Timtofly
Well-Known Member
That would be the Bible.
This would be human theology, not expressed in the Bible.
Before the flood is actually "after"
- Thread starter rebuilder 454
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That would be the Bible.
This would be human theology, not expressed in the Bible.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
This is why we disagree, because I believe the Bible makes clear-cut theological statements, such as Jesus is the image of the invisible God, or Jesus is the Word made flesh. This is a clear-cut statement that by necessity draws a theological conclusion, namely that Jesus is God.
Dan 7, for example, says explicitly that the Little Horn will be defeated by the coming of the Son of Man at the time when the Kingdom of God is established on earth. These are clear-cut statements that by necessity draw a theological conclusion, namely that Jesus is coming on the last day of the age to defeat the Antichrist and to rescue the saints.
The explicit statements and the theological overtone are one and the same--otherwise it would not be the basis of biblical doctrine for me. I base my theology, or my eschatology, on explicit biblical statements of doctrine or theology--the terms "doctrinal" and "theological" are virtually interchangeable for me when they are referring to explicit biblical statements.
If you don't like the word "theology," then substitute "doctrine" for it. For me, they are describing the same thing--explicit, or clear-cut, doctrinal statements. The Son of Man sitting on a cloud is not a doctrinal statement, and is not expressing any kind of explicit eschatology or theology.
No Pre-TB
Well-Known Member
I didn’t say Jesus wasn’t the first fruits. Of course he was. But the patriarchs are never said to be in heaven. Do you have scripture to back up that opinion?
Job is not resurrected as he stated he will wait for his change after the heavens are no more. Job is not the only one to describe the resurrection happening after the 6th seal. Paul states in 2 Tim 4:1 that he’ll receive the crown to his change at Christ appearing in his kingdom and that doesn’t happen till Rev 11:18, something after the 6th seal.
Paul also mentions death being swallowed up in victory. He quotes Isaiah 25 and in that passage, our change happens “in this mountain”. That wording describes Christ kingdom when he reigns. The stone that destroys Daniel’s statue and becomes a mountain that covers the earth.
No Pre-TB
Well-Known Member
He has never left heaven per Acts. You’re referring to his bright light and voice Saul encountered? He didn’t descend from heaven. And he won’t till he returns to resurrect which cannot happen till the restoration; an event that cannot happen till all things shakeable or removable can be removed like the heavens. Because the things unmovable will remain.
No Pre-TB
Well-Known Member
Obama? When did he lift himself up in pride and sit in the temple? That is the revealing per 2 Thess 2. I prefer to stick with scripture and not guess on things. It leads us to our own understanding. We should lean on the Lord’s instead.
Lol
You missed the point entirely
But you verified it unknowingly.
He WAS REVEALED before he took power.
Postribs need that changed.
They need the AC revealed when he enters the temple.
No Pre-TB
Well-Known Member
Job was corrected by God.
He said many things he had no clue about.Job said , " maybe all this is happening because of the wrong i did as a teenager"
UH...HELLO.... Job thought wrong didn't he.
So you base your entire deal on some shaky ground sentence, from a confused man ,that was TOTALLY UNAWARE of the source if his calamity.
It is also Amazing that you are unlearned about the PURPOSE for Jesus descending into paradise and hell.
It shows a lack of understanding of salvation
Do you know that Jesus is the first fruits of the Resurrection of the Dead. That is what he is the first fruits of. When Jesus Resurrected, the people in Paradise resurrected with him, they were even seen walking the streets of Jerusalem and they were recognized some of them were recognized by the people there. So the first fruits of the Resurrection is Jesus and the Patriarchs along with him... he preached the gospel in Paradise and of course they accepted it.
the Patriarchs accepted it.
And they participated in the resurrection and the first fruits go to the father. I think it's in Galatians chapter 9.
I know you need all that changed.
You need those facts changed.
That alone, the entire study on firstfruits, destroys all but the pretribbers doctrine.
It truly is a pretrib rapture.
He is revealed to the born again believers pretrib.
We see him right away.
Exactly like anyone with discernment saw Obama REVEALED who he really was , to us, but many believers were deceived.
2 thes is to believers.
1) Falling away first....carnal Believers ,not the world
2) Man of sin revealed...to believers, the world and those with no discernment have no clue. They think he is awesome.
Obama was a test.
Obama is a perfect example
Obama is not scripture. Never said or implied he was
I also mentioned John
Shall I post the vivid appearance you omitted?
Strange how you think it is impossible that a light that blinds Paul is Jesus standing there.
Thank you
He is revealed right away.
Before any trib happens
Pretrib rapture.
Good point
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I've told you repeatedly, my view of "the Tribulation" is exclusive of the Reign of Antichrist. It includes the Reign of Antichrist, but includes the *entire NT age!* So no, I'm *not saying* that Antichrist is "revealed before any trib happens."
The "Trib" began in 70 AD, and was defined by Jesus as the punishment of the Jewish People. And the "Trib" continues all the way up until the present, and will include the Reign of Antichrist as well.
So the "Trib" begins *before* the revelation of Antichrist. Do you understand me now? Thank you!
2ndly, Paul is *not* just saying that Antichrist will be revealed before the Coming of Christ for his Church. He is also saying that Antichrist is the "one doomed to destruction." In other words, he is saying that not only must Antichrist be revealed 1st, before the Coming of Christ for his Church, but that also Christ will *only* Come *at* the destruction of the Antichrist. Both revelation of Antichrist (1) and destruction of Antichrist (2) must happen before anyone can say Christ has Returned!
Why is this taking so long for you to understand? Please don't say you agree with my saying things that *I've not been saying!* I know this is contrary to how you've been taught, but at least understand how my position is different from your position? In the end you may very well change your position to what Paul is saying, instead of what others told you he is saying? I can only hope!
No Pre-TB
Well-Known Member
Sorry. I take the Bible as infallible. Job was giving truth. As he said 2 verses later,
14If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
I suppose that was part of his rhetoric that he had “no clue” as you put it. No, Job was in the spirit and spoke truth you refuse to believe.
As Benson says,
So man lieth down — In his bed the grave, sleeping the sleep of death. And riseth not till the heavens be no more — That is, until the time of the general resurrection and restitution of all things, when these visible heavens shall pass away, and be no more, at least in the same form in which they are now.
Or Poole:
Not until the time of the general resurrection, and the restitution of things, when these visible heavens shall pass away, and be no more, at least in the same form and manner as now they are; of which see Psalm 102:26 Luke 21:33 2 Peter 3:7,10
Or Gill:
Christ shall come a second time to judge the world; then the earth and heaven will flee away from his face, the earth and its works shall be burnt up, and the heavens shall pass away with great noise; and then, and not till then, will the dead, or those that are asleep in their graves, be awaked by the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God, and they shall be raised from their sleepy beds, awake and arise, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Secondly, why go off topic with insults? I never discussed or brought up Christ speaking to the spirits in prison on his death. You say I’m unlearned, yet it was never mentioned. Is it hard to stay on topic? Than you mention Christ as the firstfruits and I already replied, I know he is. Why than do you talk as if I didn’t say so?
Please stay on topic, that is Job 14:12.
No Pre-TB
Well-Known Member
If you say so, but if he’s revealed to you now, than it isn’t pre-TB, because we would be beyond that timeline as Babylon would be destroyed. But yes, Obama is a man of sin. We all are sinners.
No Pre-TB
Well-Known Member
You’re arguing with me but really you’re arguing with God. His word says so.
21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
He cannot and will not leave heaven till that time. As he is on a long journey and asks us to remain and do his work till he returns.
Ellicott:
conveys the thought of restoration to an earlier and better state, rather than that of simple consummation or completion, which the immediate context seems, in some measure, to suggest. It finds an interesting parallel in the “new heavens and new earth”—involving, as they do, a restoration of all things to their true order—of 2Peter 3:13. It does not necessarily involve
Jamieson:
until the times—embracing the whole period between the ascension and the second advent of Christ.
restitution of all things—comprehending, probably, the rectification of all the disorders of the fall.
Gill:
but of the accomplishment of all promises and prophecies concerning the bringing in the fulness of the Gentiles, and the conversion of the Jews, and so the gathering in all the elect of God; and concerning all the glorious things spoken of the church of Christ in the latter day; which sense is confirmed by what follows:
Oh okI've told you repeatedly, my view of "the Tribulation" is exclusive of the Reign of Antichrist. It includes the Reign of Antichrist, but includes the *entire NT age!* So no, I'm *not saying* that Antichrist is "revealed before any trib happens."
The "Trib" began in 70 AD, and was defined by Jesus as the punishment of the Jewish People. And the "Trib" continues all the way up until the present, and will include the Reign of Antichrist as well.
So the "Trib" begins *before* the revelation of Antichrist. Do you understand me now? Thank you!
2ndly, Paul is *not* just saying that Antichrist will be revealed before the Coming of Christ for his Church. He is also saying that Antichrist is the "one doomed to destruction." In other words, he is saying that not only must Antichrist be revealed 1st, before the Coming of Christ for his Church, but that also Christ will *only* Come *at* the destruction of the Antichrist. Both revelation of Antichrist (1) and destruction of Antichrist (2) must happen before anyone can say Christ has Returned!
Why is this taking so long for you to understand? Please don't say you agree with my saying things that *I've not been saying!* I know this is contrary to how you've been taught, but at least understand how my position is different from your position? In the end you may very well change your position to what Paul is saying, instead of what others told you he is saying? I can only hope!
Sorry for the mix up
Try this on.
It is CLEAR HE LEFT HEAVEN AND WAS With JOHN
REV 1:
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Then all that the devil did to him was the result of the evil he did as a teenager.
That is what Job said.
You are Quoting Job as if he were a deity.
Actually basing your doctrine on obvious error.
Job did not know much about Gods timing or purposes
He was in the dark.
He did not know it was the devil doing all that to him
He Was TOTALLY CLUELESS.
JOB 19:
6 Know now that God hath overthrown me, and hath compassed me with his net.
7 Behold, I cry out of wrong, but I am not heard: I cry aloud, but there is no judgment.
8 He hath fenced up my way that I cannot pass, and he hath set darkness in my paths.
9 He hath stripped me of my glory, and taken the crown from my head.
10 He hath destroyed me on every side, and I am gone: and mine hope hath he removed like a tree.
11 He hath also kindled his wrath against me, and he counteth me unto him as one of his enemies.
Job did not speak the truth.
You are saying every word of Job was infallable truth.
Not even close friend.
See, you are thinking you can find obscure verses that actually VOID other verses.
IOW building a doctrine from your mind.
Logic says, if another angel came out of the temple, there must be a prior angel that came out of the temple first. Where then is this first angel that came out of the temple if not meaning the one meant in verse 14?
Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
Now let's look at it like this. Verse 17 indicates another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. Once again, logic says, if another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle, there obviously has to be a previous angel that also came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
In all of Revelation 14, how many entities are in possession of a sharp sickle? Just one, or more than one? 2 actually. The one in verse 14 and the one in verse 17. Verse 17 can't be another angel that came out of the temple in possession of a sharp sickle unless another angel came out of the temple first, he too in possession of a sharp sickle. IOW, whatever verse 17 indicates comes out of the temple is, in this case, an angel, then so must the one that came out of the temple first also be an angel.
After all, it makes zero sense to say another angel came out of the temple, but that the one who came out of the temple first, he is not even an angel. Since when does 'another angel' not imply a previous angel?
Revelation 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.
This verse, for one, tells us who it is that is wearing a golden crown, and that it isn't Christ.
Similar threads
