When we see things BEGIN to happen -Rapture

[Marty fox]

His feet will land on the mount of Olives.

Zech 14:4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south

The same place He left is where He returns.

Well that’s not the New Testament but Jesus did stand on the mount of olives after Zechariah penned that verse and what Jesus did paved the way for the gospel to spread to the world

 

[Marty fox]

How do you know it is symbolic of the here and now? Why on earth now, but not on earth then? It is mentioned after the Second Coming and tribulation. Are you saying the OT never happened but was only symbolic of the first coming of Christ?

The resurrection of Christ was not a symbolic spiritual thought in the mind of some human's imagination. Why would any resurrection be merely a symbolic spiritual thought?

In John 11, did a bunch of humans gather around, and imagine Lazarus symbolically spiritually rising from the dead, or was there a literal physical resurrection?

If you claim no one has a physical body in heaven now, how can any one be reigning without a resurrection? You deny even a physical resurrection? What other kind of resurrection is there?

Why are you bringing up ridiculous things which I never said or think? There is a difference between a physical resurrection and a spiritual resurrection. We have died and have been raised spiritually just like Paul said.

Did you see post #802?

 

[Marty fox]

At least it does not add to or remove from the text. Those things carry very serious consequences. The beheaded are killed in one way only, their heads are cut off. It's a specific group that dies a specific way for refusing the mark and worship of the beast etc. That can only happen in the future 42 month Great Tribulation.

Did you post see #802?

Futurism does add to the text

 

[Marty fox]

The book of Revelation is about the Second Coming. Should we not be prepared for the Second Coming?

Are you saying only those living in the year John delivered those 7 letters to the 7 churches, that they were the only ones in all of history who needed to be prepared for the Second Coming?

If you think the mark has been in place since Genesis 3, and only some have been beheaded for not taking the mark you are missing the whole point of those 42 months mentioned in Revelation 13. You are missing the entire point of Revelation 13.

You want to take a specific resurrection for a specific people and apply it to all of Adam's offspring since Abel. That is not being prepared for the Second Coming.

Again you are claiming things that I never said please stick to what and debate what I said and not what I didn't say

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Precious friends, After "things happen" and the "kingdom on earth
is Finally Set Up," just thought you all Might Like to know:



Excellent Bible study article: Grecian Formula (pg 5)

GRACE And Peace...

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

The following article is both scary and revealing. I have posted recently threads about the Rider on the White Horse who went out to conquer with a crown (coronavirus) and the Rider on the Red Horse who takes peace from the earth with war, as having left the barn (or so to speak) already and are doing their thing.
And now I do suspect that the Rider on the Black Horse who brings famine has left as well. You decide.

-----------------------------------------------------
GLOBAL CROP collapse now a certainty… widespread famine to plague planet Earth from 2022 – 2024… it is set in motion and cannot be stopped
NaturalNews.com / Mike Adams

(Natural News) A convergence of horrifying events have set into a motion an irreversible collapse of food production and crop harvests that will lead to global famine all the way through 2024. These events cannot be stopped for the simple reason that plants take time to grow. You can’t create crops instantly, and if they don’t get planted (or they get destroyed), there’s no instant replacement.
The reasons for the coming global famine include:
Floods and droughts causing sharp drops in crop production in China, Russia and the USA, among other nations.
Economic sanctions against Russia causing a halting of exports for food and fertilizer.
War in Ukraine, leading to a halting of the 2022 planting season for wheat, corn, soy and other crops.
War in the Black Sea, blocking ship movements in the ports (such as Odessa) which normally export crops.
The Biden admin’s shutting down of fossil fuel production in the USA, adding significant costs to fertilizers and agricultural operations.
Global fiat currency money printing, making food inflation reach atrocious levels.
Importantly, all this coalesces into two primary problems that will now accelerate across the world:
Food scarcity and inflation.
of course, mehere’s no remaining supply no matter what the cost. Both of them cause people to panic, ultimately leading to widespread civil unrest.
Farmers are now reporting a roughly 300% increase in their cost to produce crops such as wheat. This is due to three primary inputs:
1. The cost of fertilizer and seed.
2. The cost of fuel to power agricultural equipment.
3. The availability of tractors and other equipment (and their parts) in order to carry out mechanized agricultural operations.
In addition to these factors, fuel costs significantly elevate transportation expenses to transport grains to grain storage and milling providers. Thus, rising fuel costs hit farmers twice: First for the cost of running their equipment, and secondly in the transportation costs.
Sadly, it looks like diesel fuel is headed toward $6 / gallon, and this is going to put severe upward pressure on food prices across the board.
Joe Biden is punishing America with economic sanctions against our entire energy sector while having no such sanctions on Russia’s energy exports.
Fertilizer prices have tripled and will likely go higher, especially as Russia has halted fertilizer exports and shut down natural gas pipelines to Western Europe. As a result, the fertilizer supply is growing scarce. About 5 billion people on the planet depend on fossil fuel-created fertilizer for their primary source of food. Thus, without fertilizer — if it were to go to zero — about 5 billion people starve to death.
I am not predicting the starvation of 5 billion people, since fertilizer production isn’t zero. But it is easily down by 25% – 30% right now, perhaps more, and that means somewhere approaching 2 billion people (or more) are going to face real famine / starvation in the crop seasons ahead. Very few people understand that food comes from fertilizer which is made using hydrocarbons.
Extreme food scarcity will become apparent at the retail level this summer!
There is a delay time between crop yield collapse and food scarcity at retail grocery stores. Right now in March, we are eating the winter harvest of wheat. By late summer, we will be depending on wheat from the spring wheat crops around the world, and those crops just aren’t getting planted at the level necessary to feed the world.
A limited supply of soft white wheat, the primary type of wheat grown in the Inland Northwest, has helped lead to a six-year low for wheat exports from the United States. That’s according to the USDA wheat report for February. The report also states that 71 percent of U.S. winter wheat is being hit by drought in 2022.
The upshot of all this is that food shelves are going to look downright frightening in 2022, and for the shelves that actually have food, it’s going to cost perhaps twice as much. Some items might see prices triple.
Shockingly, food basics are going to require a larger and larger percentage of workers’ paychecks, taking away their ability to pay for fuel (which is also skyrocketing) or to purchase clothing, housing, etc.
It doesn’t mean that every city will collapse into instant chaos, but food scarcity, food inflation and energy inflation will create conditions of extreme poverty and desperation among the population. As a result, you’re going to witness more of the following:
Flash mob looting of grocery stores, gunpoint robberies of people exiting grocery stores or carrying groceries, increased carjackings, home invasions and crime derived from desperation and starvation.] Edited to fit
--------------------------------

 

[ScottA]

If you are correct, please stop wars, and killing babies and all evil. Thank you. Instead of admitting the obvious, you claim others have the error.

Baloney. Yes He overcame the world but did not begin to rule the nations, obviously. That comes at a time that is prophesied about many ways and times. Those who pretend He and us are ruling the world now are delusional.

You seem to have the world confused with the kingdom.

Not at all. There comes a time when the kingdoms of this world become His kingdoms! That time is not now. Obviously.

It is you that needs to post cohesively and not try to cover your gaping opposition to Scripture with claims of being appointed.

If saints were ruling, you could have told Hitler to back off. You could tell Putin to go home. You could end abortion etc etc etc. You are not ruling.
Not over nations of this world at the moment. They are still the kingdoms of this world.

No, but as I already explained:

Those killings and waring are not what Jesus overcame-- It is still appointed once for men to die, even to the end of the times of the gentiles.

...Again, your focus is wrongly placed on the things of this word--but "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." It is true that the kingdoms of this world will manifest destruction, suffering and death until the end of the times of the gentiles--which is to the gentiles not loss, nor loss of reign, but gain: "to die is gain."

You did not consider it, nor see, nor hear. Nonetheless, this too is written.

 

[ScottA]

If you are correct, please stop wars, and killing babies and all evil. Thank you. Instead of admitting the obvious, you claim others have the error.

Baloney. Yes He overcame the world but did not begin to rule the nations, obviously. That comes at a time that is prophesied about many ways and times. Those who pretend He and us are ruling the world now are delusional.

You seem to have the world confused with the kingdom.
Not at all. There comes a time when the kingdoms of this world become His kingdoms! That time is not now. Obviously.

• But, no, I have explained what you have confused. And it is not you appointed me, nor are you able to take it from me.

It is you that needs to post cohesively and not try to cover your gaping opposition to Scripture with claims of being appointed.

Not at the second coming. No second coming passage has fire being used to destroy anything.

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

See? It doesn't say the coming of Jesus. It's the coming of a special day of God/Lord, that's what John saw in Revelation 21:1:

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

It's this day that the fire will destroy the old so a New Heaven and new Earth could be seen. The old ones "passed away" and we know that fire is used in that process from Peter.

None of that happens at the second coming, which is a very different day.

You have just quoted it but not seen it. It is all in one sentence. Here, I will highlight it in red (above).

 

[ewq1938]

Well, they came back from Olivet. That seems to indicate that is where He went up. Nowhere else is mentioned.

It's actually mentioned very clearly.

He was not on Mt of Olives when he ascended.

Luk 24:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
Luk 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great

Here we see that they went to Bethany and he ascended there, which is a mile from the Mount of Olives and about 2 miles from Jerusalem. They left Bethany and returned to Jerusalem having to cross the Mt of Olives on their way back. See the map provided.


Christ ascended in Bethany, they went back to Jerusalem via the Mt of Olives which is a Sabbath's journey from the Mt to Jerusalem. They traveled further than that because Bethany (it's one and only location) is on the other side of the Mt and past it's base just as Jerusalem is on that other side.

Acts only makes it seem like the ascension was on the Mount but it doesn't say that. It only mentions their return journey from the Mount to Jerusalem but doesn't bother to mention Bethany.

Mar 11:1 And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples,

Bethany is "at the Mount" just as it can be said that Jerusalem is at the Mount. That simply means near not on the Mount. Neither Jerusalem nor Bethany are actually on any part of the Mount. Both are about a mile away from the it.

Joh_11:18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:

15 furlongs is two miles just as the map shows with the Mount of Olives in the middle between cities. It's just one of those mistaken traditions that are so common that says Jesus ascended from the Mount.

 

[dad]

Well that’s not the New Testament but Jesus did stand on the mount of olives after Zechariah penned that verse and what Jesus did paved the way for the gospel to spread to the world

We know that the old testament is not the new testament. So now it looks like we can add unbelief in prophesy of Jesus' return to your pile.

 

[Davy]

Sad to see a poster grasping at straws and trying to make a mountain out of a typo. Pathetic.

You only show your spiritual blindness with statements like that. I make typos too, but I've already quoted from 1 Corinthians 15 specifically about the "spiritual body" that Apostle Paul taught.

There was nothing saying spiritual body in the verses you cite.

Maybe you ought to go back on this thread and look, because I did cite from 1 Corinthians 5 about the "spiritual body". I'm not going to cite for you again here, do your own Bible study.

When we die we go to be with Him where He is. Now if you want to believe that we receive a physical body at that time, I am not going to argue on this thread.

Like to make stuff up I see. I have NEVER said we receive a 'physical body' when we die, and I think you well know it, or, you must be thinking that about someone else here.

The dead who are raised get new bodies.

Well, you just CONTRADICTED yourself big time! We do NOT get new physical bodies, which means a new flesh body. That's actually the false doctrine of reincarnation, which some of the Jews actually believed (Matthew 16:13-14).

Jesus got a new body. I believe we receive our eternal body at the Rapture.

No He didn't. His flesh body was indeed raised, but transfigured, or "quickened" to the spirit body, like Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. Our flesh body won't be, will simply be cast off on the day of His coming (for those still alive on earth that is). You already have a "spiritual body" inside your flesh, and you don't even know it. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which born of The Spirit is spirit. You don't even know your left from your right regarding such things.

But as I said no need to argue that point since you do not even so much as believe in the Rapture or the 1000 year reign after He returns. No wonder you do not agree with the OP either, where it points out that those seeing the signs begin need to look up for the Rapture/redemption.

Oh I disagree. You need A LOT PREACHING TO because you've obviously been misguided in God's Word by men's doctrines, or you've done it to yourself.

And WHERE have I EVER said I don't believe in the "caught up" event of 1 Thessalonians 4?

Or where have I ever said I do not believe in Christ's future "thousand years" reign with His elect on earth?

You just bore false witness against me on those matters.

 

[ewq1938]

Did you post see #802?

Futurism does add to the text

That post did not prove such a thing.

 

[dad]

It's actually mentioned very clearly.

He was not on Mt of Olives when he ascended.

Luk 24:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
Luk 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great

Here we see that they went to Bethany and he ascended there, which is a mile from the Mount of Olives and about 2 miles from Jerusalem. They left Bethany and returned to Jerusalem having to cross the Mt of Olives on their way back. See the map provided.


Christ ascended in Bethany, they went back to Jerusalem via the Mt of Olives which is a Sabbath's journey from the Mt to Jerusalem. They traveled further than that because Bethany (it's one and only location) is on the other side of the Mt and past it's base just as Jerusalem is on that other side.

Acts only makes it seem like the ascension was on the Mount but it doesn't say that. It only mentions their return journey from the Mount to Jerusalem but doesn't bother to mention Bethany.

Mar 11:1 And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples,

Bethany is "at the Mount" just as it can be said that Jerusalem is at the Mount. That simply means near not on the Mount. Neither Jerusalem nor Bethany are actually on any part of the Mount. Both are about a mile away from the it.

Joh_11:18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:

15 furlongs is two miles just as the map shows with the Mount of Olives in the middle between cities. It's just one of those mistaken traditions that are so common that says Jesus ascended from the Mount.

Very good. It does seem that it was Bethany. I will note that it mentions 'Bethany, at the mount of Olives'. Bottom line, in any case it was less than a mile from the mount of Olives. Hey, if He ascended at a slight angle, maybe He was over it as He departed