The alive and remaining are changed - doesn't that mean all the rest died?

[DeighAnn]

4 hours ago, Josheb said:

If and when all that stuff actually happens we'll all know it and there won't be any debate.

That is the point!!!  We wouldn't ALL KNOW IT if it wasn't ALL WRITTEN.  You and I know it because WE READ it.  BUT the world doesn't know it.  Christians don't know it.  When FIRE COMES FROM THE SKY AND WONDERS AND SUPERNATURAL SIGNS ARE BEING SEEN BY THE WORLD, THE WORLD WILL BE DECEIVED.  

NOT WARNING is not helping.  Saying ALL IS PAST does no good to open eyes to the future and to not be deceived by it. 

 If Christ had come we would all be changed and DEATH AND THE GRAVE would no longer have a place we would be like the angels in heaven and no taking or giving in marriage.  

 

 

4 hours ago, Josheb said:

Covenant Israel of the Bible is not "up and running." The Bible speaks of Israel's restoration. The word "restore" means to bring back to an original or earlier state, to reinstate, to return to a prior condition, to repair or renovate so as to restore it to its original condition. 

They LOSE THE LAND AND ARE SCATTERED.  They cease to be a nation called a nation.  THE REST ARE your beliefs for what is and isn't acceptable to God.  PROBLEM IS they became a NATION exactly 2520 years after going into captivity. 

WHAT WE THINK ABOUT IT DOESNT MATTER.  Facts are facts.  


 

 

4 hours ago, Josheb said:

No. I think everyone who believes that today, is going to die taking their last breath not having seen any of it happen, have to account for all the things they taught that didn't happen, and angry at me for my saying so. 

YES, even IF everyone of us dies and it doesn't take place for the next 218 years doesn't mean THE INFORMATION DOESNT NEED TO BE CONTINUED TO BE PUT together and put FORTH.  WE are still trying to GET IT RIGHT amongst ourselves.  How close would you say we've come to being in unity?  But what used to be accepted by most because of a lack of being able to find the truth is rapidly being set straight.  What conflicts conflicts and what doesn't doesn't.  And it may take 2oo years to get it right, IDK but I am to be prepared and to prepare and warn others so that is what I do.  

 

4 hours ago, Josheb said:

What is it, beginning with that Revelation 1 passage itself, and then moving outward through the whole of the book itself you see necessarily connecting verse 1:7 to Philippians 2:10 or 1 Thessalonains 4:16 and precluding it from Revelation 20:13?

What is in Isaiah 26:14 leads you to believe is relevant to the Jesus-piercers of Isaiah 53:5, Matthew 27:25, and Revelation 1:7? 

What makes you think those who pierced Jesus in Revelation 1:7 were dead when Revelation 1:7 was written?

I gave an answer to what I believed were the questions asked.   

IF I didn't answer them in the way in which you wanted then YOU NEED TO REPHRASE THE QUESTIONS UNTIL I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.  UNTIL YOU DO THAT WE JUST PLAY THIS GAME 

I CAN'T ANSWER A QUESTION I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 

NEITHER OF US KNOW IF I HAVE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION UNTIL WE CAN BE SURE THE QUESTION ASKED IS UNDERSTOOD. 


SO THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO ASK IT IN A MANNER THAT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PERSON YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVERSE WITH, NOT ON THE PERSON  TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS YOU ARE ASKING.  



 

[DeighAnn]

8 minutes ago, Josheb said:

That is not what is stated. 

But that is WHAT IS TAKING PLACE.  And we can be sure because no where in the past have the events spoken of occurred


 

 

19 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yes, I do think they were alive at the time the revelation of Revelation was given. I also think there are ways of knowing one way or another, the fact the statement is in the revelation is itself an indication of knowing, and those who ignore that little tidbit of information should not do so. 

While it is possible to construe that mention as a reference to the far-distant-in-the-unknown-future, those holding that point of view must address the other temporal markers, or "time stamps" contained in that passage, and that should be done before splicing other passages from other books of the Bible into that passage. And the text itself and the Bible itself should be used before splicing in sources from outside of scripture. 

This is the practice of the Bible writers themselves, not something someone later imposed on the reading of scripture. 

AND IF YOU STEP OFF THE NARROW PATH RIGHT THERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE "UNDERSTOOD" SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TRUTH then there is no hope of ever finding it that way

You see 'the words' as time stamps and while at the same time ignoring the TIME that is actually showing the truth and rather than back up from that stance look for more WORDS.  The SPIRIT OF the words written TAKE 2ND PLACE to the DEFINITIONS of the WORDS WRITTEN and therein lies the problem. 

 SAME PROBLEM THOSE WHO DIDN'T RECOGNIZE CHRIST HAD.  All the knowledge in the world probably knew by heart every word written,  yet couldn't see the TRUTH,  even they were actually speaking with HIM.  

TIME HAS PROVEN THAT YOUR INTREPRETATION OF 'AT HAND' AND 'QUICKLY' ARE NOT GODS.


 

[DeighAnn]

58 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Hmmm...

What is not stated in scripture is what is taking place. 

Got it. 

I completely agree. 

I am ignoring the truth. Got it. Thx. 

 

Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. 

 

@George ? 

Would one prefer the other one to state what one puts forth as ones own or not?  Does one want the other to not use the personal pronoun?  Not everyone can communicate in such a manner.  Getting to the truth should be the point.  If one finds there are others who  don't communicate as the way one wants then wouldn't it be better for one to just not engage with the other?  What if one knows the other doesn't communicate the way one finds acceptable but in a way in which one finds offensive and so engages the other one knowing one will 'tresspass'?  Is that fair to the one?  I personally don't think so.  I am not going after ones 'person' just the way ones person puts forth and what one puts forth by stating what the other one is not doing correct according to one.  One should just put the other one found to be offensive to ones person on ignore then that one won't offend.  Some don't like persecution and affliction but it comes with the territory, and this seems to be just that to one. Hopefully one will understand this in the spirit it is written and not in the words used.  There is no other way to say one is putting forth in a way that is different than the other without spending all ones time trying to figure out how to do just that. 

I told one from the get go, we don't communicate well.  That didn't stop forward motion so it should be expected that the communication will continue in the manner as it is well known to go.  

 

[Selah7]

2 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

Would one prefer the other one to state what one puts forth as ones own or not?  Does one want the other to not use the personal pronoun?  Not everyone can communicate in such a manner.  Getting to the truth should be the point.  If one finds there are others who  don't communicate as the way one wants then wouldn't it be better for one to just not engage with the other?  What if one knows the other doesn't communicate the way one finds acceptable but in a way in which one finds offensive and so engages the other one knowing one will 'tresspass'?  Is that fair to the one?  I personally don't think so.  I am not going after ones 'person' just the way ones person puts forth and what one puts forth by stating what the other one is not doing correct according to one.  One should just put the other one found to be offensive to ones person on ignore then that one won't offend.  Some don't like persecution and affliction but it comes with the territory, and this seems to be just that to one. Hopefully one will understand this in the spirit it is written and not in the words used.  There is no other way to say one is putting forth in a way that is different than the other without spending all ones time trying to figure out how to do just that. 

I told one from the get go, we don't communicate well.  That didn't stop forward motion so it should be expected that the communication will continue in the manner as it is well known to go.  

 

One is confused.

…kidding 

[DeighAnn]

21 hours ago, George said:

¹⁹ In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD.

²⁰ And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.

²¹ And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it.

²² And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.

²³ In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.

²⁴ In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:

²⁵ Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

Isaiah 19.

I apologize, somehow I missed this.   

Thank you very much.  Reading this made me realize it's time to go back and do some more dedicated study.  How much I would love to say right now, OH YES, I REMEMBER.  So glad I had to go back and search for one of my posts or I would have missed it completely.  Verses 24 and 25 are very interesting.  Though I am positive it is not the first time I ever read it it is the first time I EVER NOTICED IT.  Thank you again, Much appreciated.  If you would like to go into any more detail that would be awesome. 

[DeighAnn]

41 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Is a reply to that really wanted? 

NO, Sorry, no reply

[George]

5 hours ago, Josheb said:

given our recent PMs, you paying attention?

Sorry it's Friday...generally I don't get online on the weekends.  Just checked in to see reports.  I'll respond later on.  I hadn't been paying attention to what you believe and I like asking direct questions.  It helps understand the foundation of why people respond the way they do.

For example, if you wanted to understand a book written by Jews from a hebraic mindset, how could one properly comprehend it from a Greek mindset?

If I wanted to understand the U.S. constitution... I would ask someone from Brazil to explain it to me.

This is one of the main problems with amillenialism / preterism... the understanding of a physical messianic kingdom is central in the hebraic mindset.

I won't have time to respond till Monday, but that's the reason I asked.

[transmogrified]

10 hours ago, Josheb said:

What does the scripture actually state?

This scripture states:

Deut. 4:30 - "When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou wilt turn to the Lord thy God and shalt be obedient to his voice....he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, 

Although Moses was talking directly to them that were right there before him, yet by extension he was referring to the Israelites who would be alive in the latter times...and was not something that was going to happen to those individual people that were alive right then. So even though  he used the words 'when thou art in tribulation..' and 'if thou wilt turn'...and he will 'not forsake thee...' neither 'destroy thee'...by extension he was talking to the Israelite people who would be alive in the latter days...

 

So the context would determine who is being spoken to in any given text. I gave this text before but maybe I am still not understanding your question...the words 'thou' and 'thee' are used in the above text but using those words alone does not grammatically necessitate  that what is being said would pertain to the individuals he was talking to. 

Blessings to you- Gary

 

 

[Diaste]

5 hours ago, transmogrified said:

So the context would determine who is being spoken to in any given text. I gave this text before but maybe I am still not understanding your question...the words 'thou' and 'thee' are used in the above text but using those words alone does not grammatically necessitate  that what is being said would pertain to the individuals he was talking to. 

Blessings to you- Gary

Good point. Neither would it be limited to those present. Also it could speak directly to the reader whenever. Since God is eternal His Word is eternal and must be relevant across time. 

[Diaste]

22 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

As for my tormentor that turned to Christ on his deathbed, he JUST like me receives the gift of salvation.  JUDGMENT FOR HIS DEEDS is still in his future.  
I don't know why people think being 'saved' is DEED removal.  Works do follow us  and I do understand good covering up bad so just superficial skim here. 

Hmm...I don't know about deed removal. Here on earth there is no escape when one is repentant, admits the sin and is remorseful. In fact when one does that the punishment is sure to come as mankind is unforgiving, vengeful, and cruel.

But that wasn't the point. The point is that person isn't going to be exhumed, animated, then have wrath rain down on their person after they repented and were forgiven. Now maybe there is some consequence at a later judgement but we don't see that in scripture, unless I'm mistaken.