The Pre-Trib Rapture

[marks]

I…am having trouble with this.
Psalm 104…if it does mirror the creation story, still has the angels (V4) created BEFORE verse 5, in which the foundations of the earth are laid down.
Which…would mean trying to insert the creation of the angels at day 3 or 4 in the Genesis account is still untenable.
Wouldn’t you say?

I'm saying day 2 or 3.

Much love!

 

[Timtofly]

Oh, are you entirely serious?
Where on EARTH does the bible tell us ANGELS are for ‘signs and seasons’?
You know what ARE for signs and seasons…?
The sun, moon and stars.
I think you are so desperate to ram ‘creation of the heavenly host’ in anywhere in the Genesis account, that you have abandoned common sense.

No. Just abandoned Satan's deception known as modern science. Of course lies are normal common sense when it comes to human understanding.

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

Great meaning "bright" in my understanding of "great". Certainly not their size. But the intensity of their light. I guess if you do not see stars as bright, but great, it does not bother me any.

So, you do not think that constellations do not count as signs? I am not into astrology, but pretty sure many humans think the stars are signs. I am not force fitting anything into the chapter. Just connecting the dots from other Scripture.

Most do not even take Genesis literally, because God said the moon was a light for the night.

 

[Timtofly]

You DO understand your opinion doesn’t equal 2 cents unless you have the text to support it. You could at least try.

Obviously the opposite view would consider the other sides opinion the same way you do.

I told you that the redeemed are elohim to God. You seem to reject that notion.

We are not talking about Greek mythology that personified the "gods". We are talking about the literal Word of God, which for the most part you reject as literal.

You interpret Scripture one way. I interpret it another way. Probably more literally than just making up stuff to fit all that symbolism.

 

[GISMYS_7]

Rapture rejectors= no worries you will not be forced to meet Jesus in the clouds and go to be with Him while the great tribulation judgments are poured out on this evil God rejecting world.

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Ronald, how do we know they are only Jews? Not Arabs or those who identify as Christian or others? What I’m suggesting is, the text doesn’t tell us their nationality or their bloodline. The context is that people will change. They will acknowledge God, right?

Jesus only came unto the Jews, his Ministry is all about the Jews and the coming Kingdom Reign in Jerusalem. There will be Arabs killed, and there may vey well be some "Christians Arabs" who survive but Jesus is speaking only about the Jews in this instance, most Christians will not deny their faith and will be the Martyrs of the 5th Seal (which only happens after the Rev. 8 Trumpet Judgment strikes/DOTL....especially them KNOWING what's going on.....whereas until the very end these 7000 (or the Complete number thereof) probably doesn't understand Jesus is Lord.

A few, the 7000 might be 50 or 1000 or 20,000, 7000 just means the complete number thereof.

3-5 Million Jews ate the "144,000" who flee unto Judea.

P.S. earlier I misread Marks point, I will explain in my post to him what the 7000 means and what the Remnant means. In this case the 7000 is nit about the Jews per se, it is about all men living in the city who are Wicked. The Remnant, as I will show us always the Christian Church, not the Jews.

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Rapture rejectors= no worries you will not be forced to meet Jesus in the clouds and go to be with Him while the great tribulation judgments are poured out on this evil God rejecting world.

They will be with us if the love the Lord and believe in Jesus as their Savior, God will just say What were you thinking, Satan saw you coming on that issue.

 

[Keraz]

They will be with us if the love the Lord and believe in Jesus as their Savior, God will just say What were you thinking, Satan saw you coming on that issue.

Right; it depends on whether we have kept our faith during all that must happen before Jesus Returns.
He will send out His angels to gather all those faithful people, to where He will be; in Jerusalem.

Humans never go to live in heaven, after the end of God's decreed time for humans, God and therefore heaven, will come to the new earth. Revelation 21:1-7

 

[Ronald D Milam]

There's the difference between me and many here. For me, this is 7000.

Let me ask you . . . if there were an actual 7,000 person death toll from the quake, What would God have to say to you so you'd believe that? Just wondering . . . but this is why we come to different conclusions I think.

OK. I misread the verse, I crossed up the two things as 7000 living and the Remnant praising God, I was getting sleepy (tired/groggy) earlier, being Diabetic I had to get a bite to eat, my sugar was very low.

So, I apologize for inverting the umbers.

Let me prove why The Remnant in this instance is probably the Christians who survive the Earthquake and the 7000 are everyone else in the Earthquake's 10 percent of the city who die, not 7000. 7 and 10 mean Completion. Its just that simple. To ever understand Prophecy in full one has to understand how God uses numbers.

To understand who THE REMNANT is we have to look at Rev. 12, it can not be Jews in that instance it can only be The Church who were nit Raptured (thus REMNANT or those left)

The Woman (1/3 who flee) in Rev. 12 the Dragon via the Anti-Christ's Armies can not get at, so he gets mad and TURNS to go after the "REMNANT" when (WATCH CLOSLEY) he can't get at the Woman (Jews who flee Judea after they turn to Christ). And this Remnant have the TESTIMONY of Jesus Christ........so it can't be the Jews who fled (the 1/3) NOR the Jews who refused to repent (the 2/3) because they do not have the TESTIMONY of Jesus Christ. So, the Remnant are not nor can they be Jews, they are the Remnant Church (THINK Pre Trib Rapture) who are the small part that is on this earth, The Remnant of the Gentile Church, OR those Gentiles who come unto Gid AFTER the Rapture.

So, in essence, the 7000 are all those killed by the Earthquake and The Remnant is the Gentile Church who dodged becoming Martyrs.

If you ant to understand Prophecy in full, look up Numbers in the bible and study it.

 

[Naomi25]

I see it as this current creation. When this creation is finished, God creates a new and different creation. At least on that grand scale. I think context matters as well to further define an age.

How…is that NOT what I said?

No created beings go into eternity outside of a creation, unless they are dead. No one can even agree if the Lake of Fire is a separate creation, or if it is part of any created reality.

That would be my take on temporal. We never leave a temporal for existence outside of creation. What would we do without any creation to exist in? Even divine beings are still created and part of a temporal creation. The Trinity itself is God manifesting Himself in current creation. Yet no person in the Trinity is limited to this creation. That does not make 3 different God's though. Still one God interacting in creation with 3 distinct persons.

There also is no difference between temporal and heaven. They both are temporal created places. That is why we have heaven as measured in "days", while earth is measured in "millenia".

I can’t help but feel that the above is largely based on speculation. We don’t know where heaven is exactly, or how it functions. We don’t even know how time functions there. We do know that God is outside of time, and that when he chooses to interact with it it is still different for him. Indeed, why would it not be, he is eternal, both is past and future, creator of time, space and matter. We can speculate that when Christ put on flesh he experienced time as we do…he was human after all. But he was also divine. He is still both man and divine. How does he currently experience time where he is? We don’t know.
We also don’t know where hell is, or how it functions. Or how dead people, either in heaven or hell, experience time.

But I don't see the ages taken in context just two different creations, as I agree with Paul, ages are also dispensations on earth itself. That age where folks don't marry like angels don't marry, happened at the Cross. Those in Paradise have been in "that age" since 30AD temporal earth time. That age has been almost 2 days in Paradise. Not really enough time to date and get to know you that well time. But seriously, procreation already happened on earth. No need for a second chance at procreation once in Paradise, even if you reject the notion it has only been 2 days for them.

Uhh..? Except those examples where scripture defined two separate ages.
You know the part where we have this creation…bound in time, fallen and sinful…
And then the part where Christ comes and ‘the heavens and the earth’ will burn? And then be replaced by a “new heavens and new earth”?
If you want to break up this fallen reality with dispensations in or to describe how God has interacted with people, that’s fine. But dismissing clear biblical teaching on ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come’…is just that…dismissing what the bible teaches.

The distinction in context for that age is a physical resurrection. Not a brand new creation.

What determines “new”? Could it…be by calling it “new”?

Isaiah 65:17
“For behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth,
and the former things shall not be remembered
or come into mind.

2 Peter 3:12-13
waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

What would we call something that has been burnt up, dissolved, melted…and then made again? ‘New’? What will we label ourselves after we too are given better, different bodies? Will we still be us? If it is still us, but we have bodies that are…new…then isn’t it functionally correct to say that some continuity remains in what will still be ‘new’?

The question asked was about physical death and once resurrected is their marriage, because the trick question was she was married to 7 brothers, but outlived them all. They wondered if there would be a fight over her I guess, that God would have to resolve. Jesus did not say, "in some brand new creation". Jesus said this:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,"
.

This is…perhaps the oddest interpretation on this text I’ve heard. “They wondered if there would be a fight over her, I guess”.
Ah…no. The whole scenario was put to Jesus by the Sadducees…a group of religious teachers who didn’t believe in the resurrection. In any resurrection. So, the question was an attempt to trip Jesus up and make him admit or deny that ANYONE would have her as wife…because they wouldn’t HAVE a resurrection in which to ‘have her’.

Jesus did not even say all humanity is going to be resurrected at one time in a single group. An age in this context is an ongoing phenomenon.


.

Also doesn’t say that they won’t…
What we ARE told is this:

John 5:28-29
Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Matthew 25:31-32, 46
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats….
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

From these and supporting texts we can conclude these events, for both living and dead, will likely occur at Christ’s return.

The resurrection mentioned was the resurrection of the Cross. When Jesus resurrected those out of Abraham's bosom and gave them physical life in Paradise. Jesus never even answered them, but gave them God's Word. It was not about being dead, but being alive, because God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. The first resurrection was the Cross.

This…is problematical.
Did Jesus resurrect after the cross? Absolutely.
Were there other ‘resurrections’ at time of the cross? Yes…but we’re not told what sort of resurrection it was. Was it a Lazarus type resurrection…just back into their earthly bodies…or was it part of the ‘firstfruits’ resurrection, of the type Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15?
The text doesn’t say.
What we DO know about ‘the first resurrection’, is that those who ‘share’ in the first resurrection will never have to fear ‘the second death.’ We know that ‘the second death’ is the lake of fire. And we know that all who are found in Christ Jesus will not experience the lake of fire. So, in some manner all Christians experience the ‘first resurrection’. Is this a spiritual resurrection (regeneration of a heart and soul)? Or is it a bodily resurrection of some kind? We are not strictly told, and we are not told when we experience it….other than that those who do experience it will reign with Christ 1000 years. And there is some debate over when/where the 1000 years is in reference to.

 

[Naomi25]

Humans can never be angels. They are sons of God. Angels can appear as humans, but they will never be sons of God. Only sons of God could procreate when on earth. But that time ended at the Flood. There was no special time or another creation from before Genesis 1:1.

Here’s the thing. You keep on making claims like the on above…and never back it up with any scripture.
You also insist (again without scripture) that men USED to be divine. As I’ve given you scripture that outright tell us that heavenly beings ARE called ‘divine’ (elohim = god) you are, in fact, claiming that men used to be ‘angels’.
I would agree with you that men are not, were not, and will not, be ‘angels’….heavenly beings. We were created differently in the beginning, we remain different even in the fall, and will still be different even when we receive our new resurrection bodies.

What you need to do is show, with scripture, that your assumption that men = divine. That ‘Sons of God’ = humans, the ‘the fall’ = man’s loss of ‘image of God’, that ‘sons of God’ cannot = divine being.
I don’t believe you have done any of that yet. Scripturally.

I suppose we do not have kings and presidents then as humans.

I have no idea about what you’re talking about; “I suppose we do not have kings or presidents then as humans”
What? Where on earth do you draw that reasoning from? How is me saying that we have ‘God’ “angels” and mankind, somehow equate to ‘well i suppose humans don’t have rulers?
Can you provide any scripture that tells us that summation is incorrect?
Scripture, or it didn’t happen…

. Angels are all angels even if they have an hierarchy like humans do. Being a king does not make you another type of human. One of the oldest surviving civilizations practiced a cast system for thousands of years, which recently has been denounced as being demoralizing. Yet we think it great that there are different types of angels?

Ug. Really? Did I SAY there were many “TYPES” of heavenly being? No. I said I am reluctant to CALL them all angels, because LANGUAGE and MEANING means that only some heavenly beings were messages. The others were CALLED Seraphim…Cherubim and watchers.

So, to reverse your faulty analogy, that would be like like calling all humans kings.
All kings are human, but not all humans are kings.

All ‘angels’ are heavenly beings…not all heavenly beings are ‘angels’ (messengers).
You got a problem with that, take it up with scripture.

And there are humans still sons of God. And at the Second Coming the redeemed will be restored back to being full sons of God.
Still only angels and humans.

Does the bible ever refer to men as ‘sons of God’? Sure. But it’s in an ‘adoption’ sense. Let me show you:

Romans 9:26
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Galatians 3:26
..for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Galatians 4:5-6
..to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”


We can see when we compare it to verses that call ‘heavenly beings’ sons of God, that the context is completely different:

Genesis 6:2-4
the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
But the LORD’s portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Job 38:4-7
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Psalm 82:1-7
God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”

Okay…these verses tell us several things: that the ‘offspring’ produced between the ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughter of men’ were called Nephilim. This transliterates into ‘Giant’. Why, do you suppose, offspring between human and human would produce ‘giants’?

We’re also told that when ‘God divided the nations’ (reference to the Tower of Babel), he fixed the borders according to the number of the ‘sons of God’. Ever wonder where false gods, like the “Prince of Persia” came from? These beings are watchers, fallen, and are thus judged in Ps 82 for ruling and judging men with wickedness. These are clearly divine beings, called ‘gods’ and sentenced to die ‘like men’…not as men.

Job is interesting as Satan comes with ‘the sons of God’ into God’s presence. Don’t know that that could cover humans. We’re also told that at the foundation of the world, these ‘sons of God’ shouted for joy.

All in all, it’s is difficult to argue that these texts are speaking about men.

I never claimed sons of God were "angels". That is your erroneous interpretation. I stand by the fact the sons of God were those created on the 6th day. The term got lost in history and "man" was the replacement term used to point that out. After Noah and his 3 sons, all mankind were only known as fallen humanity in Adam's corruptible flesh and blood image. No one called them sons of God after that and rightly so. The sons of God were forgotten pre-flood history. Sin changed the whole dynamic of creation. That is why creation groans under the weight of that sin.

Obviously God did not explain every detail of creation in one chapter. It would have taken several encyclopedia sets. Probably one for each of the 6 days.

You know. Once again…no biblical proof to support your ideas or opinions here. I’m not against considering the idea IF…IF you can provide a shred of biblical support. You thus far have not.

And…as I keep having to remind you…you may not have ‘claimed’ sons of God were ‘angels’ (divine beings), your logic lands them there anyway. ‘Angels’ are divine beings. Elohim. By claiming men, before the fall were divine, you are, in essence, saying we were divine beings…’angels’.

 

[Naomi25]

So then all were named in the Lamb's book of life, but later some removed. That is not literally the same thing as removing branches and grafting others in. Because you would have to graft names into the book to be on equal metaphorical terms.

I…
Find it…bizzare…that you cannot seem to let go of the idea that Rom 11 and the ‘book of life’ are almost interchangeable. You got to let that go. Rom 11 is using imagery to portray an idea. A truth.
But when you try and jam the imagery and idea into another, separate idea, you make a nasty mess.

Case in point - trying to smoosh the ‘grafting’ image into the book of life.

Let me try once more. Romans 11. Paul is telling us that those who were taken off the tree (natural branches) were NOT first saved then unsaved. He is simply telling us that belonging to Israel (by blood) does not save these people. Never had, never would, never does. They were removed from their places DESPITE their blood. Because blood alone…unless it’s Christs, is not enough to see someone ‘on the tree’. Thus, those who were not covered by Christ’s blood are removed, those who are are grafted in.
Simple metaphor…NOT INTENDED to be pushed and pushed and pushed.

The book of Life. The bible tells us that those who ‘God predestined’ had their names written in it since before the foundation of the world. And that if ones name is NOT in the book come Rev 20, they go into the lake of fire.

Again, simple.

However, the two are not to be combined. Scripture doesn’t try to do that, so why should we? If Paul intended us to read one into the other, then he would have done it.
And, as it is, there is no scripture that allows you to play around with the book…who’s in it. If they got removed, how they got removed, when they got removed.

.
But there is no reference in Scripture whatsoever about names grafted into the Lamb's book of life.

Because there’s not supposed to be!
Your name is either there before the foundation of the world, or its not.

So was the olive tree about corporate Israel and corporate Gentiles, or on a more personal level where there are neither Jews nor Gentiles?

How do you resolve the discrepancy?

Even Israel had two branches not just one. But are you conflating the whole as being the same as individual branches where there is no difference between Jew and Gentile?

The point about the branches is corporate. But not the Atonement itself. God using Israel in the OT was representative status as ambassadors for God. The NT church became the new Ambassadors. So the corporate level is about representing God, not about one's individual Atonement status.

The Ambassadorship is what was cut off, not the ability to receive salvation.

I. Again. Don’t know how this is messing you up. It’s not a HARD metaphor to follow. Oh…if only I could draw you a diagram.

Let me try to simplify it as best I can.

Root - Jesus (through whom all salvation comes)
Tree - Patriarchs (the bedrock of Israel and those OT people who were “saved by faith”)
Branches - made of of all those “in” Christ….Jews AND Gentiles (although in Christ, those distinctions are gone…we’re left with “Christian”)

Outside the tree - Jews and Gentiles who DON’T believe in Jesus. Just as the Gentiles still have the opportunity to be ‘grafted on’ if they come to Christ, so too do the Jews who come to believe. The ONLY matter of significance the text makes, is that this ‘cut off’ proportion of Jews will most likely have large numbers of them coming to Christ once the ‘time of the Gentiles’ comes to a close.

 

[Naomi25]

Nope. The book was opened and all were rejoicing. Names being removed was not something to worry about in heaven.

I have a question. Do you run ANY of your ideas past scripture? Or do you just happen upon them and think they sound good in your head?

Ezekiel 18:23
Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


Is judgement just and good? Yes. Should we, like the ‘angels’ glorify God when his justice is done? Of course.
But you are incorrect. The “rejoicing” done in heaven over the scroll, is entirely over the worthiness of the Lamb:

Revelation 5:8-12
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”
Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice,
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
To receive power and wealth and wisdom and might
and honor and glory and blessing!”


If you want the reaction of heaven once the scroll is fully open (a seven sealed scroll can not be opened unless all seals have been broken):

Revelation 8:1
When the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

Whatever is in the scroll, it is staggering enough to cause absolute silence.

Is not the point the same about redemption? The reason they were named in the book is because of redemption, not because they had a physical life. No one else besides the Lamb made the book possible to begin with. Having names written in it does not change the purpose of the book. Those names are the entire purpose of the book.

It was the Lamb slain before the foundation, not the book itself, without a Lamb slain.

Oh boy.
Might you explain how the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world?
I can understand that the plan for redemption being set then. I can understand God knowing all things and all outcomes. I can understand that is because he creates each outcome.
But please show me where it says Jesus was actually slain before the foundation.

 

[Naomi25]

Justified to God, or justified to men? God already knows those whom He has justified, right?

Much love!

The scripture never says we must justify ourselves to men.
And the text in question is speaking of the event where Abraham offered up his son on the alter….an event clearly required by, and in direct response to…God. Not men.

 

[Naomi25]

I just start out saying it's all true, and then find the way to understand what I read while letting it all remain true. I find two very distinct things. One is that all the passages harmonize together, and I don't need to "figure out" how this is true, while that is true", I don't end up with those kinds of questions. The other is that all disagreements seem to always come down to this. There is a verse I'm reading that someone else reads and tells me it means something different than what it says, "After all, it CAN'T really mean that!"

So . . . by what means do we find unity in the knowledge of Christ?

Much love!

So…I’m trying to understand this.
When you read a passage saying that “salvation is through faith alone”….
And then you also read another passage saying “salvation comes through works”…
You harmonise them by retreating to a doctrine argued by men? Rather than seeking the answer in scripture itself?

Is not the word of God truth? Do we not need to let this truth lead us to the conclusions…to the making of doctrine, not the other way around?
Because…let me ask you this: If Dispensationalism didn’t exist, would you still find your conclusions in scripture? Because I can clearly say that if Amillennialism didn’t exist, I could find my harmonising without out it…with only passages that speak to THE SUBJECT. I don’t need my eschatological system to find an answer about salvation. I don’t even need my doctrine on the Trinity, or creation…any of them. I can, by simply pulling together all the verses ON salvation, make them mesh.

I worry that if you didn’t have Dispensationalism, you’d be…you are…sitting on a great mound of contradictions.

 

[Naomi25]

I DO take those texts at face value, but I recognize they aren't talking about exactly the same things.

We are justified by God, and He knows that, and He doesn't need any proof or evidence. He already knows whom has been born from Him.

But other people don't. "You show me your faith . . ." It's what others see. In James' letter, he saying that no one can "see" faith. But you can see works. "Show me . . ."

Much love!

I disagree.
They are all speaking about salvation.
And not once is salvation linked to what others might see us do.
Salvation is only linked to God.

At best, we can say that others can judge our salvational status based upon what they see us do. But again…a person is, at that point, already saved…or not saved.

 

[Naomi25]

I'm saying day 2 or 3.

Much love!

Either way…

 

[Naomi25]

No. Just abandoned Satan's deception known as modern science. Of course lies are normal common sense when it comes to human understanding.

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

Great meaning "bright" in my understanding of "great". Certainly not their size. But the intensity of their light. I guess if you do not see stars as bright, but great, it does not bother me any.

You know. I think if I were you, I’d be embarrassed at this point.
Let’s work through this.
Because I happen to be arguing for a literal reading of Genesis, I’ve embraced Satan’s deception of “science”.

I’m also suggesting that when Genesis tells us God created the sun, moon and stars…he actually made the sun, moon and stars…which…oh my goodness, we can see in our skies!!
Co-inkidink…I think NOT!

Last, but not my favourite…you want me to assume along with you (with no valid proof bar your ‘understanding’ which has not overwhelmed me thus far) that Great…meaning ‘great light’ does not mean ‘great’ in terms of big, huge, colossal…for our Sun…
But instead means “bright” and therefore means angel.
Well…I’ll give you this…our sun IS bright.
But be a love, and pop onto a dictionary site and look up “great”…

Also…if you read the passage you just quoted…when it uses “great” its not even speaking about the stars.
One ‘greater’ light to rule the day, the other ‘great’ light to rule the night. Then it tosses on the end like almost and after though…”he also made the stars”.

So…once again we see that your biblical evidence is lacking. And the biblical evidence you do provide, is just wrong! It’s doesn’t support you anyway!

So, you do not think that constellations do not count as signs? I am not into astrology, but pretty sure many humans think the stars are signs. I am not force fitting anything into the chapter. Just connecting the dots from other Scripture.

Most do not even take Genesis literally, because God said the moon was a light for the night.
.

Oh boy. You know…this is why its hard to take you seriously. Have another careful read of what I said IN THE QUOTE YOU QUOTED FROM ME!

“Where on EARTH does the bible tell us ANGELS are for ‘signs and seasons’?
You know what ARE for signs and seasons…?
The sun, moon and stars.”

Please. Please explain to me why people don’t take Genesis literally BECAUSE the moon was the light for the night. Explain to me how ‘people’ reject that the moon is, indeed, the light we see at night.

 

[Naomi25]

Obviously the opposite view would consider the other sides opinion the same way you do.

I told you that the redeemed are elohim to God. You seem to reject that notion.

We are not talking about Greek mythology that personified the "gods". We are talking about the literal Word of God, which for the most part you reject as literal.

You interpret Scripture one way. I interpret it another way. Probably more literally than just making up stuff to fit all that symbolism.

Okay. Here is my new strategy with you.
Every time you post some wild, imaginative, unfounded idea or opinion WITHOUT having done the work to show FROM SCRIPTURE that you might…just maybe…have a case to argue from, I’m just gonna ignore you.
I got no time for someone who thinks their opinion is more important than what the bible actually says on the topic.

 

[Naomi25]

Rapture rejectors= no worries you will not be forced to meet Jesus in the clouds and go to be with Him while the great tribulation judgments are poured out on this evil God rejecting world.

Actually. We will.
IF the pre-trib rapture is true, there is nothing in scripture that tells us only “Eschatological system correct Christians” will be taken.

 

[Taken]

They will be with us if the love the Lord and believe in Jesus as their Savior, God will just say What were you thinking, Satan saw you coming on that issue.

God is Just. Everyone shall receive their Hearts Desire.

Some Hearts ARE CONVERTED and Shall NOT be subject to Gods Wrath.


Some Hearts BELIEVE yet did not obey to Convert and Shall suffer portions of Gods Wrath and be physically subjected to Death.