Jesus comes immediately AFTER the tribulation, there is no Left Behind Secret Rapture=Stop causing fear.

[Montana Marv]

5 hours ago, Josheb said:

Matthew 24 plainly states Jesus comes after the tribulation. There should be no dispute among us on that point, either. 

 

 

So...... either provide me with a statement in scripture that states a third temple will be built or acknowledge no such statement exists and that belief in a third temple is only arrived at through inference. One or the other. I'll ignored anything and everything else from you, Marv, until I read some evidence of consistency and authenticity with God's word. You and I don't have to agree with each other but we MUST agree with the plain statements (or lack thereof) and the facts of God's word. I am not asking for something difficulty. Either provide me with the stated statement or acknowledge none exists. 

And, Marv, many reading this exchange are looking at you. I have had this conversation with many futurists in this forum. They've all been around and around with me on this and every single one of them have bowed to the facts of scripture. One or two did it without multiple exchanges because they were knowledgeable enough and honest enough to concede to the fact there is no such statement in scripture! It is always and only a function of inference. 

So don't make this complicated. Either provide the statement or agree no such statement exists. 

First of all Preterist deny: Ezk 39:25-29 - Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says; I will now bring Jacob back from captivity and will have compassion on all the people of Israel,  and I will be zealous for my holy name.  They will forget their shame and all unfaithfulness they have showed me when they lived in safety in their land with no one to make them afraid.  When I have brought them back from the nations and have gathered them fro the countries of their enemies, I will show myself holy through them in the sight of many nations.  Then they know that I am the Lord their God. for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind.  I will no longer hide my face from them. for I will pour out my Spirit on the House of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord.

Preterists also deny a Third Temple.  Yet Muslim Turks (Ottoman Empire) believed in The Second Coming.  they walled up the East Gate in 1530 AD and put a cemetery in front of it to keep/hinder Christ from coming through it and ruling the nations from it.  They want to hinder the Glorified Christ from returning though this gate and then filling the Temple with His Glory.

Muslims are aware this prophecy, yet Preterist deny it.  Not history, Prophecy

I have had this same conversation with Preterists in the past, and they have yet to prove a point.  It they can't agree to Scripture they will change to a spiritual interpretation of the scripture, when none is needed.  I have heard of many false interpretations of what the Scripture may mean or could mean.  If it does not fit their narrative, they change the narrative.

Israel is still shameful, and still unfaithful,  Before the advent of Christ, during His advent, and this attitude continues to this day.  So Yes Preterism is a false doctrine, get over it.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Diaste]

23 hours ago, OneLight said:

To me, it's rather simple.  Jesus set certain conditions that had to be met in order to say this was the time period He was speaking of.  The question is, were all the conditions met?  No prophecy can claim to be fulfilled if only part of the prophecy was completed. 

Exactly my thoughts as well. Brought it up. No answer. 

[R. Hartono]

Why wud christians fear the secret rapture ?

[Diaste]

8 hours ago, Josheb said:

I am glad and encouraged we agree scripture is authoritative. I hope we can stay couched in the scriptures beginning first with what is plainly stated because that has yet to happen. 

 

As far as "the pliability of the enumerable terms and their cohesiveness regarding the topical case" I am happy to clarify or explain any terms not understood but you'll have to let me know what term or terms are not adequately understood. The rules of sound exegesis are not arbitrary. Neither do they very from theology to theology or hermeneutic to hermeneutic. The hermeneutics may very (Dispensational hermeneutics are vastly different than Covenant hermeneutics), but the exegetical precepts do not. I assume these principles are already known and understood. However, for the sake of building consensus I will provide a short list of practices you, me, OneLight, Diaste, Dennis, Rick, Marv, missmuffet, Michael, and everyone else should be able to agree on. 

 

1. Begin by reading the text as written with the ordinary usage and meaning of the words unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text indicating a need to do otherwise. 
2. Consider the various contexts, the local, larger and global contexts and do not proof-text. 
3. Identify the author and his audience and first understand the text as the original author and his original audience would have understood what was written. 
4. Identify the book and its genre and apply the appropriate methods for understanding that genre (history is not poetry and prophecy is not epistle). 
5. Scripture is the first and best interpreter of scripture. 
6. The Old Testament informs the New Testament and the New Testament renders the Old Testament. We should understand whatever Old Testament is referenced in the New Testament in a manner consistent with the inspired New Testament writers. 
7. The literal informs the figurative and should be considered more authoritative, not the other way around. 
8. Inferences should be based on that which the scriptures themselves provide, not two or more passages pasted together because of pre-existing theological views. 
9. Scripture never contradicts itself. It speaks with one unified and cohesive voice regarding all things to which it speaks and any seeming conflict is an indication our understanding is either incomplete or in error. 
10. Scripture can be extra-rational but it is never irrational. The normal rules of logic apply. 

 

There are others, such as understanding cultural and historical contexts or discriminating interpretation from application but the above are the most basic of the basics. I assume we can all agree these are the standards and we can all seek to apply them consistently. Because of the claims of having done research I also assume these were already known and understood as universals but if in doubt I will gladly provide a sample of websites on the topic from a variety of theological povs so as to evidence the fact these precepts are shared regardless of theology. Just let me know if needed. Otherwise, these or the metrics I will apply to the scriptures I cite as well as those I receive in others' posts. 

Any case that applies these metrics will be...

Polite
Respectful
Reasonable
Rational
Cogent
Coherent
Topical

...and aid in a mutual collaborative understanding of God's word. That, in turn, will guide us to understanding whether or not Jesus comes immediately after the tribulation and whether or not there is a "left behind" secret rapture.

I don't see the most important guide to the truth of scripture:

Isaiah 11:2
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him--the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and fear of the LORD.

John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you do know Him, for He abides with you and will be in you.

John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.

John 16:12
I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it.

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons,


1 John 5:6
This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ--not by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies to this, because the Spirit is the truth.

We can apply all our strength to understanding but if the Spirit doesn't guide us we will never find the truth.

 

 

[Diaste]

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

Prove to me the "you" is about people in the 21st century by using only the text of Matthew 24.  

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." - Matt 24

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." - Mark 13

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." - Luke 21

In the BSB these appear exactly word for word. That's interesting. So then what is/are "...all these things..."? Where does "...all these things..." begin in the narrative of Matthew, Mark and Luke? 

Since the Temple destruction prophecy and the questions, "“when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" are unconnected by virtue of time and space the answer to the above questions iterated in Mark and Luke are what ever follows up to the point of "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened."

If all those things did not happen then the generation in question is not a 1st century generation. So notably this has yet to occur in the annals of history:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days: ‘The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.b’

30At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven,c and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.d 31And He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

"In the narrative the above is in close proximity to "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." and clearly Matt 24:29-31 didn't happen in 70 AD. I would have thought Josephus  and Tactius would have recorded this. What they did record bears no resemblance to Matt 24:29-31.

But this isn't "...all these things..." either, this is the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering. So then we have to retreat back to at least the GT as it's mentioned in verse 29 as part of "...all these things...". Then a further retreat is necessary to include the whole of GT and it's onset, which is Matt 24:15, Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20. 

Now where is the historical proof of Matt 24:15-31? At least just this occurring as recorded in the Gospels in question? 

I think the reliance on a pronoun as proof of fulfillment is weak proposition. If you would remain consistent with this one removes most of the NT from applying to no one else but those who heard or read the words when the words were penned or spoken. The use of pronouns like 'you' and 'us' is common to speech and does identify an audience, usually contemporary. In this case, in the Spirit inspired scripture of truth, the pronouns refer to believers. 

That has to apply across all centuries or we can safely ignore large sections of holy writ. We weren't there so it can't be referring to us today.

The overall context of the Word is eternity. That's the great and mighty promise of God; eternal life. It's limited vision to conclude only a past fulfillment in the face of an eternal God and His plan.

 

[Alive]

Folks---please. Once again, this thread has gotten personal a number of times.

Members have different eschatology. If we choose to engage in such discussions, those differences are going to be glaring and challenged. Please do so as brethren.

There are things we can't know with absolute certainty. Make your case and try not to be offended when someone else presents a counter case. Its just a discussion and one that will reappear next week.....again and again. Somewhere along the line, we may all learn something or be challenged to examine what we believe about these things.

 

[Montana Marv]

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

Biblical Israel was defined by specified geographic boundaries modern Israel has yet to come close achieving. There is an Israel but it is not the Israel of the Bible; it is NOT a restored Israel and the only reason some Christians think it is a "restoration" is because 1) their eschatology leads them to think that way and 2) all the details of ancient Israel are ignored. 

"There is an Israel, but it is not the Israel of the Bible".  The thing is Israel is of the Bible.  There can be no comparing of anything unless one has the Israel of the Bible to compare with. First of All Abraham was given all the land, from the river of Egypt (Nile maybe) to the Euphrates River [Gen 15:18].  Neither Israel of the past nor Israel of the present have fulfilled these boundaries.  Isa 19:23-25 - In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria.  The Assyrians will go to Egypt, and the Egyptians to Assyria.  The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. In that day Israel will be the third, among Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth.... Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.

Yet Israel is now restored to some of the Land since 1948.  When they are attacked by the forces of/in Ezk 38-39 there boundaries will increase, and yet maybe not to that given to Abraham. To the victors go the spoils.  Their full inheritance of Land will be fulfilled during the Mill.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Montana Marv said:

He also is the incarnet Word. In the  beginning was the Word.

In Christ 

Montana Marv 

Yes, but He chose to not call upon His GODNESS while here on Earth. During His 33 years here, He chose to live as a man. Being a man is the only way that His death and resurrection could pay the price for our sins. He was totally dependent upon GOD the Father during that time.

[Montana Marv]

10 minutes ago, Rick_Parker said:

Yes, but He chose to not call upon His GODNESS while here on Earth. During His 33 years here, He chose to live as a man. Being a man is the only way that His death and resurrection could pay the price for our sins. He was totally dependent upon GOD the Father during that time.

If the Father knew of this time (bridegroom coming) before Christ came to earth; Christ also then knew, is that what you are saying.  If Christ knew back then; then His statement is false telling us that only God the Father knows.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Guest]

Christ, as a person of the GODHEAD, knew, but as Christ the man, He did not.