Things the Bible DOES say about the End Times

[Omegaman 3.0]

Shiloh asked: " Yes, the Tribulation period concerns Israel and the Jews, not the Church.   The Church is not the focus of the anti-Christ's wrath;  Israel is.  Israel is the woman of Revelation 12.     If the Church were still in the tribulation, why send out 144,000 Jewish evangelists to evangelize the world?   What's the Church doing?  Are they silent?   It makes no sense.   That's one reason I don't accept a Post Tribulation view.  "

 

Oh, did I miss that one in the list of things the Bible does not say? The Bible says nothing about 144,000 Jewish evangelists. I'll go check and maybe add that to the list! - Never mind, just checked, I already had that in the list!

 

Yeah, well I am not really operating from any list of yours, and I don't really care about that list.  I am looking at Revelation  7:2-8.  It is pretty clear about the evangelists that are sealed and hail from the 12 tribes of Israel.  And we see in vv. 9-10 the fruit of their ministry.  So I am not exactly sure why you claim they are not mentioned in the Bible.   They are going to have an incredible ministry and will accomplish during the Tribulation what the church has failed to do in over 2,000 years.

Oh seriously Shiloh. Would you like to show me where it says that the 144,000 are evangelists? Or where is says they will be preaching or any such wording? You know better and I know that you know better. 

I never said that there are not 144,000 Jews mentioned who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. I just said that the Bible says nothing about them being evangelists, that is something people impose on the text - I won't! You say that is is "pretty clear". Well, pretty clear to me is when the words actually say that.

You may not care about my lists. However, they are accurate and have not be refuted - not one item on either list. So, while your interpretations are shaky additions and wishful thinking, at least my lists are faithful to the scriptures, without reading things in that are not there. You do not care about my lists? I am shocked, lol. Well, I do not care all that much about replies to the lists, when they object to the items on the list, but do not have scriptural reasons for such objections. 

Just as I have thanked others, thank you for helping to reveal the differences between what pre-trib rapture theorists have to say, ans what the Bible says in contrast. 

No one competent in biblical interpretation sees them as anything other than evangelists.  It may not call them "evangelists" but that is precisely what they are, whether you make room for that fact or not.   I guess since the Bible doesn't mention "grandfathers" using your interpretation method we can conclude that it would be adding to Scripture to assert that there are grandfathers in the Bible.

The Bible implies and infers things that it doesn't spell out with the semantic precision we would like.  I can list a number of things we infer from Scripture that the Bible doesn't say that we understand to be true, such as the Trinity and the concept of legalism. 

I believe the Bible and I don't one thing to it which precisely why don't buy into the Post Trib Theory.

Thanks again for proving my point, you add the idea of evangelists to the text, and talk about competent interpretation. I just read what is says, and do not need "competent interpreters" for that. In the absence of any expressed, objective criteria, I would have to guess that a competent interpreter, is one who agrees with you. For one who does not care about my lists(s), you sure spend a lot of time on the thread concerning therm - just an observation.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh asked: " Yes, the Tribulation period concerns Israel and the Jews, not the Church.   The Church is not the focus of the anti-Christ's wrath;  Israel is.  Israel is the woman of Revelation 12.     If the Church were still in the tribulation, why send out 144,000 Jewish evangelists to evangelize the world?   What's the Church doing?  Are they silent?   It makes no sense.   That's one reason I don't accept a Post Tribulation view.  "

 

Oh, did I miss that one in the list of things the Bible does not say? The Bible says nothing about 144,000 Jewish evangelists. I'll go check and maybe add that to the list! - Never mind, just checked, I already had that in the list!

 

Yeah, well I am not really operating from any list of yours, and I don't really care about that list.  I am looking at Revelation  7:2-8.  It is pretty clear about the evangelists that are sealed and hail from the 12 tribes of Israel.  And we see in vv. 9-10 the fruit of their ministry.  So I am not exactly sure why you claim they are not mentioned in the Bible.   They are going to have an incredible ministry and will accomplish during the Tribulation what the church has failed to do in over 2,000 years.

Oh seriously Shiloh. Would you like to show me where it says that the 144,000 are evangelists? Or where is says they will be preaching or any such wording? You know better and I know that you know better. 

I never said that there are not 144,000 Jews mentioned who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. I just said that the Bible says nothing about them being evangelists, that is something people impose on the text - I won't! You say that is is "pretty clear". Well, pretty clear to me is when the words actually say that.

You may not care about my lists. However, they are accurate and have not be refuted - not one item on either list. So, while your interpretations are shaky additions and wishful thinking, at least my lists are faithful to the scriptures, without reading things in that are not there. You do not care about my lists? I am shocked, lol. Well, I do not care all that much about replies to the lists, when they object to the items on the list, but do not have scriptural reasons for such objections. 

Just as I have thanked others, thank you for helping to reveal the differences between what pre-trib rapture theorists have to say, ans what the Bible says in contrast. 

No one competent in biblical interpretation sees them as anything other than evangelists.  It may not call them "evangelists" but that is precisely what they are, whether you make room for that fact or not.   I guess since the Bible doesn't mention "grandfathers" using your interpretation method we can conclude that it would be adding to Scripture to assert that there are grandfathers in the Bible.

The Bible implies and infers things that it doesn't spell out with the semantic precision we would like.  I can list a number of things we infer from Scripture that the Bible doesn't say that we understand to be true, such as the Trinity and the concept of legalism. 

I believe the Bible and I don't one thing to it which precisely why don't buy into the Post Trib Theory.

Thanks again for proving my point, you add the idea of evangelists to the text, and talk about competent interpretation. I just read what is says, and do not need "competent interpreters" for that. In the absence of any expressed, objective criteria, I would have to guess that a competent interpreter, is one who agrees with you. For one who does not care about my lists(s), you sure spend a lot of time on the thread concerning therm - just an observation.

I didn't add anything to the text.   They are evangelists.  Simply calling them what they are is not adding anything to the text at all.   I guess we can deny the existence of legalism since the Bible doesn't use the word.   I guess since the Bible doesn't use the phrase, "self righteous"  we can dispense with calling the Pharisees self-righteous.   I mean, this notion that if the Bible doesn't use this or that word that it doesn't exist in the Bible is just sloppy hermeneutics.  And yeah, you do need a competent interpreter.

I don't care about your list and I wasn't even addressing your list.  I was addressing other posters, not you, when I showed up on this thread.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Shiloh said:

"No one competent in biblical interpretation sees them as anything other than evangelists.  It may not call them "evangelists" but that is precisely what they are, whether you make room for that fact or not.   I guess since the Bible doesn't mention "grandfathers" using your interpretation method we can conclude that it would be adding to Scripture to assert that there are grandfathers in the Bible.

The Bible implies and infers things that it doesn't spell out with the semantic precision we would like.  I can list a number of things we infer from Scripture that the Bible doesn't say that we understand to be true, such as the Trinity and the concept of legalism. 

I believe the Bible and I don't one thing to it which precisely why don't buy into the Post Trib Theory."

 

I hope you are enjoying the banter as much as I am, and are not feeling any hostility. I do not see the relevance to the absense of the word grandfather. We know that a grandfather is the father of a parent, We know that there are fathers of parents mentioned in the Bible, so therefore, there are grandfathers in the Bible, right?

Now, we know that evangelists, are those who bring the message of the Gospel, so for your point to be valid, all you need do is to demonstrate that the 144,000, and spreading the good news, Where is that in scripture? There are only two possibilities here Shiloh, either the Bible says the 144,000 are bringing the good news, or it does not. If it does, then you are right, and I am wrong. If it does not, then you have added that idea to the text, imposed your interpretation (or that of a "competent interpreter") upon it, either way, it is an addition to what the text says.

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

OK, Shiloh, you have become so irrational and reactive, that I will suspend dialogue with you on this topic for a spell, bringing up the same invalid argument, is not helping your case, and I would rather see you make a good case, I suggest that you think a little longer before replying, get your thoughts together, and I will "see you" another time.

Or how about this:

You are right, and I am wrong, does that settle it?

Edited October 12, 2015 by Omegaman 3.0

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh said:

"No one competent in biblical interpretation sees them as anything other than evangelists.  It may not call them "evangelists" but that is precisely what they are, whether you make room for that fact or not.   I guess since the Bible doesn't mention "grandfathers" using your interpretation method we can conclude that it would be adding to Scripture to assert that there are grandfathers in the Bible.

The Bible implies and infers things that it doesn't spell out with the semantic precision we would like.  I can list a number of things we infer from Scripture that the Bible doesn't say that we understand to be true, such as the Trinity and the concept of legalism. 

I believe the Bible and I don't one thing to it which precisely why don't buy into the Post Trib Theory."

 

I hope you are enjoying the banter as much as I am, and are not feeling any hostility. I do not see the relevance to the absense of the word grandfather. We know that a grandfather is the father of a parent, We know that there are fathers of parents mentioned in the Bible, so therefore, there are grandfathers in the Bible, right?

 

 

The point is that the absence of the word evangelist, doesn't mean that the 144,000 witnesses are not evangelists. That's my point about the word "grandfather."   Saying that there are grandfathers even though the word doesn't appear in Scripture, isn't adding to the text, and the same applies here to the word evangelist.   In fact, why are they are called "witnesses?"  What is it that they are to witness to the world?   Why are they called the Lord's servants? In what capacity do the serve?   For what purpose were they sealed and separated unto the Lord?   Why is there no mention of the Church as the one that evangelizes the world in the Tribulation? 

[Guest shiloh357]

OK, Shiloh, you have become so irrational and reactive, that I will suspend dialogue with you on this topic for a spell, bringing up the same invalid argument, is not helping your case, and I would rather see you make a good case, I suggest that you think a little longer before replying, get your thoughts together, and I will "see you" another time.

Or how about this:

You are right, and I am wrong, does that settle it?

Whatever...  I have not made one irrational or invalid argument.  I am simply pointing out the weakness of your interpretative process and why it doesn't work if we apply to other similar ideas and concepts in Scripture.  I am sorry that you can't seem to handle that.   That's your problem, not mine. 

[enoob57]

Bopeep said: "Yes,and that can also apply to Post trib.One million Christians can believe the Bible points to a Post trib rapture but that does not make it so.I see that there will be a pretrib rapture in Scripture you see that there will be a Post trib rapture.Who is right?We can not go on and on beating each other over the head trying to claim that each other is right now can we?Time will tell.

 

Well Bopeep, here is the thing, I am not one of the ones who came to this thread and said "I beleive such and such" as if my vote counted for anything. When I posted, I gave sriptural reasons for what I said, I did not say "I beleive post-trib" and then leave. That contributes nothing to understanding does it? If you believe the Bible says something, why are you keeping that knowledge from me?

If one million post-tribbers came and said "I beleive post-trib", I would count that as not as valuable as a single pre-tribber with a lame, but real attempt at reasoning from the scriptures. Time, by the way, will tell, of course, but I do not think the Bible wasted so many words or clues, sequences and warnings, just so we can be uniformed and throw up our hands with a gee, we can't tell, or "I don't care" (not you but others) attitude. Do you think the Bible  was  written to tease us and leave us in doubt? I believe it is intended to reveal things, to those who believe.

 

The Bible was written to know God in relationship... not even the Son of God was concerned about the time being hidden from Him!
I find the things not revealed to us in a specific is the provision of faith placed in Who that keeps it. The Father where is else could
perfect rest reside in the handling of all of life ... Love, Steven

 

[Last Daze]

I believe that Scripture states that the Rapture will occur prior to the Tribulation.

Rick,

Many of us believe as you do so hold fast to your beliefs.  Those who hold other views will never change them so we will always be at an impasse. They are still brothers and sisters in Christ -- simply misguided.(

Just wondering, but doesn't that actually mean that YOU will never change your mind, that no matter what anyone says or shows you from the bible that you have already decided what's correct?

You could certainly interpret it that way.  I have yet to see one passage of Scripture that states that the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation are meant for the Church. This is a period of judgment and wrath on the unbelievers and the ungodly before the Second Coming of Christ.

"I am the vine and you are the branches.  If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit.  Apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5). 

If the vine suffered on a cross for our sins, doesn't it stand to reason that the branches will also suffer tribulation?  Personally, I think that the pretrib rapture argument is a little bit like Peter trying to tell Jesus that He would not die on a cross-and Jesus rebuked him for this (Matthew 16:22-23). 

I think the problem comes because of the impression that we have about suffering; and, because we may have no experience with it.  Tribulation can be a blessing.  It can cause you to rely on faith in a way you never would have otherwise.  Picture it, if you were left in a lion's den (Daniel 6) with no cell phone or anything that would allow you to find help from another person, what else would you do but put your faith in God to deliver you? 

There are too many examples like this to assume that scripture even teaches that believers won't experience tribulation.  I do not believe we will experience the same tribulation.  I expect to stare in the face of a lion till it is over, is what I expect to do.  Not that I think that is a easy thing, but I don't think I will experience the same judgment because that is what the tribulation is about-the judgment of the Lord.  It will be like being in a rainstorm of acid that burns many, but I am actively seeking to be able stand in the rain like I would imagine Elijah would have been able to do. 

Therefore, what we should be doing because of this is finding ways to fast and deny the flesh to alleviate the sting of additional tribulations that will take place around us, so they will pass over us; instead of telling each other that we are not capable of doing things like Elijah did, and we will be raptured like cowards instead. 

Ezekiel is a very good example of this.  He made such an impression on me the first time I read about how God told him to lay on his side to bear the iniquity of Israel (Ezekiel 4:4).  There are many things that we could be doing like this to seek His favor as we approach the day of the Lord.  But, I will not allow myself to be deceived into thinking that I will be raptured when prophets like Ezekiel were not raptured.  Elijah was taken in a chariot of fire, but he could also ask for rain and it was given to him (1 Kings 18-19).  I don't know many people who would be capable of this without a time of tribulation either. 

I agree.  Good post Esther.  A servant is not greater than his master.  If they persecuted Jesus, they will persecute His servants.  The idea of believers escaping tribulation is unbiblical.  A quick word search will affirm that.

The attempts by some to re-label what Jesus called a time of great tribulation into a time of great judgment and wrath is agenda-driven.  If Jesus called it tribulation then it's tribulation.  Who are we to redefine it?  Tribulation is not the same as God's wrath regardless of how desperately some try to equate them. 

[Last Daze]

Why is there no mention of the Church as the one that evangelizes the world in the Tribulation? 

So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.  Revelation 12:17

The church is evangelizing with their testimony of Jesus as they are being martyred.  These are the countless multitude that come out of the great tribulation of the fifth seal.  The 144,000 are introduced before the seventh seal is opened. 

[Sister]

Shiloh said:

"No one competent in biblical interpretation sees them as anything other than evangelists.  It may not call them "evangelists" but that is precisely what they are, whether you make room for that fact or not.   I guess since the Bible doesn't mention "grandfathers" using your interpretation method we can conclude that it would be adding to Scripture to assert that there are grandfathers in the Bible.

The Bible implies and infers things that it doesn't spell out with the semantic precision we would like.  I can list a number of things we infer from Scripture that the Bible doesn't say that we understand to be true, such as the Trinity and the concept of legalism. 

I believe the Bible and I don't one thing to it which precisely why don't buy into the Post Trib Theory."

 

I hope you are enjoying the banter as much as I am, and are not feeling any hostility. I do not see the relevance to the absense of the word grandfather. We know that a grandfather is the father of a parent, We know that there are fathers of parents mentioned in the Bible, so therefore, there are grandfathers in the Bible, right?

 

 

The point is that the absence of the word evangelist, doesn't mean that the 144,000 witnesses are not evangelists. That's my point about the word "grandfather."   Saying that there are grandfathers even though the word doesn't appear in Scripture, isn't adding to the text, and the same applies here to the word evangelist.   In fact, why are they are called "witnesses?"  What is it that they are to witness to the world?   Why are they called the Lord's servants? In what capacity do the serve?   For what purpose were they sealed and separated unto the Lord?   Why is there no mention of the Church as the one that evangelizes the world in the Tribulation? 

 

 John 6:27   Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: ***for him hath God the Father sealed****.