The Difference between Dan. 70th week & the Tribulation.

[douggg]

24 minutes ago, Revelation Man said:

I don't need to quote people not of God yet, I will let you do that, I study the historical actions of the Nation down through the ages.

Take some time and effort to dig into what the Jews believe about the messiah.   Communicate with the Jews themselves and/or read up on their beliefs at their websites.     You will discover that the Jews believe that the messiah must be anointed the King of Israel, descended from King David.

[Retrobyter]

On 8/29/2019 at 4:51 AM, Diaste said:

There is a great deal of substance extant but I wasn't writing a book, it was a reply to a specific audience about a specific topic and an outline was a perfect fit.

Shabbat shalom, Diaste.

Okay, but you're assuming that your definitions of these labels is the same as those of others. I believe that the pat definitions for these labels are totally insufficient. There's more to these labels than that!

On 8/29/2019 at 4:51 AM, Diaste said:

Only engaged in these questions many times over many years. More than likely covered each question for each event or condition in hundreds of posts on this forum.

Yes, but have you answered these questions each time with a valid, applicable Scripture passage? I think you, like many pretribulational rapturists, have relied too heavily on a theological, eschatological answer that USES Scripture verses pulled out of their context to support a position.

On 8/29/2019 at 4:51 AM, Diaste said:

I'm with ya here but I don't believe it, I know with absolute certainty these things will happen.

Be sure your "absolute certainty" is absolutely correct, according to the context of the appropriate Scriptures, and not given to dichotomies and universalisms that are not supported within the contexts in which one finds them.

For instance, if the word "earth" is involved in the Tanakh (the OT), it is the Hebrew word "erets," and this word is FREQUENTLY speaking of the Land of Israel, not the entire planet earth!

[Retrobyter]

13 hours ago, douggg said:

Take some time and effort to dig into what the Jews believe about the messiah.   Communicate with the Jews themselves and/or read up on their beliefs at their websites.     You will discover that the Jews believe that the messiah must be anointed the King of Israel, descended from King David.

Shabbat shalom, douggg.

That's good advice; however, be sure to remember that you are speaking to JEWS about what they believe about the Messiah. You've got to take what they say with the proverbial "grain of salt." They've also come to the conclusion that it could NOT have been "Jesus Christ" ("Yeshua` the Messiah") who fulfilled SOME of the Scriptures about the Messiah.

They expected the Messiah to come as "the Son of David," the CONQUERING and REIGNING Messiah, and Yeshua` came as the Messiah, "the Son of Yosef (Joseph)," the SUFFERING and DYING Messiah, who was raised to life again! In His SECOND Coming, He shall come as "the Son of David."

[Revelation Man]

20 hours ago, douggg said:

No, it doesn't say that in Malachi 4:5-6.    In those verses it speaks about Elijah. 

That is EXACTLY what it says, Elijah will TURN Israel back unto God BEFORE the DOTL...Stop running from the truth brother. Jesus stated Elijah would truly first come and RESTORE ALL THINGS !! The Two-Witnesses DIE before the Second Coming, they RESTORE Israel BEFORE she Flees Judea. Your "THEORY{" is important brother, neith is my beliefs, the TRUTH however is the be all end all. Your theory doesn't fit at all, thus you have to BEND and WARP a little here and there. I like to stay in AGREEMENT with the Scriptures, not with Thus saith Ron the Revelation Man.

20 hours ago, douggg said:

Who will be one of the two witnesses, who testifies and prophesies in the first half of the 70th week, for 1260 days.    

This is an IMPOSSIBILITY via simple math. 

20 hours ago, douggg said:

Near the end of the 1260 days, the Antichrist will betray the Jews, and his actions will trigger the beginning of the Day of Lord.   

The AC will Conquer the jews AND MANY Nations. 

20 hours ago, douggg said:

Which the Jews will respond in short order, to reject him as continuing as their King of Israel, and will turn to believe upon Jesus.      

They never accept him.

20 hours ago, douggg said:

Up to the point of the Antichrist betraying the Jews, Israel, they will be saying peace and safety, thinking there are in the early stages of the messianic era.

 

That is about those of Satan...not the Jews per se. The Jews who do not REPENT will perish, so says Zechariah 13:8-9.

 

[Revelation Man]

20 hours ago, douggg said:

Take some time and effort to dig into what the Jews believe about the messiah.   Communicate with the Jews themselves and/or read up on their beliefs at their websites.     You will discover that the Jews believe that the messiah must be anointed the King of Israel, descended from King David.

As I stated, I read on the Jewish historical beliefs, not about modern day people that are singled out. That is not the way to understand a culture brother.

You want so bad for this to be so......its just consumes you brother. Its not factual. 

[Diaste]

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, Diaste.

Okay, but you're assuming that your definitions of these labels is the same as those of others. I believe that the pat definitions for these labels are totally insufficient. There's more to these labels than that!

And I agree. We all use labels at times for ease of conversation. I don't know the conventional definitions, I just know how scripture defines these events.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Yes, but have you answered these questions each time with a valid, applicable Scripture passage?

Oh yes. Many times.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

 

I think you, like many pretribulational rapturists, have relied too heavily on a theological, eschatological answer that USES Scripture verses pulled out of their context to support a position.

I don't know how you have the impression I hold to a pretrib view. What ever I said to lead to that conclusion was inadvertent.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Be sure your "absolute certainty" is absolutely correct, according to the context of the appropriate Scriptures, and not given to dichotomies and universalisms that are not supported within the contexts in which one finds them.

Allowing for the weakness of the flesh we are all more or less prone to some errors. I do hope I have been diligent and honest and open to spiritual truth in my search.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

For instance, if the word "earth" is involved in the Tanakh (the OT), it is the Hebrew word "erets," and this word is FREQUENTLY speaking of the Land of Israel, not the entire planet earth!

Sure. But context dictates. Just because it's frequently used in that regard does not mean it can only be used as that reference.

[Diaste]

22 hours ago, douggg said:

Take some time and effort to dig into what the Jews believe about the messiah.   Communicate with the Jews themselves and/or read up on their beliefs at their websites.     You will discover that the Jews believe that the messiah must be anointed the King of Israel, descended from King David.

It's more than a little shocking to me to hear a Jew say they are looking for a earthly king. Which is what they are looking for, straight from their own lips.

[douggg]

2 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

As I stated, I read on the Jewish historical beliefs, not about modern day people that are singled out. That is not the way to understand a culture brother.

You want so bad for this to be so......its just consumes you brother. Its not factual. 

Not just modern day people, the Jews have always believed the messiah must descended from King David and anointed the King of Israel.

Jesus's followers as he was riding into Jerusalem on the donkey was hailed in that manner.

 

John 12:

12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,

13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,

15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

 

Mark 10:

46 And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.

47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.

48 And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

And I agree. We all use labels at times for ease of conversation. I don't know the conventional definitions, I just know how scripture defines these events.

Shabbat shalom, Diaste.

Then, don't you think it's about time to learn the "conventional definitions?" The first rule of communication is to be on the same page as the person with whom you're trying to communicate through the use of mutual definitions. If one doesn't start there, then your arguments and reasoning are pointless.

Case in point is dealing with the Mormons. They use much the same terminology that we do; however, their definitions of those terms are MUCH different than ours are. To deal with a Mormon, one must first come to the same definitions of terms before those terms will make sense.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Oh yes. Many times.

Okay, then you're doing the right thing. Any disagreements we may have, then, are based upon how much the Ruwach haQodesh (the Holy Spirit) has taught each of us.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

I don't know how you have the impression I hold to a pretrib view. What ever I said to lead to that conclusion was inadvertent.

Well, I really didn't say that you hold to a pretrib view. Perhaps, I should have been clearer. What I said was "I think you, LIKE many pretribulational rapturists, have relied too heavily on a theological, eschatological answer that USES Scripture verses pulled out of their context to support a position."

See, I don't have much experience with posttribbers or pre-Wrathers, but I have a LIFETIME of experience with pretribbers. The point I was trying to make was that pretribbers pull Scripture verses out of their contexts and support their position with these verses because they SOUND like they support their position, even though in context they don't even REMOTELY have to do with that position! I know, because I used to do the SAME THING and believed the SAME WAY!

For instance, they are convinced that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 are speaking about the Pretribulational Rapture because they can't see it saying any other way! Look closely at what I discovered about these verses in context:

1 Thessalonians 4:1-18 (KJV)

1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother (more generally, sibling) in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. 8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

9 But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. 10 And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more; 11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; 12 That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep (sleeping in death), that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus (those also who are asleep in death within Yeshua`) will God bring with him.

This last sentence places the direct object ahead of the subject and the verb and the prepositional phrase acting as an indirect object. Placing the words in an order more familiar to English, it would be ...

"God (subj.) will bring (trans. vb.) those (d.o.) who are sleeping in Jesus in death (clause with 2 prep. phrs.) with Jesus (prep. phr. as an i.o.)."

The way pretribulational rapturists see this verse, is that God is bringing the "souls" of these who are "sleeping in Jesus in death" back from Heaven with Jesus, but this verse doesn't say that!

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (precede) them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

The pretribulational rapturists also add between verses 17 and 18 that "He will then take us all back with Him to Heaven," and they think they can find this in the little word "so." However, this Scripture passage doesn't say that, either! "So," in the clause "so shall we ever be with the Lord," stems from a translation of the Greek word "houtoos," spelled "omicron-upsilon (with a rough breathing mark over the diphthong)-tau-omega-stigma."

Strong's gives us this info:

3779 houtoo (hoo'-to). Or (before a vowel houtoos (hoo'-toce) adverb from houtos; in this way (referring to what precedes or follows)
-- after that, after (in) this manner, as, even (so), for all that, like(-wise), no more, on this fashion(-wise), so (in like manner), thus, what.

3778 houtos (hoo'-tos). Including nominative masculine plural houtoi (hoo'-toy), nominative feminine singular hautee (how'-tay), and nominative feminine plural hautai (how'-tahee) from the article ho and autos; the he (she or it), i.e. This or that (often with article repeated)
-- he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

Substituting those words, we would read, "In this way shall we ever be with the Lord (Jesus or Yeshua`)." Paul wasn't saying that "In this way (in the clouds of the air) we shall ever be with the Lord"; he was saying "In this way (alive again and together) we shall ever be with the Lord."

And, in that sense, the Lord Yeshua` is bringing the dead, alive again, with Him in the clouds of the sky, so that we who are alive and remaining may be snatched away to the clouds with them! We'll be TOGETHER again! NOTHING is said about "coming from Heaven" or "going to Heaven!"

Again, from other passages of Scripture, we are NOT to be anticipating "going to Heaven!" We are to be anticipating the RESURRECTION!!!

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Allowing for the weakness of the flesh we are all more or less prone to some errors. I do hope I have been diligent and honest and open to spiritual truth in my search.

I believe you have been! However, don't come to the conclusion that "you've arrived!" Be open to more teaching from the Ruwach haQodesh Elohiym (the Holy Spirit of God). As you said, "we are all more or less prone to some errors"; so, be ready to learn so as to correct any errors He shows you!

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Sure. But context dictates. Just because it's frequently used in that regard does not mean it can only be used as that reference.

Granted. However, be sure that you are fully understanding the context. Don't be so nebulous and general, that you miss the specifics of a particular context. Gentile Christians are SO prone to be nebulous and general and dichotomous that they gravitate to universalisms! (The "all or nothing" viewpoint is common in Christianity.)

[Diaste]

11 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

The way pretribulational rapturists see this verse, is that God is bringing the "souls" of these who are "sleeping in Jesus in death" back from Heaven with Jesus, but this verse doesn't say that!

That's interesting. I have never heard the pretrib camp say such a thing about this passage. I have only heard them cite Jude and Revelation to support their claim Jesus is bringing the church back from heaven to earth. If what you say is true it would be twisting most foul to render this passage as a return FROM heaven when it's abundantly clear Paul is speaking about the DEAD in Christ being raised; a thing which is easy to comprehend sans parsing.

11 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, Diaste.

Then, don't you think it's about time to learn the "conventional definitions?" The first rule of communication is to be on the same page as the person with whom you're trying to communicate through the use of mutual definitions. If one doesn't start there, then your arguments and reasoning are pointless.

Case in point is dealing with the Mormons. They use much the same terminology that we do; however, their definitions of those terms are MUCH different than ours are. To deal with a Mormon, one must first come to the same definitions of terms before those terms will make sense.

 I'm not going to wade into those waters with anyone. The problem with that is there is no 'convention' on the definitions of these terms. It all depends on personal dogma shaped by membership in a community, some large, some small; or outlandish definitions, divorced from context, of the lone wolf convinced he's an outcast based on superior knowledge or special revelation. I simply do not want to research and retain such things. Since the word is spiritual in origin, carries spiritual truth, is revealed by the Spirit and only the Spirit, I will let the superior power in my life sort out the definitions and defeat the personal dogma as He sees fit.

I had a similar discussion with an atheist over the definition of the concept of faith. This was in a biblical context as I was preaching. The opposition adamantly insisted faith was defined as 'believing in something that wasn't real'. The proposition defined the term as 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' My understanding of the opposition in no way influences the way I think or speak and in this case was an impregnable fortress, impossible to storm, and a waste of time and effort; the same as it had been in my visits with Mormons and JW's. 

It happens here all the time and once in while I get sucked into it. It's stimulating in some respects but detracts from the positive message. I have found the translations to be accurate and every idea simple to understand, clearly and objectively presented, and not one iota of word study has furthered my understanding past the written word, with one exception. But even that exception is nothing more than an iteration of a previous verse and turns out it's a exhortation to stand patiently strong.

Some in depth study may help to clarify ideas as we all learn and understand in various ways, but I'm certain there in no new insight gained from word study not written in the plain language of Holy writ.

Invoke the name of Jesus, speak to the gift of forgiveness of sins and the resurrection. That's the message that must not get lost in the wilderness of word study; all that matters is the Gospel is preached and the King is returning.

12 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Well, I really didn't say that you hold to a pretrib view. Perhaps, I should have been clearer. What I said was "I think you, LIKE many pretribulational rapturists, have relied too heavily on a theological, eschatological answer that USES Scripture verses pulled out of their context to support a position."

See, I don't have much experience with posttribbers or pre-Wrathers, but I have a LIFETIME of experience with pretribbers. The point I was trying to make was that pretribbers pull Scripture verses out of their contexts and support their position with these verses because they SOUND like they support their position, even though in context they don't even REMOTELY have to do with that position! I know, because I used to do the SAME THING and believed the SAME WAY!

Yeah, not remotely. I was 16 when I heard about the return of Jesus, never had a clue before that. I was fed a steady diet of Lindsey in those days, we all were. In reading other authors of the same ilk I found they all said the same thing. But there was so much more and I could feel the steady pressure moving my mind to want more than what I was reading. Since all these authors cited copious amounts of passages I decided to get the source material and do some reading from the wellspring. I found out quickly pretrib was a hodgepodge void of context, inundated with personal dogma, outside of spiritual reality.

I very much doubt I'm out of context in the narrow concept of the gathering, nor the larger context of the Word: God's desire for His people, salvation, resurrection, the Return of the King. That's the guide for everything spiritual. Feel free to mount opposition, critique, suggestions, guidance, etc,. I'm open to all of it.