Jump to content

wingnut-

Royal Member
  • Posts

    7,673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Everything posted by wingnut-

  1. I agree with you in regards to the discourse aligning, where we begin to drift is in regards to your overall view, as far as it being end of age context. I would offer this for your consideration. Mark 13 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?” From Luke Luke 21:5 And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 7 And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?” So as you can see from these two accounts we get some information that Matthew does not include. The point is, they were not just asking about the sign of His coming and the end of the age, but their questions came about as a result of what would become of the temple and the buildings around it. So based on that, we should view all of this as beginning at that time because His answer includes the temple's destruction as well because it was part of their question. I agree, but would you say the falling away comes before the revealing since Paul says them in that order? I've always considered them to appear as listed, similar to how he always puts His coming before the gathering. Obviously I agree with your sentiment regarding defections prior to as I see them as having existed all along, so that would be nothing new. However, in regards to a mass defection or one more noticeable than the norm, to me it seems to point to that being a result of the mark of the beast, or at the very least the false prophet being on stage. I come to that conclusion from the passage in I Timothy. I Timothy 4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, If this is the later times as it is said, then I would expect the deceitful spirits and doctrine of demons has something to do with the false prophet.
  2. No worries brother, and honestly I am not sure if she meant it in the way that it is written, or if the original question just didn't lack clarity. Perhaps in my responses I lacked clarity as well in that I am not saying that the truth in those letters has no relevance beyond just those immediate churches. Only that they were most definitely relevant to those people who first received them. I also agree that many of those specific things mentioned in the letters are spirit driven and that they too could be a condition that has continued to exist through the present only existing in a more veiled appearance. There are many things for example that lead people into sexual immorality right now, internet porn is a great example of this, what spirit is behind that? But we do know, not only from the letters in Revelation, but also from Paul's epistles that the early church had issues with members that would fall back into former patterns involving the false gods of their times, the warnings against that and his encouragement to remove it from the church are evident throughout the New Testament, and in the same way God through the prophets in the Old Testament took issue with the same problems regarding the Israelites. There is nothing new under the sun.
  3. I agree completely, and that is what I am saying, it is not limited to the future when we know it already happened and continues to happen and will happen again very similar to the manner in which it first happened. I agree with what you are saying, but at the end of verse 11 in Luke, would you agree that the terrors and great signs from heaven align with events we see in Revelation? Such as, the wormwood event, the signs in heaven at the sixth seal, two witnesses that can bring fire down from heaven and stop the rain from coming, a false prophet that can also bring fire down from heaven, etc. Did those type of events come before or after what Luke describes in verses 12-19? From a historical aspect, did those celestial events occur in the life of the disciples, or MUST they come after what we know did occur in their lives? So for example from Matthew's account, he mentions the lightning in the sky from east to west and associates that with the Coming of the Son of Man, and this is said before the section regarding the AoD. We know that the AoD comes first, so the chronology aspect of the Olivet discourse is still dependent on the sequence of events. In other words, the Olivet discourse is not laid out chronologically either, we still have to use the verbal clues given throughout scripture that construct the sequence. I am not saying that they don't, what I am saying is the sequence still has to follow what is written. So here is my question, when the falling away that you see as future occurs, would you say it comes before or after the implementation of the mark of the beast? Will the mark of the beast have any effect on people departing from the faith?
  4. I never said that there is truth in those letters that cannot be applied over the ages, I said that those letters were written for those churches in that time and the truth within those letters directly applied to them. The question that I responded to was, WHY would the 7 churches receive letters about the end times prophecy? The answer is simple really, because they were living in the end times, and so has everyone from the 1st century until the return of Christ. The individuals at those churches were facing heavy persecution and many of them would be killed in the near future, so their eternal state rested in the balance of them getting right with the Lord, thus all the admonitions. The implication, whether intended or not, was that these things had nothing to do with them. Yet there are parts of those letters that are not applicable today, nor to anyone since that time, so producing verses regarding the death of Antipas or food sacrificed to idols and used to trick Jews are very clear examples of things that cannot and do not apply to everyone through the ages. It is not cherry picking to point these facts out when someone is implying these letters were not applicable to those people. Trying to disprove this by introducing arguments I never made, such as exhortations or messages of repentance not applying to future generations does not refute the facts that I stated. The letters applied to the people that first received them, which you seem to agree with, and if that is the case then you don't disagree with me about the letters.
  5. I agree. Who is the "US" that is asking? That matters too don't you think? If a condition exists, and continues to exist from the time it began until the time of the end, then doesn't every generation from the beginning of that condition until the end see it? It is not limited to the future when it occurred in the 1st century, when Luke says "But before all this" that is very specific timing in which the event would occur. It would precede what Matthew and Mark defined as birth pains or the beginning of sorrows, and it did. We see this played out in the lives of the very 4 men whom Jesus was speaking to, and one of them, being John, tells us that not only did people depart from the faith, he calls them many anti-christs. Jesus told them, some of you will be put to death, Peter was crucified, James was beheaded, my memory fails me on what fate Andrew suffered, but John would survive being boiled in oil and go on to write Revelation later. As Jesus said, some of them were in fact put to death. Being crucified or beheaded is no less significant in the 1st century than it would be in the future, and I am sure you would agree with that.
  6. Thanks brother for the links, it's good information for anyone not familiar with the locations. I have looked at this before, I think maybe we just saw the questions differently in that I was answering in regards to whether I thought the location had significance in regards to the future. In regards to it being significant in the past I think you and I agree that it surely did.
  7. Here is the video link if you are interested.
  8. No, not really. I believe many believe their church is a unit and by going to that church they are ok. If not why would so many believe in rapture PT. Well let me put it this way then. If you attended a church which received a letter from the apostle John himself, and he said to your church in the letter. “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. 4 Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. 6 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’ If this arrived to your church, from John, and you knew it was a reliable source, you wouldn't feel it was sent to your church but some church thousands of years down the road? Then, consider this from another letter, and explain to me if this is in any way applicable to anyone alive today. Revelation 2:13 “‘I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. How many people since the time Antipas was killed in Pergamum could this apply to?
  9. Yes, those are the three accounts of the Olivet discourse, you are correct. Yes, when you take into account all three examples from scripture, then we must apply facts established from any one of them to all three. In this instance, regarding the falling away you will find a very specific sequence given in Luke. 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. Now notice the last sentence from above, and does that sentence in your opinion speak to things we see within Revelation? Now look at what follows it. Luke 21:12 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. 13 This will be your opportunity to bear witness. 14 Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, 15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. 16 You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. 17 You will be hated by all for my name's sake. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 By your endurance you will gain your lives. Now these exact events as described by Luke took place to the disciples themselves, which we know not only through historical accounts but also scripture accounts. In Matthew's account, we see the same thing, some parts are said in different words but speak to the same things, and others such as "You will be hated by all for my name's sake" are nearly word for word. So per Luke, the events in verses 12-19 come before the more vaguely covered events in verses 10 and 11. From Matthew's account, these are some of the phrases I am referring to. Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. John in his writings, also tells us that these events took place. I John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. What John is describing in verse 19 is the falling away that was spoken of by Jesus, members of the early church departing the faith. The reason why studying all three accounts is important, is because we get details from one that we do not get from the others. Luke provides us with details that give us specific timing to this event, just as Mark gives us specific information as to who exactly was present. From Luke's account, one could think that a large number of followers were the audience, from Matthew it is narrowed down to the disciples asking privately, but Mark gives us the exact names of the four present. Mark 13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, I'm not sure what you define as the great falling away, so I'll address what I think you might mean and if you have something else in mind just reference the passage. II Thessalonians 2:3 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, In this passage, Paul relates in timing that the falling away and the man of lawlessness come prior to His coming and the gathering. Paul does not say they are in close proximity to each other, only a sequence of events. The falling away is the first order of the sequence, the man of lawlessness is second, but nothing specific as to how much time occurs between the two. He also does not say how much time comes between either of these two things and His coming and our gathering. So if the falling away Paul speaks of in this passage is the same falling away spoken of by Jesus in the Olivet discourse, the sequence was correct as that event came first. I Timothy 4:Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, In his letter to Timothy, Paul speaks of a falling away, (this time in the other term of departing from the faith) which talks about later times, as in the future. But his choice of words in regards to saying "some" doesn't equate to me as a "great falling away". A falling away no doubt, but doesn't appear to be any more significant in number than the one spoken of by Jesus. As I said in my original response, I see a condition that has existed for as long as the church has existed, one that ebbs and flows in conjunction with periods of great revivals. For example, we have come through a period in recent times that many consider a time of great revival (70's and 80's). However, leading up to this period of revival the church went through some drastic changes regarding the altar call. The altar call prior to this was a very personal thing, done over a period of time that involved personal discipleship, but starting with the late Billy Sunday in more modern times, the altar call has morphed into more of an assembly line production. I posted a video years ago that covers this transformation of the church history, I will find the link and share it with you here. If you can find the time I think you will be glad you watched it, I believe it is about 45 minutes long, but well worth the watch. In regards to where we are now, because of the changes in regards to how many came to the Lord, we are in a period rife for departure because so many were poorly rooted. And I am by no means indicting every congregation or pastor by pointing this out, but keep in mind we live in the days of the mega-churches. The church I attend is massive, and there is no humanly way possible for the pastor to have a personal handle on how each member of his flock is doing, in fact, there is no way he could even know each one of us personally. In regards to your comments concerning the future, I have no doubt that a falling away will accompany the events we still consider future, but it has nothing to do with the falling away that happened in the first century which the disciples experienced themselves. As someone once said, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
  10. The apostles wrote and spoke in the terms of the last days as existing in their time. Per the Olivet discourse the events began in their lifetimes, which Jesus expressly told them they would personally experience specific events. So these first century churches were also part of that time. The end times began with the first advent of Jesus. He spoke during His ministry in terms of the last days being present tense. This is why those 7 churches would be addressed in end time prophecy, because they were living it, and so has everyone in history since that time. Take everything in the context it was written, right from the start of Revelation, look at John's words. Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. You start here with a faulty premise, it is not the revealing of His return. It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, from His first advent where He was first revealed up to the eternal state, because there is no end. Revelation includes all of this, it addresses things that precede His second coming, includes His second coming, and goes beyond His second coming. The fact that these letters are so detailed in their specifics to those churches that existed at that time, it serves as evidence what John states, the letters were for those 7 churches. Have you ever heard a sermon on this? Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. or this similar occurrence in another one of these churches Revelation 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. Is this woman named Jezebel that claims to be a prophetess still around today? Is this practice of sacrificing food to idols and trying to trick Jews into eating it still a rampant problem in the church of today? While what you say is true, and that there are in fact people taking things from these 7 letters and applying it in their modern sermons, would you say that every one of these instances they are applying it properly? Surely in your time on this forum you have seen or conversed with someone of a different eschatological position that wants to apply one specific verse from a letter to themselves, but not acknowledge anything from the other 6 letters at all, haven't you? They were all in one region of that time known as Pergamum, which had a city by the same name, in what is modern day Turkey. Interestingly, the area where the city Pergamum once sat is now in modern times more like a ghost town of ruins, where few people go. This happens to be the church that was said to be the place where "satan's throne is." I suspect so, but that is speculation on my part. They do all still exist as far as being populated areas other than Pergamum itself, but I don't believe any of them go by the same names they had at that time. No, as I previously pointed out, and I suspect you would agree that not every application people use is correct either. Exactly, and don't you think the actual individuals who attended those actual churches would have accepted that it meant them? Well when you apply the meaning to the actual Greek word used, which is apostia, then falling away is one way to say it, as is departing from the faith, or truth. So what it means is that one walks away from faith in Jesus to most likely preserve their physical continuation of life, or because their faith was poorly rooted to begin with. The falling away that is spoken of in the Olivet discourse was specified to apply to the disciples themselves and something they would experience personally. So it is a condition that began from the start of the gospel and continues today. Throughout history there have been peaks and valleys of both revival and departure.
  11. Yes, absolutely. This was interesting, because honestly I had never looked at it through this lens before. By that I am not referring to the individuals, but in regards to whether they were reigning. I had some time to carefully consider it throughout the day since you first posted, and I would answer affirmatively to all of the above.
  12. To me the church and the elect are synonymous, and one addition to the list you provided that I like to point to is Abel, because he takes us all the way back to Genesis and Jesus specifically makes a point to call him righteous. Matthew 23:35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Based on one of your previous posts I would say we have the same view in that there are only two groups of people, those who are elect, and those who are not.
  13. I am not sure where you get hiding it from, did I say anything about hiding anything? Do you know what a Revelation is? A revealing of something, at what point did the Revelation of Jesus Christ begin? Would you say that He was revealed when He first came to earth, or not until after He had been crucified and resurrected? Of course John knows this, I never implied that He did not, it is in fact stated prior to this in the first chapter. Revelation 1:19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. John is instructed to write the things that he has seen, things that are (as in, already in existence or having happened), and things that are still future. That's an important detail wouldn't you say, perhaps you need to consider where all of this is taking place according to John. How about we take a look at scripture just to verify where he is? Revelation 5 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” Revelation 6 Now I watched when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice like thunder, “Come!” 2 And I looked, and behold, a white horse! And its rider had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering, and to conquer. Did he leave the throne room? No. So again I ask, who does the rider get the crown from? So now you have the beast in heaven? Isn't that a little strange that John doesn't mention the beast and the dragon being there? And on top of that, 1 crown has turned into 10 crowns? Maybe you and bro light should take a stab at this one, and see if it resonates. Hebrews 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. Now, regardless of whether you accept or even bother to consider any of the above, perhaps one of you who claim the rider on the white horse is the beast can solve this riddle. I saved the best for last. If the beast is given authority to wage war against the saints for a 3.5 year period, and he also controls the economy with the implementation of his mark as recorded later, and has authority to kill anyone that won't worship him, then how do you explain the next three riders? Is the beast riding all the horses? Does he go back and forth from the throne room changing colors and John just doesn't notice it?
  14. I just asked this same question of someone recently, I will be so disappointed if I receive the same reply you got, which has absolutely nothing to do with material.
  15. I could, and my answer to the OP is the same as yours, both are true, at the same time, making either translation accurate.
  16. I think considering you don't answer the questions I ask you, then this is no longer a conversation or discussion with any purpose. As far as receiving the explanation from the light, his/her response shows the same lack of application in regards to God's omnipresence as yours did. So sadly it is no answer at all, or not a correct one, but I'll leave you to it, good luck.
  17. Because as a child of God you are called to carry out the great commission. Don't look for or expect immediate results, plant a seed, or maybe you are the one watering it, but whatever you do, don't lose hope and understand that it is not your job to convince anyone of anything, leave that to the Holy Spirit. Galatians 6:9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.
  18. It is all good brother, honestly since I am familiar with Dr. Gentry and his writings I honestly believed those comments would have come from him. Regardless, no apology is necessary, I don't believe there was any malice intended on your part or anyone else's. God bless
  19. When you say human race, I suppose it is important to establish what you mean by that. It would appear that you are referring to people as they are now, in current form, as we are born, grow, and eventually age, up to the point where we return to the dust from where we came. So I guess my question would be rather simple, since the postmillennial position seems to place us after His return, and asserts that the kingdom of God has already become the kingdom of the world, how do you reconcile that with the following. I Corinthians 15: 50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” The attitude attributed above to those who do not prescribe to post-millennialism is patently absurd. In my entire lifetime I have never heard a Christian say anything remotely close to that or seen it reflected in their walk. Instead, what this is, is something similar that I've seen regarding different positions, where they cast any other position into the worst light possible to attempt to discredit them. "Why polish brass on a sinking ship" would be about as extreme a position as one could take, and as I've stated already, I have not once in my lifetime ever heard any Christian utter this or anything remotely close to it. Suggesting anyone that does not agree with post-millennialism is living a defeated life is also another unfounded accusation. I certainly don't live my life as defeated, I am a child of the Most High, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and I walk in victory. Not mine, but His. The fact of the matter is simple, people of different eschatological views all see us arriving at the exact same place at the end, we just have different understandings of how we get there.
  20. I wouldn't believe that, this is the kind of disinformation the media puts out to discourage conservatives to bother with voting. They tried the same thing last election, don't you recall that according to them Hillary Clinton had a 12 point lead in the polls and Trump had no chance? The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is very big in respect to behavior, one thing you should know about Conservatives, they don't speak up, they mind their own business and just go vote. Truth be told this is a large part of the problem and why we find ourselves in the position we are, it is probably time for people to stand up.
  21. I think we may be reading this in very different ways. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are applying what must take place after these things to something other than the immediate text that follows it. When I look at chapter 4, and that phrase from the very first verse I apply it to the events described in that body. I see nothing within that chapter to indicate this is pointing to a future event and could not be a revealing of what took place in heaven prior to His first advent. Therefore, the first seal would still be a future event from this event, and yet both still be from the past. This is another instance where we are reading this from two different perspectives. Revelation 1:19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. Where you place your number one, I just see the instruction to record what is seen, which includes two things, things that are (from the past), and things that are to come (future). The Revelation contains both the past and the future, to the people living at that time that the letter was to be delivered, the 7 churches. As I understand it, John sent a single letter that was delivered to the first church as listed, and then circulated to the others in the order he names them, one at a time. The letter included the entirety of the Revelation, which contains a revealing of both past and future events. Now some of the things that were yet future to them, may now be in the category of things that are for us, with other things yet future. I just want to illustrate with an example that precedes this from chapter 1, and see if you can see what I see. Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
  22. I don't disagree with your premise, there is no specific statement that the man of lawlessness spoken of by Paul has anything to do with the beast of Revelation. The connection that most draw from it comes from that passage, in that some to this day defy the very rules of the written word and change the order from what is written. Paul says that the falling away and the man of lawlessness precede the Lord's coming and our gathering to Him. He does not specify any length of time as to when those two things occur, or how close in proximity they are to each other. As far as anti-christs, I would have to disagree with the conclusion that they were limited to the 1st century. I think that trend has continued throughout history and continues to this day based on John's specific details regarding what makes someone an "anti-christ". In more modern times, you should consider someone like Anton Lavey, founder of the Church of Satan, as someone who meets those qualifications. The same would be true of anyone that opposes the Lord. Considering such people do exist, and continue to exist, this also plays a part in Christian's perception of the beast as anti-christ, as the information given in Revelation clearly meets the qualifications set by John.
×
×
  • Create New...