Futurism

[Your closest friendnt]

9 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Isaiah 30: 26 

 ²⁶ The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the Lord binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.

      *********

Isaias live more than 2.500 years ago.

And "you" are suggesting that the events in Isaiah's message to the people are literal events. 

And you claim that what Isaias described it cannot take place unless first happens what you have described  as " a massive explosion on the sun's surface".

And Isaias did not have the knowledge to know about the ever occurring surface Sun explosions and this the reason that he could not include that in his message.

But your having the Knowledge you can complement the message and tell how it will happen.  

And you call it "The great and terrible day of the Lord's vengeance and wrath".

And you have title that even

"As soon to come".  

I am tempted to believe what you suggest, it sounds scientific after all this is quite possible on a thought. 

Whether " a thought or not it could happen that the earth and the people there in will be destroyed that way, and Hell with it, if that causes the earth to blow up.

And you got all this from Isaias 30:26

  26 The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days,

AND IT FOLLOWS

To show what it will be the result which is as follows,

30: 26 second part of the same verse.

"when the Lord binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted". 

This is the result of what is described in the first part of verse 26.

" the moon will shine like the Sun and the Sun will shine seven times brighter "

That event will have a healing effect on the wounded people. 

This event is going to bring healing to people. 

It is going to be a blessing from the Lord to people. 

The great day of the Lord's vengeance and wrath includes the healing of their wounds. 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Your closest friendnt

[Justin Adams]

On 4/15/2021 at 11:11 AM, SONshine said:

a thief in the night

Only to the uninformed that are not watching.. and expectant.

Added: that is not to say that none of us is immune to falling asleep, or not being watchful.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Justin Adams]

@Josheb Kindly  continue: (the following is by Josh)

Many have read my posts where I have outlined the relevant points of history and their significance and relevance to modern Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. Some of them are rolling their eyes and thinking, "Ugh! There goes Josh again..."

Some basic descriptions and commentary on these event can be found on YouTube in surveys by folks like Ryan Reeves (about 20 of those 39 videos cover the 17-1800s). That will provide the basics of Church history. However, changes in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice are often effected by geo-political and socio-economic circumstances, not solely things we might learn in church. Furthermore, the distinctions between the prominent figures won't adequately be known unless what those folks actually said/wrote/taught is known. Just because Reeves or Sproul or Walvoord say "Wesley taught X," doesn't mean that's what Wesley actually taught. We live in an age when these records can be found near-instantly with a few mouse clicks. The only excuse for not knowing is a lack of time to put into the endeavor. I don't begrudge anyone who lacks such interest but it's simply bad form to post things that are not factually true.  The writings of John Wesley, for example, can be with a simple Google search that will turn up places like THIS and THIS. If someone has listened to, for example, Reeves exposition on Lutheran pietism and then read of Wesley's struggles with holiness the evolution is easily observed. There's a direct line from those roots straight through to Azusa and Pentecostalism. And if someone wants to truly expand their understanding then it will be noted these were not merely internal happenings, the 19th century Church was dealing with the conditions brought about by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, Napoleon, Darwin, and several others. That one paragraph in this op did not occur in a vacuum. And we do not normally get that kind of information sitting in a pew on Sunday Morning. 

None of the history is necessary for salvation and fruit-bearing life in Christ.

My concern in this op is that an incorrect view of the Church, and this current moment in what we call history, be taught unawares. I can't make folks consider other points of view but I can post about them and let the readers decide. The truth is I get sharpened when folks have those conversations. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Alive]

13 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

Listen to the series, "The Last Days According to Jesus" by  R. C. Sproul. His is a non-judgmental review of the relevant scriptures. 

 

I agree that this series is well worth listening to, RC was/is a beautiful soul and very honest in his presentation. There is much to learn from his elucidation of the various POV and how they affect contemporary POV...regarding eschatological thinking.

Similarly, I agree that Schaefer is an excellent read as he does a bang up job of framing the how and why christendom thinks the way it does and how it has morphed or to put it better 'reacted' to mundane events and secular thought--rather than being proactive and informed and driven by the truth of scripture alone. That is a mouthful--but in short, we do not understand the things that have formed our points of view and what results from it. Schaefer helps us to have the tools to deal with modern thought and the unsaved and the 'philosophies' that have them captivated.

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 hours ago, Alive said:

I agree that this series is well worth listening to, RC was/is a beautiful soul and very honest in his presentation. There is much to learn from his elucidation of the various POV and how they affect contemporary POV...regarding eschatological thinking.

As a Member of the Pentecostal Associations/now Independent and enjoy listening to several good Bible grounded Preachers, from all Denominations, I've discovered many Gems I once would not be looking for.   RC is Pentecostal if you ask me even though his Ordination claims Baptist!   The man ha[d] [and continues to do so from God's Message he shared] it going on! 

Edited April 15, 2021 by kingdombrat

[David1701]

20 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

So that is what you base the whole book of Revelation on?  You don't think it strange for John to mention 'what day' OF THE WEEK this took place?  Would it have been different if he was in the Spirit the next day?  or the day after?  I don't see the relevance myself.   

Doesn't the rest of the book make 'the Lords Day' more likely being it is about the revealing of the Lord rather than a day of the week?  

For me it is hard to understand where you are coming from, naming the day of the week for no reason what so ever.  

The apostle John was in wonderful fellowship with the Lord, on the Lord's day (the day on which the Lord's resurrection is remembered), when he was given a glorious revelation of the risen Lord.

I don't see how any Christian could find that hard to understand!  What could be more appropriate?

Edited April 15, 2021 by David1701
typo

[Marathoner]

I don't like relying upon the words of others but this hoopla regarding the Lord's day and the day of the Lord is more than just a little absurd... it's factious, fruitless, and only serves to stir up strife as this topic demonstrates. Here's a brief blurb from "gotquestions" concerning the Lord's day.

Question: "What is the Lord’s day?"

Answer: The Lord’s day (as distinguished from the day of the Lord) is Sunday. The term Lord’s day is used only once in Scripture. Revelation 1:10 says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.” Since the apostle John does not elaborate on the meaning of “Lord’s day,” we can assume that his target audience, first-century Christians, were already familiar with the expression. 

Sunday, the first day of the week, was considered to be the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead. This was common knowledge among first-century Christians. The day of the Lord, on the other hand, describes when Jesus Christ will return. Simple. The strife is confusing, hurtful, and has no place among brethren let alone on this forum. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Marathoner

[Your closest friendnt]

3 hours ago, Marathoner said:

 

The day of the Lord, on the other hand,

describes when Jesus Christ will return.

 

 

^{John 8:56} Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 

[David1701]

19 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

 

^{John 8:56} Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 

That is a different usage of "day".  In this context, it means "period of time", not a literal day.  It's like saying, "In my father's day, they didn't have personal computers.".

Edited April 16, 2021 by David1701
illustration added

[Your closest friendnt]

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

That is a different usage of "day".  In this context, it means "period of time", not a literal day.  It's like saying, "In my father's day, they didn't have personal computers.".

This is the day that the Lord has made, we will be rejoice and be glad in it.

This must be the day Abraham had seen and he was waiting for it to come, this is the day that never ends, the glorious day of Jesus Christ, everything about him, and his Kingdom Authority to end Abraham's patriarchy and including unto himself, unto Jesus Christ and in his Heavenly Inheritance.