again because of your shame, when I atone for you for all that you have done, declares the Lord God.” If you read the entire chapter, which you really need to, in the prior sections the two sisters are identified as Samaria and Sodom. In an earlier post I mentioned Ezekiel 23, where we see the two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, which represent Samaria and Jerusalem respectively. Now consider this, Samaria is the elder sister, and in this passage from Ezekiel 16 Sodom is the younger sister of both. When was Sodom destroyed? BEFORE Israel even existed, before these two older sisters even came to be. People like to dismiss the spiritual understanding or rendering of passages, but when you see such obvious displays that it is necessary then I would just say that should probably be a practice you don't take part of. The significance of Sodom being included in this is to reveal the understanding that this everlasting covenant applies not only to the divided kingdoms of Israel, but also the Gentiles. When you come to grips with that, then you understand that this everlasting covenant is the very covenant that you and I are included in. And you know when this covenant went into effect, not the future, but the past. Ezekiel 37:24 “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27 My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.” The same holds true for Ezekiel 37, you really want to study the entire chapter and not just the passage I posted. There are certain absolute truths we know and have been taught in the New Testament (New Covenant), the most significant event in the history of creation is the death and resurrection of Jesus, which enacted the eternal promises. Another absolute truth is that there is only one body, made of both Jew and Gentile, which by deduction means no more divided northern and southern kingdoms as well. This is represented in the joining of the two sticks in Ezekiel 37. I'll address some of your other questions in a separate post to avoid a lengthy read of different subjects.
  7. Finding a publisher is much more difficult than writing, that's for sure. And, given that what you are presenting may ruffle some feathers you could possibly run into extra resistance depending on who you make contact with. I would think your best bet is to find a publisher that is familiar with the Christian book genre, but regardless use caution. Keep records of conversations and such, don't just hand over all your material to someone without a written agreement in place. It is not uncommon for publishers to take material and then pass it off to someone else that takes the credit. Show them enough to get their interest, then settle on a contract, if you know a lawyer that can assist you with negotiating and serve as witness to what takes place that isn't a bad idea.
  8. Yes, I am thinking based on your comments about the Old Testament that passages mostly overlooked such as these may have come to your attention as they have mine.
  9. I don't mind, but I am a very private individual so there may be some things I won't answer for anonymity's sake. I studied at Liberty and got a degree in eschatology back in the early 90's. It is a bit ironic that my position doesn't even slightly resemble what I believed at that time, and if I were to attend those classes today it would be difficult to pass because I reject the eschatology they push. Journalism was my major in secular university, so I am a professional writer, but not focused on religion or theology with my writing. However, since I was a child I have been drawn to biblical prophecy, particularly the book of Revelation. I have a fairly good grasp on the sequence of events, the when of things is unclear as far as what remains future, so I am always looking for those missing pieces.
  10. The first thing that comes to my mind in regards to this would be Ezekiel 23, Oholah and Oholibah, the two women associated with the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel. The second thing that comes to my mind are the two women in Zechariah 5 that carry the basket to Shinar.
  11. You can lay the whole thing out, I am interested in the whole thing, so no need to make a special post for my sake.
  12. Yes, and as I said to charlie when I read chapter 9 I see it exactly as he does, the problem arises when one arrives at chapter 11. The other issue that I see which we haven't gotten to yet, is what significant event took place 3.5 years after the crucifixion? Because if the week is continuous, which according to chapter 12 of Daniel following the AoD there is a specific number of days set forth. Something had to occur at this point for the whole thing to come together, and chapter 12 makes it impossible for there to be a break in the middle of the week. As far as the calculations, to me that is not all that significant because we know He came, so that period of time was fulfilled one way or the other.
  13. The only significance I can see is the relation to Ezekiel's prophesy in chapters 37 and 38, regarding the Gog-Magog war.
  14. The positive thing we have going in this conversation is that anytime I read chapter 9 it reads to me exactly how you see it. So take your time, share your understanding, and if it agrees with the whole of scripture it won't be difficult to persuade me. Like spock said, my problem arises with chapter 11 and attributing any of those things to the Lord.
  15. I've had the same thoughts regarding Daniel 9, as have others I am sure, but as you will find in Daniel 11 the interpretation falls apart. Daniel 11:31 Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. 32 He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.
  16. I like most any animal really, dogs are a particular favorite. By the way, your link doesn't work.
  17. The common denominator in all three accounts is the parable of the fig tree, and the specifics that are referred to are in relation to the fig tree and the fruit it produces as well as the season. Still not seeing this the same, as you can see from Isaiah's prophecy the sign was in regards to the Messiah, and it involved Him actually being born. The sign was recognized after His birth to others, Mary knew ahead of time because she was told, as was Joseph. Well I'm glad you all got to the hospital in time, but again the water breaking is a sign that the child is coming. You didn't celebrate it, but I wager you celebrated the birth of your son. Signs as I stated previously point us to something. I think I do brother, I hope you understand mine lol. Always my friend, I look forward to the next installment.
  18. Well you lost me right there, and it doesn't matter how many times you say it. You are reading something into scripture that just isn't there and have built a theory around that rather than just reading what scripture actually says. What I believe fits perfectly, and I don't have to change a thing or read anything into scripture to get there. Our biggest point of difference is that you read something in that isn't there, and what I believe is based on what scripture actually says. That's strange, considering where in the Olivet discourse it is found. When you read it in context, funny how Jesus relates it to people trying to mislead others regarding whether the Lord has arrived or not. It would seem He is making it clear that there is no mistaking His coming. Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. Then of course there is what Paul said, and ironically this is one of the passages you have attempted to change His coming into your alternate event. II Thessalonians 2 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. Please explain how your alternate event can result in the end of the lawless one, just by the appearance of His coming, and then 7 years of tribulation follow in which the lawless one would be a crucial figure? Can't have it both ways, it is either one or the other. This is why attempting to change a known event such as His coming into anything else falls apart. My friend, you cannot conclude that the 6th seal is the same event as the one in the Olivet discourse and then disregard what is said from one of those two accounts. The fact is simple, in Revelation it specifically states that EVERYONE sees this and reacts to it. Why are you trying to split the Jewish people off as though what is said at the 6th seal has no application, or that what is said in the Olivet discourse has no application for Gentiles? It is either the same event or it is not, and either way everyone is addressed. In regards to the Jews specifically, maybe the question you should ask yourself is why if what you say is true they would wait around in Judea to "SEE" the abomination of desolation if they are aware of what is going on 3.5 years before it takes place? Again, you are reading something into scripture that is not there. The great multitude are people who have died during the tribulation as a result of the war on the saints. At some point you need to address Revelation 12 and the group that "holds to the testimony of Jesus" while the Jewish remnant is protected in the wilderness. Or the saints from chapter 13 the beast is waging war on, where do you think they go after they are killed? The reason I bring it up is because your theory is largely based on the exact same principles, mainly viewing or dividing up the great tribulation based on the Jewish people. The great tribulation has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with judgement on the wicked, doesn't matter what nationality. In fact, when you see the 144,000 sealed, what you should see is that they are being protected from the judgments, not subjected to them. When you read Revelation 12, you see the remnant being taken out of the dragon's reach, not subjected to it. Protected from God's actions, protected from the enemies actions, yet somehow the tribulation is all about their race and not about who is wicked and who belongs to God? Ok great, although there still seems to be some difference perhaps. In relation to the great signs and terrors from heaven, don't you think that includes more than just the events you mention? For example, how about the two witnesses and the false prophet who can bring fire down from heaven, or stopping rain from falling? How about the angels flying overhead giving warnings? How about wormwood? It is about more than just a sign. Luke 21:10 Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. Note how signs is plural, not singular, and don't forget the terrors.
  19. Of course, I don't believe for a moment you would think that. Which is why it makes no sense that you would suggest that when He says it is after the tribulation of those days you seem to read it as before the tribulation of those days. As I've pointed out now several times, nowhere after this point is there any more talk about tribulation, so there is no scriptural reason for you to do so. Because it appears to be an invisible event you speak of so it is unconvincing to all of us who are still waiting for a single scripture to support it. All those Old Testament prophecies regarding the Israelites, and still not one single offering to illustrate what you have claimed. If you are referring to imminency, that has more holes in it than swiss cheese as well. The disciples certainly did not teach it or believe it, I could list numerous examples of things they were told would happen that make this impossible. For example, they knew Peter would die beforehand, they knew the temple and the city would be destroyed beforehand, and so on.
  20. I am not sure what you mean to know if I agree or not because you did not reference a prophetic example. Well, I am certainly willing to discuss that which is why I asked you those three questions. You quoted them, so I know you saw them, yet you chose not to address them. What you need to do is look at Daniel's prophecy on its own merit, what it says, and whether or not those things have taken place. If your desire is truth, then you will have to address those questions regarding what is prophesied, objectively. Strong disagreement but no answers. In this case silence is deafening. They aren't difficult questions, all yes or no, and all directly related to what is stated in the prophesy. So I wonder what it is you disagree with?
  21. All of which Jesus says is, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days...", so you continue to try and change it to immediately before the tribulation of those days rather than accept what He said. As for I Thessalonians 5, there is not one mention of the gathering in that chapter, not one. It would however have been a perfect place for Paul to have said something like, you won't be surprised like a thief, because you won't be here for it, rather than saying that it won't surprise them because they are not in darkness. If the church being gathered prior to the tribulation is a matter of fulfilling bible prophecy, then it shouldn't be so difficult to produce the scripture that states that, right? As far as what was prophesied concerning the Israelite nation, I've already shown you that regarding the remnant that will be saved it is not tribulation, but restoration. You have yet to address Revelation 12, or Hosea's prophecy. There are only two groups of people, saved and unsaved. For example, do you think that passage would have pertained to Luke, a Greek, if he happened to be there when these events unfolded? Those who want to separate the Israelites from the Gentiles with this passage do so on the basis of those in Judea being told to flee, do you think it matters as to nationality or to what one believes? Ok, so for the sake of clarity, you don't see the marriage supper as taking place for those gathered while the tribulation is ongoing? Typically this is a standard for pre-trib as to what they will be doing during this time, so I am just wanting to know if you disagree with that. Because if you believe the marriage supper is taking place while the tribulation is happening on earth, then you are in fact shunning all those not present.
  22. Don't be discouraged about gaining understanding, I know it takes some getting used to a different outcome than you were expecting. Rather think of the opportunities that may present themselves for you to witness each day to those who are not prepared to meet the Lord. And also, whatever purposes the Lord has for your life, you were chosen for those purposes and times because you are an overcomer in Him.
  23. I once believed in a pre-trib rapture as well, and scripture such as what you have noticed and mention above revealed otherwise to me. That being said, you should not be troubled about what the future holds, our hope is in Him and it speaks to what is to come, not the life we currently live, but the one to come.
  24. Thanks retro, This is one of the best posts I've ever read, the article is excellent, and the events are laid out in an undeniable detailed review that show this prophecy was fulfilled. You may not remember, but a few years ago we discussed this and I argued against you. I just wanted you to know that the word of God did not return void in that conversation and that since that time I have come to see the truth about this. Keep sharing the truth brother, good stuff!
  25. The word rapture is not actually a real word. Back in the dark ages, people were illiterate and their source regarding biblical teaching came through the church itself, mainly in Europe this was the Catholic church. The Catholic church used Latin at that time, which made it doubly hard on illiterate people, particularly those who did not understand Latin. The Latin word raptio was a translation from the Greek text for the word harpazo. The word harpazo appears I believe 14 times in the original text from which the Latin translation was made, and later the King James Version. Rapture came about when people who could not read for themselves and did not understand Latin created their own equivalent of the Latin word raptio. When people became literate and knew the difference, the word rapture should have ceased to exist since it is not actually a word, instead it has taken on a life of its own and caused a lot of confusion. The actual English translation of harpazo is catching up, snatching away, or a more modern way of saying it would be gathering. As Jayne pointed out from the Thessalonians passage, this is one of the examples of where the Greek word harpazo was used in the original text.
×
×
  • Create New...