Will pregnancy and toddlers/children vanish when Rapture happens ?

[Alive]

7 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

I hope you will study this verse with an open heart:

Hebrews 9:²⁸ So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Ask yourself, WHO is He going to appear to? Most verses in the bible have a flip side like a coin. In other words, what will happen to those that are NOT looking for Him because they have convinced themselves that they will see the Antichrist Beast first? 

This is a logical fallacy. I am sorry and mean no offense and I understand where you are coming from.

For myself---I simply don't know when He will appear---and yet I look for Him.

[OldCoot]

1 hour ago, iamlamad said:

The first seal seems to match up with being the revealing of the antichrist  Who ever said such a thing? Did JOHN think this when he wrote it?

Well, obviously I said it, and I think I can qualify as a "Who ever".  But I didn't state it in a vacuum.  Many theologians and scholars have viewed the application the same way. 

Whether John thought it was this way, I have no clue. I personally never met John and discussed it with him.  I plan on bringing it up with him sometime in the future.  But I assume he didn't, only because even the prophets of old did not understand everything about the end times that they were writing about.  Daniel himself was instructed to write that the vision would be sealed until the latter days.

But still, the analysis is not faulty.  I might not have all the details lined up right, but we can only let scripture determine what is meant by the "bow" in Revelation 6:2.   And we can only utilize tested principles of scripture hermeneutics to arrive at any conclusions.  And I outlined in my previous post how those principles of "expositional constancy" and "law of first mention" from hermeneutics would apply as to what the "bow" is and how that matches up with who the individual is in the first seal.  

The Hebrew of Genesis 9:13, qeset, (the first mention of "bow" in scripture) and the Greek of Revelation 6:2, toxon, have equivalent meanings that imply archery, arrow, casting, bendable fabric, etc.  And in Genesis 9:13, it is a covenant being confirmed by the Lord setting a "bow" in the clouds.

And based on those principles, the "bow" of the passage can reasonably be concluded as a "covenant", from the "law of first mention" which is Genesis 9.   And Daniel 9:27 makes mention of a covenant being confirmed with Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for 7 years and it would be broken at the mid point.    Therefore it is not some wild eyed fairy tale to conclude that what is going on is the false messiah / antichrist / man of sin / son of perdition is being revealed in Seal one, and he is confirming a covenant.    And given that the GT is more aptly the final 3.5 years / 42 months prior to the Lord's physical return, and that the covenant would be broken by the character who made it in Daniel 9:27 at the midpoint of the 7 years, which would be 3.5 years / 42 months prior to the end, then that supports the idea that this character in Seal one is that same antichrist / son of perdition.  

And this analysis also conforms to the Torah requirement that a matter can only be determined on the testimony of at least 2 unique witnesses, from Deuteronomy 19:15.  And the OT and NT each qualify as a witness.  This is the principle established in Acts 17:11 by the Bereans and applauded by Paul and the Holy Spirit.  Every doctrine and concept must have support in both the NT and the OT.  Something which you failed to do in your counter post.

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by OldCoot
spelling and clarification

[Alive]

Has anyone ever posited that Judas Iscariot is the anti-christ? Or the dude with the wound that came back?

[OldCoot]

24 minutes ago, Alive said:

Has anyone ever posited that Judas Iscariot is the anti-christ? Or the dude with the wound that came back?

I have seen speculations in that regard.  I never really wasted any time trying to tie those ends together.   I don't plan on being around when this character comes on the world stage.  One would have to find support in the OT also for that idea for it to be worthy of consideration.

Edited November 30, 2019 by OldCoot

[Alive]

8 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

I have seen speculations in that regard.  I never really wasted any time trying to tie those ends together.   I don't plan on being around when this character comes on the world stage.  One would have to find support in the OT also for that idea for it to be worthy of consideration.

Ya---it just popped into my mind when the 'son of perdition' was mentioned.

I have no idea.

[OldCoot]

Just now, Alive said:

Ya---it just popped into my mind when the 'son of perdition' was mentioned.

I have no idea.

Well, you could be on track.  It does seem to make sense from a logical standpoint.  

[Alive]

Just now, OldCoot said:

Well, you could be on track.  It does seem to make sense from a logical standpoint.  

There aren't many characters that have performed in such a pivotal manner.

Judas has reason to be very upset--from his perspective. Who was more directly 'anti-christ'?

Gets one to thinking.

[iamlamad]

3 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Well, obviously I said it, and I think I can qualify as a "Who ever".  But I didn't state it in a vacuum.  Many theologians and scholars have viewed the application the same way. 

Whether John thought it was this way, I have no clue. I personally never met John and discussed it with him.  I plan on bringing it up with him sometime in the future.  But I assume he didn't, only because even the prophets of old did not understand everything about the end times that they were writing about.  Daniel himself was instructed to write that the vision would be sealed until the latter days.

But still, the analysis is not faulty.  I might not have all the details lined up right, but we can only let scripture determine what is meant by the "bow" in Revelation 6:2.   And we can only utilize tested principles of scripture hermeneutics to arrive at any conclusions.  And I outlined in my previous post how those principles of "expositional constancy" and "law of first mention" from hermeneutics would apply as to what the "bow" is and how that matches up with who the individual is in the first seal.  

The Hebrew of Genesis 9:13, qeset, (the first mention of "bow" in scripture) and the Greek of Revelation 6:2, toxon, have equivalent meanings that imply archery, arrow, casting, bendable fabric, etc.  And in Genesis 9:13, it is a covenant being confirmed by the Lord setting a "bow" in the clouds.

And based on those principles, the "bow" of the passage can reasonably be concluded as a "covenant", from the "law of first mention" which is Genesis 9.   And Daniel 9:27 makes mention of a covenant being confirmed with Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for 7 years and it would be broken at the mid point.    Therefore it is not some wild eyed fairy tale to conclude that what is going on is the false messiah / antichrist / man of sin / son of perdition is being revealed in Seal one, and he is confirming a covenant.    And given that the GT is more aptly the final 3.5 years / 42 months prior to the Lord's physical return, and that the covenant would be broken by the character who made it in Daniel 9:27 at the midpoint of the 7 years, which would be 3.5 years / 42 months prior to the end, then that supports the idea that this character in Seal one is that same antichrist / son of perdition.  

And this analysis also conforms to the Torah requirement that a matter can only be determined on the testimony of at least 2 unique witnesses, from Deuteronomy 19:15.  And the OT and NT each qualify as a witness.  This is the principle established in Acts 17:11 by the Bereans and applauded by Paul and the Holy Spirit.  Every doctrine and concept must have support in both the NT and the OT.  Something which you failed to do in your counter post.

 

Please explain John's use of the Greek word "toxon" and try to explain how it is related to a rainbow! the only connection I can make is the bow as in an arch. There is absolutely no connection (except in people's minds) that this is the confirming of any covenant.

I might add, there is not even ONE WORD that would give any idea of anything evil or even deceptive here - not one word.  It seems people ad lib in their mind.

Next, if God was trying to show the man of sin as he confirms the covenant, I am convinced God would have used red for the color. Your assumption is saying God would use white 16 times to represent righteousness and then once for something evil. I don't buy it. 

Suppose for a moment you are right: now your theory has created more problems. AT the 4th seal, John, with the Holy Spirit behind him, has tied seals 2-4 together and left the leader out!  Worse yet, now you have the Antichrist limited to one fourth of the earth, when other scriptures show he is given authority over the entire world. 

But, it is OK. You can disagree. When the time comes, we will see.

[missmuffet]

6 hours ago, iamlamad said:

I can only tell you what a man said that went to heaven, but got prayed back to his body. he was walking along the river of life, when three of his previous dogs came running up to him and said: "where are your wife and kids?"  He said, don't ask me HOW they asked me this, for I don't know. I answered them, and I don't know how I answered them:  "don't worry, they will be along soon." 

Others tell of seeing many animals in heaven. My perspective is, we serve an AWESOME God. He knows how much people love their pets.  And He has promised to do above and beyond what we think. 

I don't believe in out of body experiences. Everyone has a choice to belief as they want to believe. Life if full of choices. 

[OldCoot]

5 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Please explain John's use of the Greek word "toxon" and try to explain how it is related to a rainbow!

I did go into it. You must have skimmed thru the post and missed it, though I can't see how.   I outlined the hermeneutic principles pretty well.

 

5 hours ago, iamlamad said:

I might add, there is not even ONE WORD that would give any idea of anything evil or even deceptive here

Of course!   Even Satan can transform himself to an angel of light!   This character coming on the scene is the anti-christ.... or more appropriately from the Greek.... pseudo christ, which mean in place of Christ, substitute for Christ, etc.... which means he will present himself as a peace loving, let's all get along and sing Kumbaya sort of guy which promises to deliver peace and safety.  Maybe even the savior of the environment stuff.  

You know....... 1 Thessalonians 5:3...

1 Thessalonians 5:3 (NKJV) For when they say, "Peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.  

Once this guy sucks up all power via peaceful means, confirming some sort of covenant with Israel that likely is something that guarantees their safety in some way, then the hammer will fall.  Once he has consolidated his power, In his arrogance and blasphemy he will violate that covenant as per Daniel 9:27.

5 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Next, if God was trying to show the man of sin as he confirms the covenant, I am convinced God would have used red for the color

Probably why you were not consulted when the Father gave the Revelation to Yeshua, who then gave it to the angel, who then gave it to John.  When the Messiah physically returns to earth, the scripture says He will be riding a white horse..... Revelation 19:11.   If Satan is going to have his proxy ride in and present himself as the Messiah, then in keeping with scripture, that character would come riding on a white horse also.   It is unlikely that he will actually be riding a real white horse, but the Lord is emphasizing via the first seal description that this pseudo Messiah will impersonate the Messiah in just about every way to draw many unto him.   Do you not remember  2 Thessalonians 2:4.....

2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NKJV) who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Edited December 1, 2019 by OldCoot