God does not have a timeline.

[David H.]

This is unsupportable, that number. Generations in the Bible are variously 20 years, 40 years, 70-80 years, 100 years, and 120 years, people make a case for all of those.

The parable of the fig tree was exactly what Jesus said it was, a parable. Luke quotes a similar parable from the discouse he recorded, Consider the fig tree, and all the trees. Another parable.

I use Psalm 90:10 as the generation spoke of. Take a close look at the wording in that verse and you may see the prophetic implication there. Especially the two different words translated as strength in the KJV.

I think we went over this when I was discussing the blossoming fruit of the Judean Date palm.... if I remember correctly you do not think the fig tree is a symbol of Israel. The church is associated with oaks of righteousness. So when the Olivette discourse speaks of fig trees and the generation it is speaking of Israel, but when Luke adds all the trees he is speaking of the church as well. We too are bearing fruit, the coming latter rain..... a concept you do not agree with as well.... so it is a moot point to try and explain to you what you cannot see in scripture.... if you know what i mean?

You approach scripture and prophecy with your carnal human mind, with Logic, and temporal thought.... the wisdom of man. and in so doing you place your faith in that wisdom instead of reaching the point of saying "LORD, Thou knowest". As Good as Logic and reason are they will only take you so far in comprehending an almighty eternal God who is Spirit and operates in the Spiritual realm. That is the point in a way of this OP to begin with.... our minds work in a temporal realm constrained by the Laws of nature, and the time space continuum as God created. Us looking at God is like a 2 dimensional being trying to comprehend the 3rd dimensional beings.... I am sure you've heard the analogy I believe C.S. Lewis made. The Spirit of God reveals the deep things of God to us if and when we come to the point of being able to say "LORD thou knowest." When we lose faith in our own carnal earthly wisdom and can be taught by the Spirit.... Like little children.... faith of child.

The wisest people are the ones who are wise enough to know that they don't know it all.... we know in part.... The simple are the ones that think they have it all figured out. Or to quote Paul: "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise." 1 Corinthians 3:18

 

[Illuminator]

The NT did not come from the RCC. It was written by many NT Christians before the RCC arose.

First, the Latin rite did not exist when the NT was written. Your abuse of "RCC" to blanket all Catholics reveals your ignorance and it tells me you have been poisoned by fundie hate propaganda. It has been explained a thousand times why "RCC" is so pathetically inaccurate, only to fall on deaf ears. "Roman" Catholic refers to one rite out of 23. For example, it would be insulting to a Melkite Catholic to be called a "Roman" Catholic. Even the Pope doesn't use the term "Roman Catholic" unless he is addressing the Catholics in his own diocese, when the Pope functions a a local bishop.
The prefix "Roman" can refer to a document, a city, or a rite. "Roman Catholic", covering all Catholics, was first used as a slur by the Anglicans in the 16th century because they tried to retain catholicity while distancing themselves. They failed. "RCC" is a slur, but you don't know any better. You will probably misuse the term "RCC" again because you are too proud to be corrected.

Second, I challenge you to name ONE NT "Bible -believing born again Christian" in the post-biblical era. (after the Bible was written. You can't, because they were all Catholics) That covers only the first 4 centuries when Protestantism did not exist.

Third, arrogant denial of the facts of history; the development of the NT canon according to PROTESTANT sources, refutes your Bible origin fantasies.
The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the canon is authoritatively closed.

Sources for the diagram are all Protestant, as listed at the bottom of the link. The only way out for you is to declare yourself as an anti-Protestant, or prove Athanasius was a Protestant. You can't do that either.

 

[Ronald D Milam]

First, the Latin rite did not exist when the NT was written. Your abuse of "RCC" to blanket all Catholics reveals your ignorance and it tells me you have been poisoned by fundie hate propaganda. It has been explained a thousand times why "RCC" is so pathetically inaccurate, only to fall on deaf ears. "Roman" Catholic refers to one rite out of 23. For example, it would be insulting to a Melkite Catholic to be called a "Roman" Catholic. Even the Pope doesn't use the term "Roman Catholic" unless he is addressing the Catholics in his own diocese, when the Pope functions a a local bishop.
The prefix "Roman" can refer to a document, a city, or a rite. "Roman Catholic", covering all Catholics, was first used as a slur by the Anglicans in the 16th century because they tried to retain catholicity while distancing themselves. They failed. "RCC" is a slur, but you don't know any better. You will probably misuse the term "RCC" again because you are too proud to be corrected.

Second, I challenge you to name ONE NT "Bible -believing born again Christian" in the post-biblical era. (after the Bible was written. You can't, because they were all Catholics) That covers only the first 4 centuries when Protestantism did not exist.

Third, arrogant denial of the facts of history; the development of the NT canon according to PROTESTANT sources, refutes your Bible origin fantasies.
The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the canon is authoritatively closed.

Sources for the diagram are all Protestant, as listed at the bottom of the link. The only way out for you is to declare yourself as an anti-Protestant, or prove Athanasius was a Protestant. You can't do that either.

What you are missing is that 50 percent of the Church is not going to make the Rapture, which is indeed a Pre Trib Rapture. Out of the 10 Virgins (2 billion?) only 1 billion or so in Christendom is going to make it as a "real Christian with the Holy Spirit living in them".

So, who are these fake Christians? Well, they are everywhere. Mormons, the SDA, others and of course many will be people like Nancy Pelosi and Biden who are not true Christians, they love abortion, homosexuality, and think the Church can absolve their sins, it is just not the case. I love my RCC brothers and sisters just like my other brothers and sisters, but more of them will not have the Holy Spirit because they actually think Church leaders can absolve their sins.

They will be surprised very soon. As will the Mormons and SDA zealots. But many RCC members will be real Christians also, maybe its only 35 percent, whilst the rest are a smidge higher percent, save the Mormons which may be almost zero percent. (Romney, you listening?) God knows who He knows. REMEMBER, Jesus said MANY he will tell, "Depart from me for I never knew you"

 

[marks]

You approach scripture and prophecy with your carnal human mind, with Logic, and temporal thought....

Nevermind. I'm not interested in this sort of discussion, and we've gone almost straight there this time.

The fact is, God does have a timeline, and He's let us know what it is, and that's what's going to happen, whether you believe it or not.

Much love!

 

[Truth7t7]

First, the Latin rite did not exist when the NT was written. Your abuse of "RCC" to blanket all Catholics reveals your ignorance and it tells me you have been poisoned by fundie hate propaganda. It has been explained a thousand times why "RCC" is so pathetically inaccurate, only to fall on deaf ears. "Roman" Catholic refers to one rite out of 23. For example, it would be insulting to a Melkite Catholic to be called a "Roman" Catholic. Even the Pope doesn't use the term "Roman Catholic" unless he is addressing the Catholics in his own diocese, when the Pope functions a a local bishop.
The prefix "Roman" can refer to a document, a city, or a rite. "Roman Catholic", covering all Catholics, was first used as a slur by the Anglicans in the 16th century because they tried to retain catholicity while distancing themselves. They failed. "RCC" is a slur, but you don't know any better. You will probably misuse the term "RCC" again because you are too proud to be corrected.

Second, I challenge you to name ONE NT "Bible -believing born again Christian" in the post-biblical era. (after the Bible was written. You can't, because they were all Catholics) That covers only the first 4 centuries when Protestantism did not exist.

Third, arrogant denial of the facts of history; the development of the NT canon according to PROTESTANT sources, refutes your Bible origin fantasies.
The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the canon is authoritatively closed.

Sources for the diagram are all Protestant, as listed at the bottom of the link. The only way out for you is to declare yourself as an anti-Protestant, or prove Athanasius was a Protestant. You can't do that either.

The Vatican and Papacy are in "Rome" therefore "Roman Caholicism" pretty basic

Do you see the current Pope Francis in Rome as your religious leader?

 

[marks]

Agreed. 99.9 percent of people ignore or have no idea exists. Clearly it is about how all trees behave when summer is near. It has nothing to do with Israel becoming a nation again but the signs of the second coming and the harvest of the righteous.

It just follows paying attention to what the Scriptures say about the Scriptures. Jesus said it was a parable, yet people become so attached to their theories that they then purposefully ignore that fact.

Isn't that a big red flag? It is to me. When someone is willing to ignore plainly stated Scripture because they have these ideas that aren't actually in Scripture, no wonder there are all these debates!

Much love!

 

[Illuminator]

Yea, I have just been a preacher for 37 years,

Then you will be held to a higher standard. Your slanderous lies, prejudice and ignorance need to be exposed.

I am sure you being a Message Board Warrior are much more informed (SMILE). You might want to try to learn to be cordial to brothers first, until you can learn that discipline I am not sure you can grow in Christ very deeply. One must learn to tame their tongue before they can tame their minds and hearts.

Lot's of members don't like BofL's style, even me sometimes, but the challenge is to refute his content which is rarely done. Ranting with a list of falsehoods is not discussion, its persecution.

No other man nor church can forgive sins, only God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

That's true, but God/Jesus/Holy Spirit involves ordained PEOPLE to forgive serious sins, as the Bible plainly states.
As the International Theological Commission observed in its 1982 statement on penance and reconciliation, “It is not that we reconcile ourselves with God; it is God who through Christ reconciles us to him.”

The biblical basis for the sacrament of reconciliation

Throughout all of Scripture, God calls us to forsake our sinfulness and to return to him. In Christ, this call to restoration is made perfect -- and possible.

catholicphilly.com

The thing you seem focused on is Jesus giving the Holy Spirit unto the Disciples in John 20::20-23. There is no Acts 1:29. So, Jesus gave the "Holy Spirit" unto the Disciples and told them they could remit sins or retain them, but of course Jesus knew they listened to the Holy Spirit, so the Holy Spirit was going to be the one remitting sins or refusing to forgive. That seems to be missed by you !!

A straw man fallacy.
John 20:21 – before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.

John 20:22 – the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

John 20:23 – Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

Matt. 9:8 – this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors? NOWHERE!

Jesus was trying to demonstrate this new power of the Holy Spirit unto them. Because he was leaving, he wanted them to know they were not being left all alone, the Holy Spirit would operate just as he did and they could also operate that same way via the Holy Spirit................VIA the Holy Spirit.............. not of themselves !! The Holy Spirit would give the final approval, they still had to listen to God !! But Jesus wanted a SHOW CAUSE so to speak, so that faith could be built upon in men's eyes.

You are confusing Pentecost with the authority Jesus plainly gave to the Apostles, two different topics.

Now, do you think those evil RCC leaders are full of the Holy Spirit LOL, come on man. They are mostly, or 80-90 percent of the flesh, the love everything over God, Politics, Lusts, Greed, the Love of men etc. more than they love God, don't kid yourself.

97% of Catholic leaders were good servants of the Gospel, you kid yourself.

Well, you had the scriptures correct I see, I saw Acts 1:29 and there is no Acts 1:29 so it confused me.


By the way, if you are Roman Catholic, I take up for them all the time, they took the Gospel unto all the world from 400-1400 AD,

Your dates are wrong. It's from 33 A.D. to the present time.

The RCC [leaders] of the 1300s to 1800s were pure evil go read about them as I have, the Church of England was just as bad, torturing confessions out of people !!

The only reading you have done is biased anti-Catholic rhetoric. The truth forces you to re-write history so it fits.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes

A complete list of every single pope in the last 2000 years, in chronological order. Links to a biographical essay on each.

www.newadvent.org

 

[Ronald D Milam]

It just follows paying attention to what the Scriptures say about the Scriptures. Jesus said it was a parable, yet people become so attached to their theories that they then purposefully ignore that fact.

Isn't that a big red flag? It is to me. When someone is willing to ignore plainly stated Scripture because they have these ideas that aren't actually in Scripture, no wonder there are all these debates!

Much love!

Well, tbh, it could be a parable about Israel, but it is not. Jesus gives us the Juxtaposition in the parable when he says LIKEWISE, when you see all these things in verse 33. Which means he is juxtaposing the parable against all of the signs he just gave them. Its a pretty easy parable tbh in that Jesus explains the parable's meaning in real time unto his Disciples.

Parables can be about any and all things, our job is to decipher them, this one is easy.

 

[David H.]

Nevermind. I'm not interested in this sort of discussion, and we've gone almost straight there this time.

The fact is, God does have a timeline, and He's let us know what it is, and that's what's going to happen, whether you believe it or not.

Much love!

Yes God has a timeline, it is just not what temporal human minds can figure out, because they don't think in the Spiritual dimension in which God dwells. The ones that think they have it figured out are going to be sorely disappointed.

That is the big problem with fundamentalism IMO.

Have a good day. God bless

 

[rwb]

As I read through the titles on the eschatology forum here, all i see is the various timeline proponents declaring the other one false.... My belief is that they are all wrong, because they are assuming God is constrained by a timeline of His own making. Some use the verse in 2 Peter that says a day is as a thousand years to either support or deny their proposed timeline, when in fact it is meant to tell us that God has no timeline as he exists in eternity. Mortal man and the mortal mind of man has a hard "time" grasping this concept, so they insert time where God has not in the prophecies.

My point here is to all who are pushing a timeline of events, whether preterist amillennial or pre-millennial to go back and examine where you have inserted time when God has not in your timeline. In some aspects, you are all correct, in others, you are deceiving yourself.... Although I am a premillennialist myself, I believe the end times started right when Christ arose from the dead and ascended to heaven. That is the timescape of Revelation... So says Christ Himself...."Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;" (Revelation 1:19) So John, writing circa 95AD has had these things already happen in the past and has witnessed them, some things are happening at the time of his writing, and the things which will occur in the future to come. And the thing is, all of these prophecies can have multiple fulfillments in the past present and future.... for example the seven letters to the churches, were past churches, current churches and future church ages.

I'm not fully understanding what point you are trying to make here. You say God has no timeline because He exists in eternity, but then you say "end times started right when Christ arose from the dead and ascended to heaven". Isn't that a timeline for fulfillment of events that come after Christ ascended to heaven?

If God does not have a timeline, why does Rev 10 say that when the seventh angel begins to sound time shall be no more?

Revelation 10:5-7 (KJV) And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Perhaps a better way of understanding time from the ascension of Christ to the sounding of the seventh angel is to realize Scripture depicts time not literally, but symbolically as a thousand years?

 

[marks]

Yes God has a timeline, it is just not what temporal human minds can figure out, because they don't think in the Spiritual dimension in which God dwells. The ones that think they have it figured out are going to be sorely disappointed.

That is the big problem with fundamentalism IMO.

Have a good day. God bless

Just believe what is written and you will be OK.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Well, tbh, it could be a parable about Israel, but it is not. Jesus gives us the Juxtaposition in the parable when he says LIKEWISE, when you see all these things in verse 33. Which means he is juxtaposing the parable against all of the signs he just gave them. Its a pretty easy parable tbh in that Jesus explains the parable's meaning in real time unto his Disciples.

Parables can be about any and all things, our job is to decipher them, this one is easy.

Exactly, He tells us. All we need do is pay attention.

Much love!

 

[David H.]

They will be surprised very soon. As will the Mormons and SDA zealots. But many RCC members will be real Christians also, maybe its only 35 percent, whilst the rest are a smidge higher percent, save the Mormons which may be almost zero percent.

God knows who He knows. REMEMBER, Jesus said MANY he will tell, "Depart from me for I never knew you"

A straw man fallacy.
John 20:21 – before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.

As Much as I like debating with my Catholic Brethren, can we find another post to do this on. Or at least stick to the topic at hand. Perhaps discuss each of your eschatological views in an open and civil debate format.

Ronald, thank you for keeping your comments civil. I tend to agree with you as I believe that every church consists of wheat and tares.... Our Job is not to separate them, but the angels will do so at the harvest. Unlike many protestants I include Catholics as Brethren and like you see their hierarchy as Nicolaitan.... which can be said of many Protestant churches as well. By Nicolaitan I am talking of ruling over the Laity, instead of Elder/Shepherd led. Nicolaitans tend to gravitate towards church leadership and once they get in by puffing up the ego of the shepherds they introduce their heresies over time.

 

[David H.]

Just believe what is written and you will be OK.

Spoken like a true textualist. "I Have need of nothing".

 

[Ronald D Milam]

That's true, but God/Jesus/Holy Spirit involves ordained PEOPLE to forgive serious sins, as the Bible plainly states.
As the International Theological Commission observed in its 1982 statement on penance and reconciliation, “It is not that we reconcile ourselves with God; it is God who through Christ reconciles us to him.”

You miss what Jesus did and why, he left a CONTACT with AUTHORITY, until the Church understood the Holy Spirit was the REAL CONTACT. Do you get that? Jesus trusted the Disciples, he himself trained them. New Converts would not understand how to operate in the Spirit at first, it would have to be a learned instruction, and obedience is a must to operate in the Spirit. Read Luke 4, God even required this of Jesus. He was led by the Spirit into the Wilderness, then after he had been tried and tested by Satan, and obeyed in all things, the scriptures say he came out of the Wilderness in the "Power of the Spirit".

Jesus/God felt they needed to leave a contact with authority, like Jesus was, who forgave sins, in order for the Church to grow. It couldn't be, just have faith and feel it, they needed to be forgiven by an AUTHORITY that could be seen. But the truth is the Holy Spirit made each decision, they just followed what the Holy Spirit told them to do, so it was still God forgiving sins, not the 12 Disciples, they were just a SEEN CONTACT. If you can not grasp that sinful men can not forgive sins then that is on you, that is how men do not comprehend God in full because they pick and choose scriptures instead of going line by line and precept by precept. Of course Jesus gave his disciples ONLY this power, but he understood they always heard the Holy Spirits voice first, because he taught them, so in essence, they were merely channeling the Holy Spirits will. Jesus, The Father and the Holy Spirit are all God.

97% of Catholic leaders were good servants of the Gospel, you kid yourself.

So, Jesus says only 5 out of 10 make the Rapture and you think 97 percent of Catholic Leaders are going to make it, SMH. You are off in la la land here brother. Many will think they are good servants, Jesus wants those who put him before everything, thus they have the Holy Spirit living in them.

The only reading you have done is biased anti-Catholic polemics.

No, I know the RCC and the Church of England were evil entities, don't you? And I know 50 percent of the 2 billion in Christendom are fakes according to Jesus. What gets me about Catholics, is they really think other men can absolve their sins, this leaves them as sitting ducks, they will never repent from the evil things they love if they can do them week after week and get absolved by some man !!

ANYONNE that advocates abortion or homosexuality, in ANY WAY, will not make heaven unless you TURN from that sin. Advocacy of sin is SIN ALSO.

 

[marks]

Spoken like a true textualist. "I Have need of nothing".

You need the Bible, and you need to believe what you read. I encourage you to do so.

Much love!

 

[David H.]

Non-sequitor. I guess all you have left is insults.

Not an insult at all Marks, an encouragement to dig deeper into the Word of God to find what you may be missing. The deep things of God.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)

 

[marks]

an encouragement to dig deeper into the Word of God to find what you may be missing.

If I show you God's timing in the Bible, will you believe it? We mustn't reject what it says, in favor of what it doesn't say.

Much love!

 

[David H.]

If I show you God's timing in the Bible, will you believe it?

I would love for you to contribute to the topic at hand. If I show you your understanding of God's timing is errant, will you consider it? I will believe what the Spirit shows me is true.

 

[marks]

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)

You realize, it's a two edged sword . . .

Much love!