The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)

[iamlamad]

Just now, Josheb said:

Fail. 

I do not base either my eschatology nor my view of the world on my feelings. I purpose to measure these things by well-rendered scripture, and most definitely not the other way around. The condition in which scripture is treated with unabashed eisegetic interpretation is to be avoided. Similarly, holding beliefs for which I cannot find scriptural support is to be avoided. Holding beliefs for which I cannot answer the most basic of sincere inquiries is to be avoided. 

Jesus fully expected those in His day to read the signs. Why should it be any different today? This sign tells us that the rapture will come when people are saying peace and safety. Why would someone be saying that? Because they is what they are thinking. 

Since this is the ONLY sign Paul gave us for his rapture, your choice is to believe it or ignore it. 

[iamlamad]

11 hours ago, Don19 said:

I have to go back on my earlier endorsement of partial-preterism in relation to Revelation. In comparing to Daniel, I don't think that position is tenable. The whore is Roman Catholicism. The pope is the antichrist (even the name "vicar of Christ" means antichrist as "anti" in Greek also means "in place of" - which is what "vicar" means). Daniel prophesied that it would prevail against the saints and the saints would be given unto his hand for a time, and times, and the dividing of time. That = 42 months = 1260 days (or years), which is about as long as popery reigned with impunity (Rev 12:6, 12:14, 13:5) - also called the "Dark Ages." Some say it ended in 1798. But, however the exact dates would be reckoned, as Paul said in 2 Thess 2:8, the Lord will consume the man of sin (the pope) with the spirit of His mouth, which is the gospel. And the gospel has done that to the papacy. The pope only remains to be destroyed by Jesus when He returns.

Revelation 18 and 19 also mention the marriage supper of the Lamb, which rather puts it beyond 70 AD.

As for the Church of Greenville, whose website it is that I posted, I have benefited quite a lot from them. Actually, it was by reading their sermon "the Gospel Millennium" that persuaded me that premillennialism is false: https://letgodbetrue.com/sermons/index/year-2006/gospel-millennium/ (Though, as to the wording of the thesis: John the Baptist didn't establish Christ's kingdom - see Mat 11:11.) Nevertheless, I don't agree with them on everything.

The whore is Roman Catholicism.   Why not, instead of using human imagination, we just believe John? He TOLD US who this woman was or will be: "that great city." Did John tell us WHAT great city? Yes, He said the "great city" was the very city where Jesus was crucified. It takes no imagination, no effort: we just believe what John wrote. 

WHY would God call the city of Jerusalem as "Mystery Babylon?" God's plan A was that Israel and Jerusalem POINT PEOPLE TO God. But in the last half of the week, two men, the Antichrist Beast and the False Prophet, will deceive the ENTIRE WORLD from the city of Jerusalem. The Catholic church at its worst has never come close to deceiving the entire world.  No false religion has. 

Is Jesus going to descend down to Vatican city? Absolutely NOT! He will descend down to Jerusalem. With this in mind, with the man of sin move to Vatican city and enter the Vatican and from there tell the world He is GOD? Absolutely NOT! He will move to Jerusalem with Gentile armies who will trample the city for 42 months. And shortly after will enter the TEMPLE in Jerusalem and Declare he is God. Why there? Because the devil knows Jesus will enter through the Eastern Gate and so enter the temple. the Beast will come AS IF He is Christ. 

That = 42 months = 1260 days (or years),   Sorry, but Daniel and Revelation together has proven beyond any doubt that the 1260 is DAYS, which align with 42 months (30 days months) which align with half of 7 years. We have 7 different verses proving this. 

7 times 360  =  2520 days. 2520 days divided by 30 = 42 months.  2520 days divided by two (the abomination) equals 1260 days for each half of the week. John gives us the last half of the week 5 different times and in three different ways to be sure we get it. 

In short, the pope is not the man of sin and will never turn into the man of sin or into the Beast of Rev. 13. Neither will be be the False Prophet. 

[iamlamad]

Just now, Josheb said:

Because if the signs were existent in Jesus day and they existed for the first century audience and they pertained to first century conditions and events pending in the first century then they have long come and gone and while principles found in those examples might still be relevant today for us to apply to godly living, the conditions and events themselves do not. 

Because if those conditions were not first century then Jesus (and the NT writers) taught falsely and that conflicts with the premise of Christ's impeccability and perfect teaching. What you are saying is Jesus taught an expectation that never came manifest  and had no bearing on his immediate audience. That's a huge problem scripturally, theologically, and rationally. 

And when Christians today teach an expectation that never comes true they too are abusing the body of Christ with false teaching. I keep reminding the readers of the history of Premillennialism: it has a 100% fail rate when it comes to false predictions.... and no other eschatology has that problem. The theology doesn't just create false teachings of false predictions, it repeatedly generates the false teachers who falsely teach false predictions. And it does so without any in-house accountability. Huge problem. 

Never? I guess you forgot:

2 Peter:

³ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

⁴ And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

⁵ For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

⁶ Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

⁷ But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This denial has been ongoing since the days of Peter: some expectant of His coming, and some denying it. And it will continue on until He DOES come - which He will. You can deny it as often as you wish, but you will certainly not STOP His coming. 

When Jesus mentioned "watch" umpteen times in the scriptures, what are we to be watching FOR? Of course, His coming. Don't forget, He is coming for those who are in Christ and looking for Him. 

If I was in the camp of those who deny His soon coming, I would RUN for my life! 

[iamlamad]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Nope. Did not forget. I did not forget we were discussing precursors to the rapture. I did not forget you didn't have an answer beside claims of peace. I did not forget you claimed the sign on the UN building was the fulfillment of prophesy. I did not forget the appeal to 1 Thes. 4 or the fact there is nothing in that narrative indicating it is about conditions in the 21st century, nor have I forgotten the text specifies a first century audience. No, I did not forget.

But it appears you have.

I did not claim that what is written on the UN building is the fulfillment of prophecy. I only said I hear that peace and safety are written there. I have not been able to verify it.  It COULD be fulfilled prophecy. 

If you wish to imagine that Paul's rapture event took place way back then, go for it! I only hope that works out well for you. I don't think it will, but one can hope. 

[iamlamad]

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

The posts say otherwise. 

Here is my original statement:
"As I understand it, it is written on the UN building! Most people around the world today "think" they are safe and at peace. "

[iamlamad]

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yes, and that was the direct response to the a specific inquiry explicitly about precursors to the rapture. That response did not occur in a vacuum. I have no problem with any posted amending, clarifying or outright changing his views as a conversation unfolds but to pretend what was posted or otherwise deny that content is unacceptable. 

The way this actually unfolded begins with my asking, "What does have to happen before Jesus comes to rapture the church?" and your response, "Ha ha! How funny! NOTHING! NOTHING has to happen. that is why we call the rapture imminent!"

Josh: So no signs foreboding or otherwise indicating the rapture is soon pending?  
iamlamad: The only scriptural thing I can find is that it will be when people are saying "peace and safety."   

Josh: And where in the Bible would I find a specific reference to the 21st century UN building?  
iamlamad:  There is no need. Do YOU feel you live in peace and safety? My point is, in he middle of the days of GT NO ONE is going to be thinking "peace and safety."

Josh: There is a need. We do not measure the veracity of doctrine by personal anecdotal experience. We measure such things - including that of eschatology -  by scripture.  What this post implies is there is no such scripture.   
iamlamad: We only need one: it is God's word: 1 Thessalonians 5:3... Notice the THEN. God leaves it up to US to determine when people are saying peace and safety.

 

So the evidence clearly indicates you were asserting the UN building sign as evidence fulfilling 1 Thessalonians 5:3. And now the record shows this: "I did not claim that what is written on the UN building is the fulfillment of prophecy. I only said I hear that peace and safety are written there. I have not been able to verify it.  It COULD be fulfilled prophecy."

My response to claiming 1 Thes. 5 is applicable was

Josh: Which says absolutely nothing about the UN or the 21st century. This is an abuse of God's word and a betrayal of the standard you set for this discussion. The passage clearly states Paul is speaking to the first century Christians in Thessalonica about conditions they would experience. The "you" in that text is the first century Christian, not the 21st century Christian.  
iamlamad: You just have to ask yourself: do YOU feel it is a time of peace and safety?..............  

 

That is how this unfolded.

We are really accomplishing nothing. You seem to have your mind made up. All I can add is this: when Jesus comes, I hope you are ready. 

[iamlamad]

44 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Ad hominem noted. 

What I have done is exactly what I and every other readers is supposed to do: 1) base positions on scripture, and 2) follow a poster's argument as stated. Now that the evidence is in you're saying nothing has been accomplished and I'm being accused of having my mind made up. 

Something has been accomplished: the flaws in your case have been revealed! There is little reliance on scripture as written as was earlier agreed upon. There is self-contradictory content between the posts themselves. There is no scriptura basis for the position asserted about the UN, and the actual content of scripture citing the first century audience was ignored - even after the facts of that passage were brought to your attention!

As to my mind being made up, I did invite you to clarify, amend, or change your position so it would make more sense. I was willing. 

 

I hope you repent when the predictions you've made don't come true, and I hope you do it just as publicly as you taught.

Are you ready to change to pretrib? If not, then as I said, your mind is made up.

the flaws in your case have been revealed!   There are no flaws to pretrib, for God is pretrib: only your preconceived theories of flaws. Here are the facts according to scripture: You may believe you showed flaws, but in reality, not. There are none. 

Christ is coming again. 1 Thes. 4 shows a coming FOR His saints. All we know is it will be at a time when people are saying peace and safety. In my mind that would a  day just like today. 

Next, according to Rev. 19 and other scriptures, Christ is coming WITH His saints. I count TWO MORE comings. 

You can choose to believe these things or ignore them: it is up to you. 

I might remind you again: even in Peters time, people must have been saying that "there would be no coming - every day is exactly like the day before and nothing is going to change." Peter corrected that line of thinking. 

Further along that line, many have said we already IN the Day of the Lord. That is what some said in Paul's day, and he had to correct them. 

Now, if you can find a scripture that would prove something must happen before Christ can come FOR His saints, you might have an argument. the thing is, people have been trying for that such a verse for years, and have been unsuccessful. 

There is little reliance on scripture   Do you doubt 1 thes. 4 and 5? Do you doubt 2 thes. 2? Do you doubt 1 Cor. 15?  Do you doubt that John saw a crowd too large to count, already in heaven in chapter 7? I already know you doubt that the events in Revelation 8 through 16 are future. All I can say is, I wonder  what you will say when you SEE them happen in your future? 

There is self-contradictory content between the posts themselves.  And none in yours? What about:

Yep. It's quite clear there is a lack of understanding. 

Josh: Can Christ come tomorrow? 
iamlamad: Yes. 

Josh: Must the temple first be built? 
iamlamad: Yes, the temple must be built first, it must be built before Christ comes. 

Josh: It will take at least a couple of years to build the temple.
iamlamad: That is true. It won't be built overnight. 

Josh: Then Jesus cannot come tomorrow.
iamlamad: ????? 

Josh: If the temple must first be built before Jesus comes and it will take months or years to build and not be built overnight then Jesus will not and cannot come tomorrow because his coming is predicated upon the temple being built! 

At best that was you showing very thick preconceived glasses.  That was you who THOUGHT you knew, when in fact, you did not.  You should have apologized, but you did not. After all, you are always right. 

ME predict? I have only said what scripture says: That is quoting, not predicting. 

Perhaps you need to read 1 thes. 4 over again. He is coming, and it is going to be soon. No repentance needed when someone quotes scripture. 

In the end, all you have done is show that you are a partial preterist. I don't buy that theory, plain and simple. 

If you don't THINK He is coming soon, just hold onto your hat: it won't be long.  (I guess I AM predicting!) 

Maybe I need to go over this again, to be sure you have it:

One day soon a SUDDENLY is coming!
Suddenly the dead in Christ will fly up out of their graves. This resurrection will cause a worldwide earthquake: Paul's "sudden Destruction."

Next, a fraction of a second later, those what are alive and in Christ will be caught up with them - to EVER be with the Lord. This is the churches' blessed hope. But not yours! You will to steal this from the church. 

[Don19]

6 hours ago, iamlamad said:

The whore is Roman Catholicism.   Why not, instead of using human imagination, we just believe John? He TOLD US who this woman was or will be: "that great city." Did John tell us WHAT great city? Yes, He said the "great city" was the very city where Jesus was crucified. It takes no imagination, no effort: we just believe what John wrote. 

WHY would God call the city of Jerusalem as "Mystery Babylon?" God's plan A was that Israel and Jerusalem POINT PEOPLE TO God. But in the last half of the week, two men, the Antichrist Beast and the False Prophet, will deceive the ENTIRE WORLD from the city of Jerusalem. The Catholic church at its worst has never come close to deceiving the entire world.  No false religion has. 

Is Jesus going to descend down to Vatican city? Absolutely NOT! He will descend down to Jerusalem. With this in mind, with the man of sin move to Vatican city and enter the Vatican and from there tell the world He is GOD? Absolutely NOT! He will move to Jerusalem with Gentile armies who will trample the city for 42 months. And shortly after will enter the TEMPLE in Jerusalem and Declare he is God. Why there? Because the devil knows Jesus will enter through the Eastern Gate and so enter the temple. the Beast will come AS IF He is Christ. 

That = 42 months = 1260 days (or years),   Sorry, but Daniel and Revelation together has proven beyond any doubt that the 1260 is DAYS, which align with 42 months (30 days months) which align with half of 7 years. We have 7 different verses proving this. 

7 times 360  =  2520 days. 2520 days divided by 30 = 42 months.  2520 days divided by two (the abomination) equals 1260 days for each half of the week. John gives us the last half of the week 5 different times and in three different ways to be sure we get it. 

In short, the pope is not the man of sin and will never turn into the man of sin or into the Beast of Rev. 13. Neither will be be the False Prophet. 

The problem with futurism (specifically, rapture followed by a 7 year trib in which most of Revelation is fulfilled more or less quite literally) as it pertains to the gospel is such an interpretation leaves us with a future age of another gospel. Indeed, I believe many pre-tribbers say the rapture is the end of grace, the end of the church age, and the tribulation entails a works-salvation scheme. At least they're being honest about it! But that's not the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you could lose your salvation for accepting a microchip or something else that's supposed to be the mark of the beast, then salvation is no longer of promise but of law (Gal 3:18), and Jesus would not keep every last one of His sheep, as He promised (John 4:13-14, 6:37-39, 10:27-29, 17:2). How, then, are "tribulation saints," as pre-tribbers see them, persecuted and killed for the witness of Jesus Christ, if the promises are not for them?! Christians are children of promise, as Isaac. These trib saints would be martyrs for "another gospel," because their salvation would depend on their own efforts to avoid taking the mark. It doesn't matter what law is - law is law, and righteousness does not come by law (Gal 3:21). There was only one thing God told Adam not to do - and if it were possible to lose salvation by not obeying commandments, then we would surely die, just as Adam.

Therefore, whatever the mark of the beast is exactly, it's probably best to understand it spiritually. Paul says the followers of the man of sin have not received the love of the truth (2 Thess 2:1-12). They're damned precisely because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. That's quite clear and makes perfect sense. Salvation is connected to receiving the love of the truth, believing the gospel or word of truth (Jas 1:18, Eph 1:13), which is in perfect harmony with the rest of the New Testament. Therefore, I would suggest that we should understand the mark of the beast by first understanding the clearer parts of Scripture that can help with our interpretation of this rather enigmatic prophecy. It's better to use Scripture which is easier to understand to interpret Scripture is which difficult to understand and not vice versa.

And indeed, Roman Catholicism is a works-based salvation scheme. It's a system in which salvation can be lost or forfeited, contrary to the promises of the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, since the two are mutually exclusive, I must conclude that belief in Roman Catholicism precludes belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ. You cannot serve two masters - therefore, if the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed. So, as I understand it, the mark of the beast is believing Roman Catholicism: which the people of God can still be saved out of (Rev 15:2, 18:4), if they receive the love of the truth and believe on Jesus Christ.

Also, the Bible sometimes speak of the "world" is a more limited sense... good example:

Luke 2:1: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”

6 hours ago, Josheb said:

Clarify that for me, Don19, because endorsing partial preterism would preclude any association of the whore with RCism. If partial-preterism were applied to the whore that whore would have to be someone existing in the first century and there was no institution known as the Roman Catholic Church back then.

 

The harlot of Revelation 17 is said to wear purple and scarlet. Those are the colors of the vestments of the Jewish priests (Ex. 28) . That is how readers in the first century would have understood the text. Christian clerics did not wear vestments in the first century. Furthermore, this harlot is said to be drunk on the blood of the saints. Who in the first century qualifies? Jerusalem and Rome? Which is the most likely candidate if we apply scripture rendering scripture and not secular history rendering scripture? I think Matthew 23:29-36 answers that question and does so quite explicitly and quite poignantly. The whore is also said to been the killer of the witnesses of Jesus. Now that word "witness" could be generalized to say and person who espouses Jesus as Lord and Savior but because some distinction is being made between "saints" and "witnesses" and, again, the "witnesses" the Bible identifies as the witnesses are the eleven apostles ( verses like 1 Ths. 2:10 and Heb. 12:10 are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule) the decision between Imperial Rome versus Judaism is weighted decisively to Judaism. Remember there are over 340 references to the Old Testament in Revelation. 

The point is this: the word "endorsement" doesn't make sense if the whore is believed to be Roman Catholicism because that would not be consistent with a partial-preterism view of scripture.. So can you clarify that seeming contradiction for me? thx

Sorry, but I just don't believe you on this. Roman Catholicism is and has been the greatest enemy of the gospel. Why wouldn't Revelation deal with it? The time statements you rely on clearly aren't as rigid as you make them out to be, as the examples I posted show (and there were more - I only included a few). And, that being the case, (partial) preterism's whole argument collapses. Much of prophecy was written for future generations, not just the immediate audience.

The "mystery of iniquity" was already present in Paul's day, as he writes in 2 Thess 2. He said grievous wolves would enter in after his departure (Acts 20:29). These were the so-called early church fathers (see Mat 23:9 - call no man your father), who laid the groundwork of apostate doctrine that became the Roman Catholic Church:

See here: https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=1132

"There is no Christian salvation taught in Justin; his doctrine is purely Greek philosophy. There is no atonement, no imputation, no election, no assurance, and no justification by faith alone. The only salvation taught here is that which comes by our own merit, free-will, works, eating Jesus, and water regeneration. Justin defends sacrament as sacred physical mystery in the likeness of pagan religions."

Also, in addition to the title "vicar of Christ" meaning antichrist, "Vatican" refers to prophecy. "Vatic" mean prophetic - the root word means prophet. Is the Vatican not then the false prophet? Who's the false prophet in the preterist view?

It seems to me these prophecies were literally fulfilled centuries later even down to the very nomenclature!

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Don19

[Don19]

16 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I completely agree, and it isn't merely another gospel, its logically necessary result as evidenced by the dissenting posts is a different Christianity. 

Nevertheless, I think we ought not judge on the basis of logical implications of a particular theology. Any incorrect theology will logically undermine the gospel, but it doesn't make the propounders thereof unregenerate. The gospel is really simple (2 Cor 11:3).

 

16 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the harlot of Revelation 17. 

Because Revelation was written before the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) existed. Even if Revelation was written in 95AD there wasn't any RCC. Remember that one of the most basic and core principles in exegesis is to first understand the text as the original author intended and how the original readers would have understood it. No one in the first century would have understood the harlot as a reference to a religious institution that did not then exist, especially not the Roman Catholic Church. Whether the RCC is another subsequently occurring harlot or not is immaterial. 

By what authority is that is that the most basic and core principles in exegesis? Did the prophets know that their prophecies testify of Christ? I believe the answer is no. No one understood the prophecies until they were fulfilled. Paul says none of the princes of the world knew, or they wouldn't have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8). Nevertheless, we can see it clearly now because Christ came and illuminated those prophecies.

 

16 minutes ago, Josheb said:

And you still haven't reconciled the problem of endorsing partial-preterism while identifying the whore as the RCC. The RCC may well be a whore but that has nothing to do with partial-preterism. Is that understood? Partial-preterism would restrict any identification of the whore/harlot to conditions, institutions, or personages living in the first century during the NT era. The RCC does not meet that metric. The RCC cannot be a preterist pov, even if it is a whore.

 

I'm not interested in whether a particular view can be categorized as preterist or not. I'm only interested in the truth of the Bible. I do accept that the Olivet Discourse, for example, was fulfilled in 70 AD. You might call that "partial-preterism." In any event, it has no bearing on what Revelation refers to.

[iamlamad]

35 minutes ago, Don19 said:

The problem with futurism (specifically, rapture followed by a 7 year trib in which most of Revelation is fulfilled more or less quite literally) as it pertains to the gospel is such an interpretation leaves us with a future age of another gospel. Indeed, I believe many pre-tribbers say the rapture is the end of grace, the end of the church age, and the tribulation entails a works-salvation scheme. At least they're being honest about it! But that's not the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you could lose your salvation for accepting a microchip or something else that's supposed to be the mark of the beast, then salvation is no longer of promise but of law (Gal 3:18), and Jesus would not keep every last one of His sheep, as He promised (John 4:13-14, 6:37-39, 10:27-29, 17:2). How, then, are "tribulation saints," as pre-tribbers see them, persecuted and killed for the witness of Jesus Christ, if the promises are not for them?! Christians are children of promise, as Isaac. These trib saints would be martyrs for "another gospel," because their salvation would depend on their own efforts to avoid taking the mark. It doesn't matter what law is - law is law, and righteousness does not come by law (Gal 3:21). There was only one thing God told Adam not to do - and if it were possible to lose salvation by not obeying commandments, then we would surely die, just as Adam.

Therefore, whatever the mark of the beast is exactly, it's probably best to understand it spiritually. Paul says the followers of the man of sin have not received the love of the truth (2 Thess 2:1-12). They're damned precisely because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. That's quite clear and makes perfect sense. Salvation is connected to receiving the love of the truth, believing the gospel or word of truth (Jas 1:18, Eph 1:13), which is in perfect harmony with the rest of the New Testament. Therefore, I would suggest that we should understand the mark of the beast by first understanding the clearer parts of Scripture that can help with our interpretation of this rather enigmatic prophecy. It's better to use Scripture which is easier to understand to interpret Scripture is which difficult to understand and not vice versa.

And indeed, Roman Catholicism is a works-based salvation scheme. It's a system in which salvation can be lost or forfeited, contrary to the promises of the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, since the two are mutually exclusive, I must conclude that belief in Roman Catholicism precludes belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ. You cannot serve two masters - therefore, if the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed. So, as I understand it, the mark of the beast is believing Roman Catholicism: which the people of God can still be saved out of (Rev 15:2, 18:4), if they receive the love of the truth and believe on Jesus Christ.

Also, the Bible sometimes speak of the "world" is a more limited sense... good example:

Luke 2:1: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”

Sorry, but I just don't believe you on this. Roman Catholicism is and has been the greatest enemy of the gospel. Why wouldn't Revelation deal with it? The time statements you rely on clearly aren't as rigid as you make them out to be, as the examples I posted show (and there were more - I only included a few). And, that being the case, (partial) preterism's whole argument collapses. Much of prophecy was written for future generations, not just the immediate audience.

The "mystery of iniquity" was already present in Paul's day, as he writes in 2 Thess 2. He said grievous wolves would enter in after his departure (Acts 20:29). These were the so-called early church fathers (see Mat 23:9 - call no man your father), who laid the groundwork of apostate doctrine that became the Roman Catholic Church:

See here: https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=1132

"There is no Christian salvation taught in Justin; his doctrine is purely Greek philosophy. There is no atonement, no imputation, no election, no assurance, and no justification by faith alone. The only salvation taught here is that which comes by our own merit, free-will, works, eating Jesus, and water regeneration. Justin defends sacrament as sacred physical mystery in the likeness of pagan religions."

Also, in addition to the title "vicar of Christ" meaning antichrist, "Vatican" refers to prophecy. "Vatic" mean prophetic - the root word means prophet. Is the Vatican not then the false prophet? Who's the false prophet in the preterist view?

It seems to me these prophecies were literally fulfilled centuries later even down to the very nomenclature!

 

Houston, we have a problem! What is wrong with a future age if it is in the bible? It is the way I see Revelation working out. The church age ends, "time" reverts back to what it was just before Jesus gave up on Israel and sent Paul to the Gentiles. After all the entire 70th weeks was for Daniel's people. At the rapture the fullness of the Gentiles will have come in, the blindness on the Jews will be lifted, and God will once again focus on Israel. 

Did you notice the "eternal gospel" as given in chapter 14 is "worship God and give glory to Him?" NOTHING about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ! Do you find that fascinating?  Was salvation before Christ a salvation of works? I think it was faith plus works, but certain was salvation by faith. 

In fact, the eternal gospel has changed: Jesus taught the "gospel of the kingdom," in short, there is a spiritual kingdom you can join right now: just believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Then Paul brought his gospel: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation. Then it seems it changes again after the rapture. Therefore I don't see a problem. It is scripture.

that's not the gospel of Jesus Christ  Which one? ALL of them came from Jesus. During the 70th week is just one more phase of the eternal gospel. I submit it too will be a gospel of faith: faith that God is bringing judgment on the world and if people trust Him and give glory to Him, it will turn out OK in the end. I guess it would be faith that one would be overcome: that is scripture too. I submit, if it is written in Revelation it is Christ's gospel! We really should not put God in a box and tell Him what He should not be doing!

salvation is no longer of promise but of law Wasn't the first 69 weeks of the 70 weeks under the law? Why be surprised then if the 70th week is also under the law?

These trib saints would be martyrs for "another gospel," because their salvation would depend on their own efforts to avoid taking the mark. What is "the law" during the 70th week? "Worship God, and give glory to Him." That's it! People that worship God and give glory to Him during the week  - EVEN IF THEY DIE - will be saved. Another part of that law of the 70th week would be that saints WILL BE overcome.  Perhaps that is better than living longer in His wrath.

How, then, are "tribulation saints," as pre-tribbers see them, persecuted and killed for the witness of Jesus Christ, if the promises are not for them?  Why are trib saints - trib saints? It is for ONE reason: they did not get born again when they had a chance!  God wants ALL believers to be ready for the rapture. But you and I know that all WON'T be ready.  Therefore, they are "trib" saints ONLY because they were not ready when Jesus came. There IS a promise for Trib saints: They will be overcome. Plain and simple. God will have done all he could do to get these born again. But millions won't, and will be left behind. 

I have to go.