Pre-tribbers, what do you have

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

=======================================================================================

 

I asked you 21 poignant Questions directly regarding your position...what did I get back:  Zero.  The majority of what I got back were baseless Color Commentaries, these are just a few "Carpet Bombs" from your last few posts....

 

"You might as well as have thrown in a "therefore" while you were at it.", "Like I said, put a sunny day spin on it if you like", "You have indeed, lol.", "Oh, if you say it's okay...lol", 

"Biblically accurate and irrefutable. lol",  "That's a good choice for you my friend" "I'm not sure you understand how ridiculous this argument is.",  "Got it.",  "Actually, it is not"

"Hey, I wanna try, how about this one: Oceans are wet. Except when they dry up." "Did a PRO teach you that or did you work that out all by yourself? lol", "Usually I only have to deal with nonsense like this, psychobabble mumbo jumbo arguments...when I deal with atheists.", "The answer was right there." "I don't think you do. Not really." "Already did that."

 

"Color Commentaries" and Baseless Assertions are a shout from the rooftops..... " TELL" for No Argument.  They're employed when you get called Holding Deuce Seven Off Suit.

 

Thanks for the Illustration     

 

 

 

 

When you can get to the point where you can deal with the subject and text which has been offered rather than deflecting with false arguments...let me know.

 

 

Nice.... a Cherry on Top Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 4 to round out the motif.

 

I'm gonna let you know right now......You're on Ignore, Permanently.  "Carpet Bomb" Color Commentary post away!!!

[wingnut-]

 

It is clearly Impossible for someone to be a Christian....before what makes a Christian "a Christian" (The Gospel), has ever taken Place.

 

It's logically Tantamount to claiming.... you're a Hubble Telescope Technician before Space Flight or a Software Engineer in the 1800's.  Painfully Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) 

 

 

I agree, it is impossible for someone to be a Christian before what makes a Christian has ever taken place.  So what is it that makes one a Christian?

 

John 3:¹⁶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

And when did Jesus first enter the scene?

 

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

From the beginning, life was in Him.  Your assertion that this is impossible just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

 

This collapses your Entire Position IN TOTO.

 

 

We haven't even discussed my position, we have been discussing yours.  If you are referring to the link between Hosea and Revelation 12, well, I guess you glossed over the scripture from Isaiah.  At no point have you shown the passages from Hosea as being a historical event, so I really have no clue what you are talking about.  Before you go wasting your time trying to prove this, I suggest reading Isaiah 65 (which I posted prior) where you will find the connecting dots for the time frame.

 

Re-stating the same (Refuted) Argument over again does not offer anymore Veracity than the Original.  SEE: "In Detail" Refutations in my last 3 posts to you.

 

 

I'm sorry, I must have missed the post where you explain how a person could be both protected from Satan and unprotected from Satan during the same 3 1/2 year period of time.  I really would like to see this post, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.  Could you post it again please?  It seems to have disappeared.  Unless you can do this, you have of course refuted nothing other than in your own mind.

 

Who is Hosea Prophesying to..... The House of Israel (Northern Kingdom) or the House of Judah (Southern Kingdom) in the Whole Book?  Then Specifically, in the FIRST 2 CHAPTERS?

 

 

Hosea 1 The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.

² The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord.

 

Hosea 1:¹¹ Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

 

All prophets of God are speaking to His children, regardless of ethnicity or what time they walked this earth.  Hosea is prophesying to you and I as we read the material, understand?  At any rate, start with verse 1.  Hosea lived in the northern kingdom, so that is the perspective he wrote from.

 

This argument is really solved easily by simply answering these questions.

 

Who did God divorce?  a) the northern kingdom  b) the southern kingdom  c) both

Who came up out of Egypt?  a) the northern kingdom  b) the southern kingdom c) both

Who will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or household gods?  a) the northern kingdom b) the southern kingdom  c) both

 

Moreover, can you please tell me what on Earth does this have to do with my argument?

 

What does Amos have to do with any point whatsoever with my argument?

 

 

The additional information I included was for anyone that may read this that was unaware of it.  So others could get a better idea what time this occurred and what was happening, it had nothing to do with the argument, but it is applicable to the discussion.

 

Where is our Argument? ........ Chapters 1-2.

(Hosea 5:15) "¶ I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early."

 

 

So, what you're saying is, I am limited to chapters 1&2 while you are free to use whatever.  As I recall, it was your posting of this verse that began this entire discussion (please note that it is from the same chapter I just posted from).  Why don't you just show me where the discussion in Hosea was limited to the first two chapters (only limited for me of course)?  I can assure you that you will not find that either, because if I had specified chapters, I would have also included chapter 3, because it is the conclusion of the first two chapters.  If you wish to limit the discussion to the first three chapters, I will agree to that.

 

Yeah, that chapter 3, where the Lord tells Hosea to take back his wife.  You know, the one who according to your scenario only represents the northern kingdom.  The wife that isn't part of the bride, the one who gets to be the "other" woman in your eternal picture.  The fact that chapter 3 exists renders your entire argument null and void, so I can see why you would want me not to talk about it.

 

"Rushing Through"?? Who said I was "rushing through"?  How do you know that, Special Mind Powers?

I just spent the last few hours going through a detailed study of the first 2 Chapters of Hosea

 

 

No, I can just read.

 

Appeal to Emotion (Fallacy).

 

 

Actually this was an appeal from one christian to another.  You see, when you attack my character and make wild, false, unfounded statements regarding my approach to scripture, it affects my witness, thereby affecting the body of Christ to which I belong.  A house divided cannot stand, and your reply is duly noted.

[S.T. Ranger]

 

 

=======================================================================================

 

I asked you 21 poignant Questions directly regarding your position...what did I get back:  Zero.  The majority of what I got back were baseless Color Commentaries, these are just a few "Carpet Bombs" from your last few posts....

 

"You might as well as have thrown in a "therefore" while you were at it.", "Like I said, put a sunny day spin on it if you like", "You have indeed, lol.", "Oh, if you say it's okay...lol", 

"Biblically accurate and irrefutable. lol",  "That's a good choice for you my friend" "I'm not sure you understand how ridiculous this argument is.",  "Got it.",  "Actually, it is not"

"Hey, I wanna try, how about this one: Oceans are wet. Except when they dry up." "Did a PRO teach you that or did you work that out all by yourself? lol", "Usually I only have to deal with nonsense like this, psychobabble mumbo jumbo arguments...when I deal with atheists.", "The answer was right there." "I don't think you do. Not really." "Already did that."

 

"Color Commentaries" and Baseless Assertions are a shout from the rooftops..... " TELL" for No Argument.  They're employed when you get called Holding Deuce Seven Off Suit.

 

Thanks for the Illustration     

 

 

 

 

When you can get to the point where you can deal with the subject and text which has been offered rather than deflecting with false arguments...let me know.

 

Nice.... a Cherry on Top Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 4 to round out the motif.

 

I'm gonna let you know right now......You're on Ignore, Permanently.  "Carpet Bomb" Color Commentary post away!!!

Like a said...a good choice for you my friend.

God bless.

[Judith]

Hello everyone. There are really some excellent responses to this thread.

Thought I'd add my comments which I will leave

for your determination as to whether or not

there is evidence here for a pre-trib. rapture.

The 6th dispensation which is where we are presently, is actively involved and fixed upon

the Jew, the Gentile and the Church of God. Each of the three has a distinctive purpose in

the eternal plan of God.

For the Jew exists the promises of God for a restored Israel at the 2nd coming of Christ to

establish His Kingdom.

For the Jew and the Gentile, exists the calling of God to enter into His eternal rest by receiving the gift of eternal life through His son Jesus Christ.

The church then consists of both Jew and Gentile believers who have been born again and

received Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Unlike Israel, however, whose promise to be restored upon the 2nd coming of Jesus when He

establishes his Kingdom, the Church, separated and distinguished apart from Israel, has as her

fulfillment the promise of a new home in heaven where Jesus is actively building mansions for

his bride.

The Church isn't in need of restoration but is complete in God through Christ. Her primary

function is to be witnesses to the work of Christ and bring the salvation message to the world.

The completion of her work will end before the Tribulation, since this is the Time of Jacob's

Trouble - Jacob being Israel. This is when Israel will begin her testimony of the work of Jesus Christ and they will finally fullfill the mission they were meant to do during the earthly walk of Jesus - that is to proclaim Him as King of King and Lord of Lords. The salvation message will begin with the two Jewish witnessess along with the 144,000 called out Jewish believers.

This is my understanding of scripture. I see that understanding the divisions of Israel and the Church to be necessary in order to obtain a correct understanding of end time events.

God bless,

Judith

[S.T. Ranger]

Hello everyone. There are really some excellent responses to this thread.

Thought I'd add my comments which I will leave

for your determination as to whether or not

there is evidence here for a pre-trib. rapture.

The 6th dispensation which is where we are presently, is actively involved and fixed upon

the Jew, the Gentile and the Church of God. Each of the three has a distinctive purpose in

the eternal plan of God.

For the Jew exists the promises of God for a restored Israel at the 2nd coming of Christ to

establish His Kingdom.

For the Jew and the Gentile, exists the calling of God to enter into His eternal rest by receiving the gift of eternal life through His son Jesus Christ.

The church then consists of both Jew and Gentile believers who have been born again and

received Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Unlike Israel, however, whose promise to be restored upon the 2nd coming of Jesus when He

establishes his Kingdom, the Church, separated and distinguished apart from Israel, has as her

fulfillment the promise of a new home in heaven where Jesus is actively building mansions for

his bride.

The Church isn't in need of restoration but is complete in God through Christ. Her primary

function is to be witnesses to the work of Christ and bring the salvation message to the world.

The completion of her work will end before the Tribulation, since this is the Time of Jacob's

Trouble - Jacob being Israel. This is when Israel will begin her testimony of the work of Jesus Christ and they will finally fullfill the mission they were meant to do during the earthly walk of Jesus - that is to proclaim Him as King of King and Lord of Lords. The salvation message will begin with the two Jewish witnessess along with the 144,000 called out Jewish believers.

This is my understanding of scripture. I see that understanding the divisions of Israel and the Church to be necessary in order to obtain a correct understanding of end time events.

God bless,

Judith

I agree with all of this, for the record. Thanks for the post, Judith.

God bless.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

=================================================================================================================

 

 

I agree, it is impossible for someone to be a Christian before what makes a Christian has ever taken place.  So what is it that makes one a Christian?

 

 

(Romans 10:9) "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

 

Of course, to believe in thine heart that GOD hath raised HIM from the Dead....you would have to be alive POST Christ's Death And Resurrection.  It's a Contingent Absolute Necessity.

 

 

And when did Jesus first enter the scene?

 

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

 

 

Jesus has always existed....Eternal. (The Pre-Existent ONE....the I AM THAT I AM)

 

The key is "the scene" as you call it, HE first entered it when HE was BORN as a man...."The Last Adam".  The Kinsmen Redeemer.  HE had to become a Man, FIRST.  When did that happen?

 

The Gospel of Jesus Christ....

 

(1 Corinthians 15:1-4) "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;  {2} By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.  {3} For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;  {4} And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

 

 

We haven't even discussed my position,

 

 

Wingnut, You have to be kidding me here, eh?  I sure hope you're not doing this purposely.

 

You said quite a number of times in quite a number of posts......(Hosea 2:14) "¶ Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her."

 

..... Was speaking to this DIRECTLY.... (Revelation 12:14) "And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent."

 

This event here in Revelation 12 takes place BEFORE Christ's Return....Prior to the Millennium.

 

Then....

 

(Hosea 2:14-18) "¶ Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.  {15} And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt.  {16} And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.  {17} For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.  {18} And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely."

 

You then agreed, quite correctly, that this passage is speaking to POST Millennium ------ New Jerusalem.  Well "in that Day" that is speaking to POST Millennium also includes the day she is brought "into the wilderness, and speak comfortably to her".

 

ERGO..... Your Position that Hosea 2:14-15 speaks to Revelation 12 is Refuted IN TOTO.

 

 

 

Before I move another step with you ...you need to speak to this.   If you do not own up to this....our discussion is OVER.  Just so we're clear.

[S.T. Ranger]

Wingnut, as a parting shot on my part, lol, you might remind your antagonist that Jesus has not always existed. The Son of God has always existed, but Jesus the Christ has a beginning in temporal history in the womb of Mary. THat's why mention of HIm before that time is called prophecy.

(sorry, just thought I would throw in something that might be seen as controversial before signing off, lol; and yes, some people tickle my facetious bone...)

God bless.

[wingnut-]

We haven't even discussed my position,

 

 

Wingnut, You have to be kidding me here, eh?  I sure hope you're not doing this purposely.

 

As I would hope you wouldn't keep misrepresenting what I actually say.

 

We haven't even discussed my position, we have been discussing yours.  If you are referring to the link between Hosea and Revelation 12, well, I guess you glossed over the scripture from Isaiah.

 

 

This was in response to your statement, "This collapses your Entire Position IN TOTO."  The underlined words are an acknowledgement that we have been discussing the link between Hosea and Revelation.  What we have never discussed is "my entire position", or even yours for that matter.  Now I would hope that you wouldn't keep misrepresenting my words, but you do.  I would like to assume this was not purposeful, but since you deliberately left out what followed the comma, I suspect not.  Also, because this is not the first time you have done this.

 

(Hosea 2:14-18) "¶ Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.  {15} And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt.  {16} And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.  {17} For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.  {18} And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely."

 

You then agreed, quite correctly, that this passage is speaking to POST Millennium ------ New Jerusalem.  Well "in that Day" that is speaking to POST Millennium also includes the day she is brought "into the wilderness, and speak comfortably to her".

 

 

Considering in your scenario you see a bride (the church), a husband (Jesus), and another woman (Israel), I can see why you find what you just stated as the scenario.  The husband has to sneak off with the other woman (allure her and speak tenderly) so that the bride doesn't get angry, women are funny that way.

 

Of course from my perspective this makes no sense at all.  Why would our Lord have to allure her away and speak tenderly to her in eternity?  If it is done, this wouldn't be necessary.  So, what plausible explanation is there?  Could it be that when the words "in that day" are spoken that the meaning is sometimes to a time, like the end times, and not always to a literal day?  The key word here is "In".

 

Of course you could just review chapter 65 of Isaiah which gives a much more detailed account from my previous post.  You will see, there are quite a few things that take place between the two, take note of the verses.

 

Isaiah 65:⁹ I will bring forth descendants from Jacob,

    and from Judah those who will possess my mountains;

my chosen people will inherit them,

    and there will my servants live.

¹⁰ Sharon will become a pasture for flocks,

    and the Valley of Achor a resting place for herds,

    for my people who seek me.

 

Note that in verse 10 it clearly states, "my people who seek me."  This is another example how the offspring in Revelation cannot be the remnant spoken of by the prophets.  One of the requirements to be the offspring is, holding fast their testimony in Jesus.  These people are still seeking, they have not found Him.

 

Isaiah 65:²⁵ The wolf and the lamb will feed together,

    and the lion will eat straw like the ox,

    and dust will be the serpent’s food.

They will neither harm nor destroy

    on all my holy mountain,”

says the Lord.

 

FYI, this takes place between the two.

 

Isaiah 65:¹⁷ “See, I will create

    new heavens and a new earth.

The former things will not be remembered,

    nor will they come to mind.

 

Before I move another step with you ...you need to speak to this.   If you do not own up to this....our discussion is OVER.  Just so we're clear

 

 

Actually, our discussion was already over as a result of your inability to stick to the topic, and your lack of respect for others.  However, I didn't want to just not answer you, so since I did, I'll try this one more time.  I will just copy and paste what I posted the last time I posted it.

 

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

 

You have not refuted this even once, much less three times, please address this passage, particularly the underlined areas.  The symbol you have of who makes up the bride, is incorrect.  Your theory that Revelation is chronological falls apart as well, but the verse says what it says.  John ties the bride to New Jerusalem symbolically right here, your argument is with scripture, not with me.

 

A modern way to say this same thing is:

 

Little Tommy says to little Billy, "Come here, let me show you the best present I ever got."    And he showed little Billy his brand new set of Lego's.

 

You are trying to argue that the best present Tommy ever got was Lincoln Logs.  I cannot accept your scenario on the basis of scripture, or (to borrow your words to me) a "Violation of Logic."  If you can reconcile the above passage from Revelation with your scenario, please do so.

 

If you fail to address this again, the discussion is over.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

======================================================================================================

 

 

As I would hope you wouldn't keep misrepresenting what I actually say.

 

 

Yep, I figured.  Did you go back and Delete all your posts?  Because that's the only way this thing will fly.

 

 

Actually, our discussion was already over

 

 

Yes, it was over as soon as you clicked "Add Reply" with your first post.  I was holding out hope however....but alas.

[wingnut-]

Yes, it was over as soon as you clicked "Add Reply" with your first post.  I was holding out hope however....but alas.

 

 

Proverbs 11:² When pride comes, then comes disgrace,

    but with humility comes wisdom.