What Should A Person Do If They Miss The Rapture ?

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

No, it really doesn't. Verses 1-2 describe events that occurred during the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD quite accurately. Verse 3 very likely goes with verses 1-2 because the text literally says in both the LXX and MT that YHWH will fight (deploy in the LXX) IN the nations, not against them. This fits the context of verses 1-2 very well. This same pattern is repeated in verse 14 that says Judah will fight (deploy in the LXX) IN Jerusalem.

The messiah stood on the Mount of Olives many times nearly 2000 years ago in fulfillment of the bolded part of verse 4, so there is no reason to look for or expect, a future fulfillment.



No, I'm definately not biblically illiterate. But I do assiduously avoid jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, like you do and will have to answer for. And you ignore the witness of the new covenant writers who have explicitly stated that both Zion and Jerusalem are above.



As I said, Christ walked the Mount of Olives many times. There is no reason or justification for ignoring that reality to project the prophecy's fulfillment into the future. It is an unbelieving heart that continually rejects such obvious past fulfillments of scripture to fabricate speculative falsehoods.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the Israelis have identified the location of Azal. Unfortunately for your narrative, it lies due south of both Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. This fact alone crushes your fable which states that people will flee east through the Mount of Olives to Azal.

Click to expand...

What that kind of reasoning is aligned with is the false ideas of Preterism. The 'Full Preterist' version denies the bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ, and most on that false doctrine even deny His future thousand years reign of Rev.20 as being literal.

So, no reason to continue on with someone like you on that subject, since you obviously deny Scripture about these things.

veteran said:

What that kind of reasoning is aligned with is the false ideas of Preterism. The 'Full Preterist' version denies the bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ, and most on that false doctrine even deny His future thousand years reign of Rev.20 as being literal.

So, no reason to continue on with someone like you on that subject, since you obviously deny Scripture about these things.

Click to expand...

You're either ignorant, or a troublemaker, trying to confuse the issue by polarizing the argument into futurism vs. full preterism. Full preterism is as much an abomination as futurism is. The truth lies in between these two excesses.

veteran said:

What that kind of reasoning is aligned with is the false ideas of Preterism. The 'Full Preterist' version denies the bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ, and most on that false doctrine even deny His future thousand years reign of Rev.20 as being literal.

So, no reason to continue on with someone like you on that subject, since you obviously deny Scripture about these things.

Click to expand...

Hang on Veteran, I've been reading along...but feel I need to jump in here...are you saying that anyone who doesn't believe in a future, literal millenium; is denying scripture, pushing a false doctrine...indeed, cannot therefore be saved??
I would classify myself as an 'amillenialist', but you know what...so would (under today's labels) have Luther, Calvin and a few other well known theologians. I hope your not questioning their salvation?
Even if your not saying our salvation is lost in such fallacy, you are accusing us of pushing unbiblical and erroneous doctrine. The fact remains that I have just as many verses as you to solidify my position. I started my journey as a pre trib, pre mil person, as my grandfather was...but as too many questions and inconsitancies arose, I began reading and praying over the subject. I hovered over post trib, pre mil for a while, but again, too many questions arose...it felt like the other side of the pre trib coin...but the currency itself wasn't adding up. The Bible is just too clear in stating that when Jesus returns, He will usher in the new heavens and earth. Jesus' coming is the end of death, the end of sin and what both this groaning world and our hearts are longing for...for when He returns, all will be made new. That leaves no room for a period of time where Jesus' reigns over us (in an earthly kingdom), but sin, death and rebellion still exists.
Now, you may disagree with me, but do not think to judge my mind or heart...for all I am doing is taking scripture and interpreting it as I see best, I as see it plainly written, and as I see it honouring Jesus best. Call me wrong, opinion wise, I really don't mind...but do not accuse me of pushing a false doctrine, of following something I pulled from air rather than scripture. I do not deny scripture...I read it faithfully and let IT, not some man, guide my doctrine. You argue passionately for what you believe, and I don't mind that at all...it provides interesting conversations! But let me ask you something...as a believer who loves Jesus and believes the Bible to be the inerrant word of God...as someone who felt uneasy about this topic...as someone who went searching, reading scripture and praying hard that the Spirit would lead me to the truth about it...after finding something that seemed to both fit scripture and also give me an inner peace about the subject....would you have acted any different?? Am I to ignore both scripture and the guiding of the Spirit just because other men tell me I'm mistaken? Am I to doubt what I have been guided to, when all that I believe honours and glorifies Jesus? And it does, you know. I believe that at this very moment Jesus is ruling in glory by His Father's throne. I believe that He will return, as He promised us, and that when He does, He will make all things new and wipe every tear from our eyes. Am I really wrong beliveing that? Do you really need to accuse me and others who think like me, of being unbiblical because we think all those things?

Shalom, HeRoseFromTheDead.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

Acts 1:11 says nothing about where the messiah will return to. It only says that he will return in the same manner that he ascended, i.e., in clouds. Nor does it even say that he will return to the earth. All it says is that he will return in clouds, which is what Revelation corroborates. You are making an assumption and reading the Mount of Olives as the return location into the text.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does. The real problem is in your definition of the word "heaven." The word in Greek is "ouranos" and it simply means the "sky."

So, read it again with the right meaning to this word:

Acts 1:9-12
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward the sky as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into the sky? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into the sky, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into the sky.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
KJV

Now, that tells us that He will return TO THE GROUND, because despite how little children draw the sky above the stick figure of a man and the grass beneath his feet with a HUGE white space in between, we know that the sky - the atmosphere - TOUCHES the ground!

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

The context of the above verses is Isaiah's time in which the remnant among Judah who trusted in YHWH were to be preserved from harm by his power; but those who trusted in the power of man by going to Egypt were to be cursed. Of course, this truth has been applicable throughout the ages; and since it has it cannot be considered a definitive proof text for the end time.

These verses don't say anything about setting foot in the land of Israel. The judgments described could be executed from heaven. Again, you're trying to read your narrative into the text.

Same as above comment.

Same

Same.

Romans 11 declares that only those who believe in Christ are to be saved. Paul also said that at the messiah's return those in Christ would either be raised or transformed to meet him in the air. Therefore, those who are not in Christ will not be raised or transformed to meet him in the air. They will be on earth.

You said that after this happens, all those in Christ will be gathered to Israel to rescue those still on the ground, who are not in Christ. But that contradicts what Paul said; and your explanation makes him out to be a liar.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to go into each one of these passages of Scripture (which you basically blew off); I believe veteran made good points about each of them already. However, when it comes to Romans 11, you're wrong about the Jews. THEY WILL BE RESURRECTED BEFORE THEY ACCEPT THE MESSIAH! That may go against the grain for you, but nevertheless, it's true! You really need to focus on learning the Scriptures, instead of doctrine and theology. Modern versions of theology SOUND good; theologians have worked hard at sewing up all the loose ends, but "let God be true and every man a liar!" Most modern, Christian theologians have been a long time ignorant of the Old Testament (the Tanakh) and how an Isra'eli or a Jew would read the prophecies. And, I'm not talking about their versions of theology, either. I KNOW they are often wrong in their theology, too, because of their rejection of God's Son! On the other hand, Isra'elis whose first language is Hebrew don't have to learn the language as Westerners do to understand what is being said. (They just may not LIKE what is being said.)

Now, you said I've made Paul out to be a liar. I submit that I've done nothing of the sort. Instead, I believe that I've only made your INTERPRETATION of what Paul said out to be a lie. For instance, what does Romans 10:13 mean to you?

One of the passages you blew off, Joel 2:32 in particular, was being quoted by Paul in Romans 10:13! Read the verse carefully within its context in Joel, and you will find that MAYBE you haven't been understanding Romans 10:13 correctly:


Joel 2:27-3:2
27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.
28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come.
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.
3:1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.
KJV

This passage is NOT about "salvation" in the modern definition of the word, which I call "personal justification by God" instead! It's about RESCUE, and in particular the rescue of the JEWS from their enemies!

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

Are these all of the verses that you have? Can you provide me something more definitive in which you're not reading your narrative into the text?

Click to expand...

Heavens, no! There are hundreds more verses! Can I provide you something more definitive in which I'm not reading my narrative into the text? I don't know! I mean, what would be "definitive" enough for YOU to accept? Would you accept ANYTHING I bring up? Or, would you more likely just argue against whatever verses I quote?

It's been said that children ask questions to get information; adults ask questions to justify themselves.

This is NOT a slam against you personally, but I don't want to "throw my pearls before the swine." That is, I don't want to waste my time and effort in looking up more verses (the pearls) IF they are just going to be "trampled upon" in your attempt to "turn and rend me!" It's just not worth it.

Now, if you're TRULY looking for a passage by which you can change your point of view, then sure! I'll give you MUCH more! I found all these verses by simply looking up the words "descend" and "down." Anyone with a concordance could do the same.

Retrobyter said:

Actually, it does. The real problem is in your definition of the word "heaven." The word in Greek is "ouranos" and it simply means the "sky."
Now, that tells us that He will return TO THE GROUND, because despite how little children draw the sky above the stick figure of a man and the grass beneath his feet with a HUGE white space in between, we know that the sky - the atmosphere - TOUCHES the ground!

Click to expand...

Such a nonsensical comment. With this kind of reasoning you can make anything mean anything. And you do this with all of your exposition. You make things to mean whatever you say they mean contrary to the common sense of scripture and the witness of history, and other such witnesses. It's pointless to argue with such a mind that doesn't adhere to logic, reason and reality.

I asked you to provide sciptural evidence to support the two specific points I mentioned:

1) Where in scripture is it predicted that the Messiah will descend to the land of Israel?
2) If the dead and alive in Christ meet him in the air, and "national Isra'el" is still on the ground to be rescued, obviously "national Isra'el" is not in Christ. Where in scripture does it say that those not in Christ will be saved?

Click to expand...

In response I get a picture painted with a big brush that your fallacious reasoning and logic begs me to believe.

Retrobyter said:

Heavens, no! There are hundreds more verses! Can I provide you something more definitive in which I'm not reading my narrative into the text? I don't know! I mean, what would be "definitive" enough for YOU to accept? Would you accept ANYTHING I bring up? Or, would you more likely just argue against whatever verses I quote?

It's been said that children ask questions to get information; adults ask questions to justify themselves.

Click to expand...

The reason you can't provide anything definitive is because they don't exist, except in the delusions of your mind.

Truth-seeking, inquisitive minds ask questions. Dogmatists try to win arguments with veiled ad hominem attacks when they can't answer those questions, as you have done.

Now instead of unsubstantiated opinion, here's an actual fact that contradicts and destroys your imagined narrative of an earthly rescue with people fleeing east through the Mount of Olives to Azal. The Israelis have identified the location of Azal. Unfortunately for your narrative, it lies due south of both Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives, which renders your fairy tale an impossibility.

Shabbat shalom, HeRoseFromTheDead.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

Retrobyter, on 03 March 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:
Actually, it does. The real problem is in your definition of the word "heaven." The word in Greek is "ouranos" and it simply means "the sky."
…
Now, that tells us that He will return TO THE GROUND, because despite how little children draw the sky above the stick figure of a man and the grass beneath his feet with a HUGE white space in between, we know that the sky - the atmosphere - TOUCHES the ground!

Click to expand...

Such a nonsensical comment. With this kind of reasoning you can make anything mean anything. And you do this with all of your exposition. You make things to mean whatever you say they mean contrary to the common sense of scripture and the witness of history, and other such witnesses. It's pointless to argue with such a mind that doesn't adhere to logic, reason and reality.

Click to expand...

And that is the extent of what you have learned about the Scriptures?! It’s not nonsense nor is it a departure from reality. It’s simply learning from the languages in which the Scriptures were written for us.

If you pick up a book, any book, and begin to read it, do you start with an allegorical interpretation of that book? NO! You start with the assumption that what you are reading is to be interpreted normally in a literal fashion. Yet, it is a historical fact that people go astray and that they do so fairly quickly. We have historical evidence to suggest that the allegorical method of interpretation started in the second century A.D.

Look, it’s been so long since anyone actually used Koine Greek, that we need to investigate each definition for each word that was used in the original languages to be sure we know what the word means and not just what some “translator” said it means. We can do this by using the word’s etymology. By investigating where the word came from, we can better understand how the word came to mean a particular definition.

Modern Greek has some similarities to the Koine, but it is not the same language in all points. It’s rather like American English today compared to Old English. We would have a hard time reading Old English, let alone understanding it.

Remembering that I use “e” for epsilon, “ee” for eta, “o” for omicron, and “oo” for omega in my transliterations of Greek, the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Concordance says this is the definition of “ouranos”:

NT:3772 ouranos (oo-ran-os'); perhaps from the same as NT:3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension, heaven (as the abode of God); by implication, happiness, power, eternity; specifically, the Gospel (Christianity):

Click to expand...

KJV - air, heaven ([-ly]), sky.

NT:3735 oros (or'-os); probably from an obsolete oroo (to rise or "rear"; perhaps akin to NT:142; compare NT:3733); a mountain (as lifting itself above the plain):
KJV - hill, mount (-ain).

NT:142 airoo (ah'-ee-ro); a primary root; to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebraism [compare OT:5375] to expiate sin:
KJV - away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up).

NT:3733 ornis (or'-nis); probably from a prolonged form of the base of NT:3735; a bird (as rising in the air), i.e. (specifically) a hen (or female domestic fowl):
KJV - hen.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Click to expand...

So, let’s construct the etymology of the word “ouranos”:

Its origins can be traced back to “oroo,” which means “to rise” or “rear.”
“Oroo” is probably akin to “airoo,” a primary root meaning “to lift up.”
“Oroo” gave rise to “oros,” which means “mountain,” which in turn gave rise to “ornis,” which means “bird.”
“Ouranos” means “the sky” and ONLY BY EXTENSION does it mean “heaven (as the abode of God).”

From “ouranos” we have other composite words listed in Strong’s Greek Dictionary:

NT:3770 ouranios (oo-ran'-ee-os); from NT:3772; celestial, i.e. belonging to or coming from the sky:

Click to expand...

KJV - heavenly.

NT:3771 ouranothen (oo-ran-oth'-en); from NT:3772 and the enclitic of source; from the sky:
KJV - from heaven.

NT:2032 epouranios (ep-oo-ran'-ee-os); from NT:1909 and NT:3772; above the sky:
KJV - celestial, (in) heaven (-ly), high.

NT:1909 epi (ep-ee'); a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the det.) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:
KJV - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, have charge of, (be-, [wherefore-]), in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

NT:3321 mesouraneema (mes-oo-ran'-ay-mah); from a presumed compound of NT:3319 and NT:3772; mid-sky:
KJV - midst of heaven.

NT:3319 mesos (mes'-os); from NT:3326; middle (as an adjective or [neuter] noun):
KJV - among, before them, between, forth, mid [-day, -night], midst, way.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Click to expand...

Etymology is where to start, but to really understand the meaning of a word, we also need to investigate the Scriptures in which that word is used, including other words derived from that word with the addition of prefixes and suffixes.


Here are the verses that use the word “ouranos” (NT:3772):

Matthew 3:2, 16, 17 (2x); 4:17; 5:3, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19 (2x), 20, 34, 45, 48; 6:1, 9, 10, 20, 26; 7:11, 21 (2x); 8:11, 20; 10:7, 32, 33; 11:11, 12, 23, 25; 12:50; 13:11, 24, 31, 32, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; 14:19; 16:1, 2, 3 (2x), 17, 19 (3x); 18:1, 3, 4, 10 (2x), 14, 18 (2x), 19, 23; 19:12, 14, 21, 23; 20:1; 21:25 (2x); 22:2, 30; 23:9, 13, 22; 24:29 (2x), 30 (2x), 31, 35, 36; 25:1; 26:64; 28:2, 18;
Mark 1:10, 11; 4:4, 32; 6:41; 7:34; 8:11; 10:21; 11:25, 26, 30, 31; 12:25; 13:25 (2x), 27, 31, 32; 14:62; 16:19;
Luke 2:15; 3:21, 22; 4:25; 6:23; 8:5; 9:16, 54, 58; 10:15, 18, 20, 21; 11:2 (2x), 13, 16; 12:33, 56; 13:19; 15:7, 18, 21; 16:17; 17:24 (2x), 29; 18:13, 22; 19:38; 20:4, 5; 21:11, 26, 33; 22:43; 24:51;
John 1:32, 51; 3:13 (3x), 27, 31; 6:31, 32 (2x), 33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58; 12:28; 17:1;
Acts 1:10, 11 (3x); 2:2, 5, 19, 34; 3:21; 4:12, 24; 7:42, 49, 55, 56; 9:3; 10:11, 12, 16; 11:5, 6, 9, 10; 14:15; 17:24; 22:6;
Romans 1:18; 10:6;
1 Corinthians 8:5; 15:47;
2 Corinthians 5:1, 2; 12:2;
Galatians 1:8;
Ephesians 1:10; 3:15; 4:10; 6:9;
Philippians 3:20;
Colossians 1:5, 16, 20, 23; 4:1;
1 Thessalonians 1:10; 4:16;
2 Thessalonians 1:7;
Hebrews 1:10; 4:14; 7:26; 8:1; 9:23, 24; 10:34; 11:12; 12:23, 25, 26;
James 5:12, 18;
1 Peter 1:4, 12; 3:22;
2 Peter 1:18; 3:5, 7, 10, 12, 13;
1 John 5:7;
Revelation 3:12; 4:1, 2; 5:3, 13; 6:13, 14; 8:1, 10; 9:1; 10:1, 4, 5, 6, 8; 11:6, 12 (2x), 13, 15, 19; 12:1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12; 13:6, 13; 14:2, 7, 13, 17; 15:1, 5; 16:11, 17, 21; 18:1, 4, 5, 20; 19:1, 11, 14; 20:1, 9, 11; 21:1 (2x), 2, 3, and 10.
284 times in all.

Here are the ones that use “ouranios” (NT:3770):

Matthew 6:14, 26, 32; 15:13;
Luke 2:13; and
Acts 26:19.
6 times in all.

Here are the ones that use “ouranothen” (NT:3771):

Acts 14:17; and 26:13.
Only 2 times.

Here are the verses that use “epouranios” (NT:2032):

Matthew 18:35;
John 3:12;
I Corinthians 15:40 (2x), 48 (2x), 49;
Ephesians 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12;
Philippians 2:10;
2 Timothy 4:18;
Hebrews 3:1; 6:4; 8:5; 9:23; 11:16; and 12:22.
20 times in all.

And, here are the verses for “mesouraneema” (NT:3321):

Revelation 8:13; 14:6; and 19:17.
Only 3 times.

Look them all up and see whether “sky” or a phrase from the word “sky” wouldn’t work as well or better in each verse. I did, and something that helped me may or may not work for you, as well: Check out Matthew 16:1, 2, 3 (2x). Look up the verses in a Greek New Testament. You will find that all four occurrences in that short passage are the SAME GREEK WORD “OURANOS!” Then, ask yourself, “What is REALLY going on in this passage?” And, then ask, “Why is it that NONE of the English versions indicate that the word the Pharisees used is EXACTLY THE SAME as the word Yeshua` used three times?”

Therefore, I didn’t haphazardly substitute “the sky” for “heaven,” and it’s not “whatever I say it means.” There are good reasons for doing so; and it does no harm to the text. In fact, I believe it ENHANCES the text.

For instance, here’s an example: Consider the word “mesouraneema” meaning “mid-sky” or “in the middle of the sky.” There were only three verses which used this word and all of them were to be found in Revelation.

Most people define an “angel” as a “spiritual being that can fly and delivers messages for God to people.” Therefore, the first two verses, Revelation 8:13 and 14:6, are too nebulous and inconclusive to be of much help; “angels” could fly both in the sky and in outer space and in “heaven” as God’s abode. HOWEVER, the third verse, Revelation 19:17, is the “LIMITING REAGENT,” to use a chemistry analogy of stoichiometry. It’s the “LIMITING FACTOR!” “Fowls” or “birds” cannot fly anywhere except in the earth’s atmosphere! Therefore, it makes sense to see “mesouraneema” as meaning “mid-sky” and not “mid-outer-space” or “mid-God’s abode.” Understand? Not all of the verses will be of value to you in the same way as Rev. 8:13 and 14:6 were not for me; however, there will be key passages that WILL make sense to you, I believe, to show that “ouranos” is best understood translated as “sky.”

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

I asked you to provide sciptural evidence to support the two specific points I mentioned:

In response I get a picture painted with a big brush that your fallacious reasoning and logic begs me to believe.

Click to expand...

Actually, I gave you seven passages: Isaiah 31:4-5; 34:1-6; 63:1-7; 64:1-5; Joel 2:27-3:2 (and how it was quoted in Romans 10:13); Acts 1:6-12; and Romans 11:11-32, and you pooh-poohed them all, blowing them off, and then asked for more!

Tell me, did you BOTHER to actually read these passages and read them for understanding? Or, did you just blow them off because they came from me?

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

The reason you can't provide anything definitive is because they don't exist, except in the delusions of your mind.

Truth-seeking, inquisitive minds ask questions. Dogmatists try to win arguments with veiled ad hominem attacks when they can't answer those questions, as you have done.

Click to expand...

No, the reason I WON’T provide anything definitive is because you wouldn’t accept them even if I did provide them! (It’s kind of like Yeshua`s story of Avraham saying, “They have Moshe and the prophets; let them hear them.” If they wouldn’t believe Moshe and the prophets, then they wouldn’t believe, even if one rose from the dead!)

I simply said, “Heavens, no! There are hundreds more verses!” and there are! I would be HAPPY to share them with you if I thought you were honestly ready to receive them. Then, I repeated your question, “Can I provide you something more definitive in which I'm not reading my narrative into the text?” reversed from my point of view, and answered, “I don't know! I mean, what would be ‘definitive’ enough for YOU to accept? Would you accept ANYTHING I bring up? Or, would you more likely just argue against whatever verses I quote?” since you wouldn’t accept the seven passages I did provide, and you think I’m attacking you?! I’m not just trying to “win an argument”; I SERIOUSLY want to help you with this blind spot you have. I’m not making any “ad hominem” attacks; I’m only asking which way you lean! I want YOU to consider your stance carefully; that’s all. If you’re seriously looking to learn, then I’m here for you. If you’re not; if you don’t think there’s anything that you can learn from me, then that’s fine. We can just go our separate ways right now and no hard feelings.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

Now instead of unsubstantiated opinion, here's an actual fact that contradicts and destroys your imagined narrative of an earthly rescue with people fleeing east through the Mount of Olives to Azal. The Israelis have identified the location of Azal. Unfortunately for your narrative, it lies due south of both Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives, which renders your fairy tale an impossibility.

Click to expand...

“Azal” is not a location. That’s a problem with the version you’re using. The Hebrew word is “aatsal,” spelled alef-(qamets)-tsadday-(patach)-lamed (OT:680), not “Aatseel,” the place, spelled alef-(qamets)-tsadday-(tsere)-lamed (OT:682). With the word “eel” (pronounced “ail”) meaning “motion toward,” the word does not designate a place but a JOINING! In particular, a joining with the Dead Sea, in context, the “former sea,” or the “sea in front” when facing east, as the Temple did (Zechariah 14:8)!

OT:680 'aatsal (aw-tsal'); a primitive root; properly, to join; used only as a denominative from OT:681; to separate; hence, to select, refuse, contract:

Click to expand...

KJV - keep, reserve, straiten, take.

OT:682 'Aatseel (aw-tsale'); from OT:680; noble; Atsel, the name of an Israelite, and of a place in Palestine:
KJV - Azal, Azel.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Click to expand...

I’m not trying to be difficult; nor do I change my opinion that often (unless I discover something in the original languages I’ve missed before). I am consistent in my stance that “ouranos” means “the sky,” for instance. And, that’s nothing new. I’ve been saying that since I first posted in a forum! (It’s in the books I’m writing as well.) Ever since I looked up all those verses way back in 1978, I’ve been of that persuasion.

Wow. What a complete waste of time your posts are; both for yourself and readers. Words multiplied endlessly that don't mean anything. As far as what interpretation method I use, it is that which apostle Paul set forth in his writings: first the natural, then the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:46). The eternal spiritual realities are preeminent over the natural ones that have passed away because the latter were merely temporary patterns that point to realities that abide forever. So simple that a child can understand.

People that act like you do live in a world where their "learning" takes precedence over reality. This was demonstrated by your complete glossing over of the fact that the Israelis have identified Azal, the location of which completely invalidates your teaching on the matter. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that the identified location is correct; but you obviously would rather ignore reality and speculate based on your opinion that you are learned, rather than confront the reality that what you think you know is false. Azal is a mystery that has been hidden for centuries until now; and you choose to ignore its revelation for the sake of perpetuating your false witness based on speculation. Unreal. This tells me that you love your worldview more than you love the truth. Frankly, I think you are a false witness of God.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

You're either ignorant, or a troublemaker, trying to confuse the issue by polarizing the argument into futurism vs. full preterism. Full preterism is as much an abomination as futurism is. The truth lies in between these two excesses.

Click to expand...

OK, Historicism then, which aligns a whole lot with the false ideas of Preterism, treating many things in God's Word that are still future as if they were already past history. It's often difficult to tell the difference between the two because their having so many failings in common.

As for the idea of me being a troublemaker, that's exactly what the blind scribes and Pharisees thought of my Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples too. They labeled Jesus of Nazareth as a 'seditionist'.

veteran said:

OK, Historicism then, which aligns a whole lot with the false ideas of Preterism, treating many things in God's Word that are still future as if they were already past history. It's often difficult to tell the difference between the two because their having so many failings in common.

As for the idea of me being a troublemaker, that's exactly what the blind scribes and Pharisees thought of my Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples too. They labeled Jesus of Nazareth as a 'seditionist'.

Click to expand...

When you view things as apostle Paul did, i.e., first the natural, then the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:46), and consider the historical context in which a scripture was written, it becomes apparent that most (but not all) OT prophecies have been fulfilled. However, sometimes it just takes a believing heart to believe what scripture actually says, instead of twisting the plain meaning of verses to compensate for an inability to understand other verses. For example, there are those who claim God has not fulfilled his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob based on their inability to understand certain prophecies. This is contrary, though, to what is written:


Some persons twist and turn verses like this to say what they want them to say based on their own inability to actually understand certain prophecies.

OK, I believe that you are not a troublemaker.

Rach said:

Hang on Veteran, I've been reading along...but feel I need to jump in here...are you saying that anyone who doesn't believe in a future, literal millenium; is denying scripture, pushing a false doctrine...indeed, cannot therefore be saved??

Click to expand...

I mentioned nothing about Christ condemning pre-trib rapture believers to perish in any of my previous posts. That decision is Christ's alone. But I did repeat His warning for us to keep our garments lest we appear naked in shame, like the Rev.16:15 Scripture warning He gave. So you didn't read any "cannot therefore be saved" speeches from my posts.

Amillennialism is a false doctrine, even though it was made popular by Augustine and carried over by the Reformers and some later Churches. It is more aligned with the tenets of Preterism and Historicism today in many Churches than anything else. Amillennialism was not a view of the 1st century Church. It appeared most strongly in the 2nd century, and then Augustine popularized the idea. Yet Christ's future thousand years reign with His elect priests and kings is Scriptural, in both the Old Testament and New Testament Books.

When Christianity became well established by the 4th century A.D. and later in Asia Minor and Europe with the majority of western nations becoming primarily Christian nations, it was easy to think that Christ's Kingdom was being established on earth then, and the "thousand years" of Rev.20 being meant spiritually and not literally. That kind of thinking has continued among some Churches till today. Even in the 2nd century A.D. there were some among the Churches that completely rejected the Book of Revelation as not having been penned by Apostle John (as with other writings by Apostle John, like his Epistles). Apparently, those are still with us today.

I would classify myself as an 'amillenialist', but you know what...so would (under today's labels) have Luther, Calvin and a few other well known theologians. I hope your not questioning their salvation?

Click to expand...

What you're trying to do is not going to work. You're wrongly trying to associate my posts as saying who's going to be saved and who's not by what end-time doctrine they have or had. If you want to me to say who won't be saved, that's easy, anyone who continues to refuse Christ Jesus as their Saviour. But of course, my saying that doesn't give any weight whatsoever to what you're wanting to accuse me of.

Even if your not saying our salvation is lost in such fallacy, you are accusing us of pushing unbiblical and erroneous doctrine.

Click to expand...

Yep, I suppose I am doing just that, accusing some here of holding to unbiblical and erroneous doctrines of... 'men'.

The fact remains that I have just as many verses as you to solidify my position. I started my journey as a pre trib, pre mil person, as my grandfather was...but as too many questions and inconsitancies arose, I began reading and praying over the subject. I hovered over post trib, pre mil for a while, but again, too many questions arose...it felt like the other side of the pre trib coin...but the currency itself wasn't adding up. The Bible is just too clear in stating that when Jesus returns, He will usher in the new heavens and earth. Jesus' coming is the end of death, the end of sin and what both this groaning world and our hearts are longing for...for when He returns, all will be made new. That leaves no room for a period of time where Jesus' reigns over us (in an earthly kingdom), but sin, death and rebellion still exists.

Click to expand...

The Bible is very clear... about Christ reigning during a "thousand years" period per Rev.20, and its events are solidly tied to the Old Testament Books of the prophets. I assume you have missed a lot written in the prophets.

I will start a new Thread on Amillenialism if you care to participate, instead hi-jacking this present thread. There maybe you can explain to me why you think there is no future literal reign of a thousand years by Christ and His elect per Rev.20 and other relevant Scripture.

Now, you may disagree with me, but do not think to judge my mind or heart...for all I am doing is taking scripture and interpreting it as I see best, I as see it plainly written, and as I see it honouring Jesus best. Call me wrong, opinion wise, I really don't mind...but do not accuse me of pushing a false doctrine, of following something I pulled from air rather than scripture. I do not deny scripture...I read it faithfully and let IT, not some man, guide my doctrine. You argue passionately for what you believe, and I don't mind that at all...it provides interesting conversations! But let me ask you something...as a believer who loves Jesus and believes the Bible to be the inerrant word of God...as someone who felt uneasy about this topic...as someone who went searching, reading scripture and praying hard that the Spirit would lead me to the truth about it...after finding something that seemed to both fit scripture and also give me an inner peace about the subject....would you have acted any different?? Am I to ignore both scripture and the guiding of the Spirit just because other men tell me I'm mistaken? Am I to doubt what I have been guided to, when all that I believe honours and glorifies Jesus? And it does, you know. I believe that at this very moment Jesus is ruling in glory by His Father's throne. I believe that He will return, as He promised us, and that when He does, He will make all things new and wipe every tear from our eyes. Am I really wrong beliveing that? Do you really need to accuse me and others who think like me, of being unbiblical because we think all those things?

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what tends to rile righteous indignation within me concerning those things. It's the rejection of Scripture as written in favor of following a doctrine of man. Some cases of that are less obvious. But other cases are blatantly obvious. The rejection of Matt.24 and Mark 13 as future events our Lord Jesus gave for the end of this world is a blatantly obvious example of those who instead heed the doctrines of men, whether those doctrines were formed centuries ago or not.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

When you view things as apostle Paul did, i.e., first the natural, then the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:46), and consider the historical context in which a scripture was written, it becomes apparent that most (but not all) OT prophecies have been fulfilled. However, sometimes it just takes a believing heart to believe what scripture actually says, instead of twisting the plain meaning of verses to compensate for an inability to understand other verses. For example, there are those who claim God has not fulfilled his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob based on their inability to understand certain prophecies. This is contrary, though, to what is written:

And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. Joshua 21:43-45​

Some persons twist and turn verses like this to say what they want them to say based on their own inability to actually understand certain prophecies.

Click to expand...

You've got a chance to prove that in the new thread on Amillenialism that I started in this 'End Times Prophecy Forum' section. All that can apply just as much to yourself too.

OK, I believe that you are not a troublemaker.

Click to expand...

Oh, but I am a troublemaker, but no more than our Lord Jesus and His disciples were.

veteran, why are you so hostile against the pre trib stance? couldn't you just look at it as another way of enterpreting the scriptures?

teamventure said:

veteran, why are you so hostile against the pre trib stance? couldn't you just look at it as another way of enterpreting the scriptures?

Click to expand...

Because it's a false doctrine designed to lead many of my Christian brethren astray into bowing in false worship to the false messiah that is coming first.

I see God's Word The Bible written similar to a textbook manual for His children.

Allow me to use the example of a textbook manual for building an airplane as a metaphor. Would you want to fly on an airplane built by those who confuse the textbook's specifications, meaning, and order of steps? I would think not, because it could be very dangerous to the existence of one's soul.

We are in the end of days; it's time for us to quit playing Church, and get our steps right according God's Word.

it doesn't make any sense that if someone is pre trib and it turns out to be false, that they would fall for the antichrist. it makes so little sense that it gives me a headache. where did you get that? does someone actually teach it?
edit: someone who believed in a post or mid trib would be just as likely to fall for the antichrist.

teamventure said:

it doesn't make any sense that if someone is pre trib and it turns out to be false, that they would fall for the antichrist. it makes so little sense that it gives me a headache. where did you get that? does someone actually teach it?
edit: someone who believed in a post or mid trib would be just as likely to fall for the antichrist.

Click to expand...

Since the pre-trib doctrine of man teaches to be ready to get raptured out by Christ PRIOR to the tribulation, just who do you think they are being prepared for, since the antichrist's coming is what BEGINS the tribulation?

And you're right, any brethren not seeing per Scripture the coming of a false messiah first, can become subject to the great apostasy away from Christ. But the pre-trib ideas are specifically designed to lead towards the first supernatural working messiah that shows up.

Also, many are not aware how God's Word teaches about a short time of world peace for the tribulation time, and not all out war like the pre-trib doctrine especially preaches to fear people into wanting to escape. The tribulation is upon both the faithful in Christ's Church, and upon the apostates in Christ's Church. For the faithful, they will be persecuted even by their own deceived Christian brethren during that time, simply because they will be following a fake Christ unknowingly that will seek out the faithful. The tribulation upon deceived brethren is... their deception to the wrong Christ. That's what the "hour of temptation" will be about, falling away to deception to the coming false messiah instead of waiting for our True Lord Jesus Christ coming to end that tribulation.

veteran said:

I mentioned nothing about Christ condemning pre-trib rapture believers to perish in any of my previous posts. That decision is Christ's alone. But I did repeat His warning for us to keep our garments lest we appear naked in shame, like the Rev.16:15 Scripture warning He gave. So you didn't read any "cannot therefore be saved" speeches from my posts.

Click to expand...

Hey Veteran, thanks for answering. Now, I never said you said that salvation was in question. The very clear assumption based on your posts and accusations, do lead me there, however. I do not understand why people need to act with such venon against people who have different views on eschatology. It goes beyond theological debate and delves into the realm of 'insulting one's mother'...

Amillennialism is a false doctrine, even though it was made popular by Augustine and carried over by the Reformers and some later Churches. It is more aligned with the tenets of Preterism and Historicism today in many Churches than anything else. Amillennialism was not a view of the 1st century Church. It appeared most strongly in the 2nd century, and then Augustine popularized the idea. Yet Christ's future thousand years reign with His elect priests and kings is Scriptural, in both the Old Testament and New Testament Books.

Click to expand...

See, here's the problem. You say Amil is a false doctrine, and I say Pre mil is a false doctrine. You whip out your verses, I pull out mine. You say it orginated not in the 1st century, but the 2nd (which is debatable) and I say fine, but Pre mil wasn't around til after both of those (which you would also debate)...and then the insults and accusations come out, how I'm a false prophet, that I'm pushing an evil doctrine...maybe you don't say the words "you're not saved"...but at that point it's only semantics...you've accused in everything but the direct words.
Why do we need to go there? Why can't you just say..."I don't agree with you, I can't see scripture saying that, but as you love Jesus and eagerly look for His return, I'll call you my sister". If you're so worried that I'll start worshipping a false Jesus, why don't you spend your time and energy on making sure everyone know who the real Jesus is...and how scripture says we will know in an instant when Jesus returns, without doubt...and that scripture tells us that the Antichrist will try and decieve us...if possible. That as God's children we live in the light, and will not be lead astray. I do not understand the tack you are taking, and I cannot see how it glorifies and magnifies Jesus.

When Christianity became well established by the 4th century A.D. and later in Asia Minor and Europe with the majority of western nations becoming primarily Christian nations, it was easy to think that Christ's Kingdom was being established on earth then, and the "thousand years" of Rev.20 being meant spiritually and not literally. That kind of thinking has continued among some Churches till today. Even in the 2nd century A.D. there were some among the Churches that completely rejected the Book of Revelation as not having been penned by Apostle John (as with other writings by Apostle John, like his Epistles). Apparently, those are still with us today.

Click to expand...

"Some Premillenarians have spoken of Amillennialism as a new view and as one of the most recent novelties, but this is certainly not in accord with the testimony of history. The name is new indeed, but the view to which it is applied is as old as Christianity. It has at least as many advocates as Chiliasm amoung the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, supposed to have been the heyday of Chiliasm. It has ever since been the view most widely accepted, is the only view that is either expressed or implied in the great historical Confessions of the Church, and has always been the prevalent view in Reformed circles." - Louis Berkhof, systematic theology

What you're trying to do is not going to work. You're wrongly trying to associate my posts as saying who's going to be saved and who's not by what end-time doctrine they have or had. If you want to me to say who won't be saved, that's easy, anyone who continues to refuse Christ Jesus as their Saviour. But of course, my saying that doesn't give any weight whatsoever to what you're wanting to accuse me of.

Click to expand...

My concern is that you're verbally attacking anyone who differs in opinion to you. That's all. I don't agree with Pre-mil theology, but I cannot see that as reason to accuse them of pushing false doctrine. Eschatology is an important issue, yes, but it's not a salvation issue, and therefore should be left in the hands of the Holy Spirit and the Bible to guide one's conscience. I'm all for discussions on theology and doctrine, but it should not be used as an excuse to go to war.

Yep, I suppose I am doing just that, accusing some here of holding to unbiblical and erroneous doctrines of... 'men'.

Click to expand...

It is easy to be mistaken. That's a given, in anything. So is it possible that I and others are 'mistaken'?...sure. I believe I'm right, but I'm not arrogant enough to suppose that God is finished teaching me. But as far as 'unbiblical' goes, that would suppose that my opinions were founded on something other than scripture. That is not true...all my opinions have been led to where they are because of scripture. Because I couldn't see scripture saying anything else.
So call me mistaken if you want, but to call it unbiblical is supposition at best, based upon your apparent inability to even concieve that others can read the bible, and be spoken to through it. I am saved, I do have the Holy Spirit, and I assure you that I prayed and studied to reach the opinion I did.

The Bible is very clear... about Christ reigning during a "thousand years" period per Rev.20, and its events are solidly tied to the Old Testament Books of the prophets. I assume you have missed a lot written in the prophets.

Click to expand...

Actually, the bible is not clear. The only direct reference to the millenium in the entire bible, is that one verse. And it's in a book that is chock a block full of apocalyptic images. You are aware, are you not, that the Bible uses figurative language in many places? Or do you suppose that Jesus is actually a lamb?? That God is a giant chicken who wants to gather Israel to Him? The book of Revelations is full of these kind of images. If you have indeed delved into the 'prophets' then you should know that this type of imagery is usual in apocalyptic literature. So, you would want me to assume, that the one reference to the 1000 years, written in a highly figurative book, should be taken literally? Even when, taken against all sorts of other verses...in books that are not figurative, they state that when Jesus finally returns, He brings everything to an end and makes all things new.
Let's have a brief look at some of those passages.

In 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 it tells us that Christ must reign in power, abolishing all rule and authority and power, until He has put all His enemies under His feet, and then the 'end will come'. The last enemy will be death itself. Then in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 we are told that death is 'swallowed up in victory' at the second coming of Christ. So we are told that at Christ's second coming He will defeat death, and then end will come. Therefore, the reign of Christ described in v. 25, during which he progressively abolishes all rule and authority and power, is presently occurring. Paul is describing what Christ is doing now, as he sits enthroned at the right hand of the Father.
We are also told in Eph 1:20 that Christ is currently reigning in power and authority at the right hand of God. So how can death still continue into the Millenium, when Christ has abolished it at His return??

In 1 Corinthians 15:50-57 Paul declares that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God'. The 'kingdom' in view, according to the Pre-mil is the millennial kingdom, but Pauls declaration that unglorified, 'flesh and blood' bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God precludes a millennium folling the second coming of Christ. The Kingdom of God into which all believers are granted entrance at the time of their glorification (ie at the second coming of Christ), is the eternal phase of God's kingdom rule. This eternal phase, at the beginning of which Jesus 'deliver's up the kingdom to the God and Father' (v 24) follow immediately upon the second coming of Jesus. It is then that 'we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet' (v 51-52). Finally, according to v 54-55, the end of death at the second coming of christ is the fulfillment of Isaiah 25:8. There we read that God 'will swallow up death for all time, and the Lord will wipe tears away from all faces, and He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth.' Both the end fo death and the wiping away of all tears are associated in Rev 21:4 not with the coming of a millenial age but with the eternal state, ie the new heavens and new earth.

In Romans 8:18-23 we see that both the Christians and the earth itself 'groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.' Paul here describes the delieverance or redemption of the natural creation as connected with that of the children of God. It is when the sons of God are revealed (v19) that the creation itself shall experience it's redemption (v21). As there was solidarity between man and earth in the fall, so also there will be solidarity in the restoration. So if they are connected, this poses a problem for the Pre-mil: the consummate redemption of creation that occurs with Christ returns to redeem/glorify his people would appear to preclude any suffering or corruption of creation subsquent to his return. And yet in the Pre-mil view, the Millenium includes the corrupting presence of both sin and death.

In 2 Peter 3:8-13 he writes that the 'day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and it's works will be burned up. The end of this present heavens and earth is the effect of the coming of Christ. Where is there room in Peter's scenario for an earthly millennium intervening between Christ's second coming and the new heavens and new earth?

Finally, Matt 25:31-46 brings up a serious question. In it we see the Son of Man return in glory and gather all the nations. He then judges them, sheep from goats. In Rev 20:11-15 the same judgement is described. The point being this: The Great White Throne Judgement of Rev 20:11-15 occurs after the millenial reign described in 20:1-10. But in Matt 25 the judgment occurs at the time of Christ's second coming/advent. The conclusion: the millenium of Rev 20:1-10 is simultaneous with the present age; it's now, preceding the second coming of Christ.

I will start a new Thread on Amillenialism if you care to participate, instead hi-jacking this present thread. There maybe you can explain to me why you think there is no future literal reign of a thousand years by Christ and His elect per Rev.20 and other relevant Scripture.

Click to expand...

Topics wander on threads. I did not deliberately 'hi-jack' it, although thankyou for making the accusation. Actually, kinda petty, really...like a very deliberate verbal slap...which almost proves my point. You feel the need to slap at me for simply disagreeing with you. I don't think I will join in another thread, thankyou. I don't need to dip my toes in and have them bitten off.

I'll tell you what tends to rile righteous indignation within me concerning those things. It's the rejection of Scripture as written in favor of following a doctrine of man. Some cases of that are less obvious. But other cases are blatantly obvious. The rejection of Matt.24 and Mark 13 as future events our Lord Jesus gave for the end of this world is a blatantly obvious example of those who instead heed the doctrines of men, whether those doctrines were formed centuries ago or not.

Click to expand...

Potato, pohtato....see above. And I do not deny those verses hold very significant references to the future, I just happen to think that they also speak to that time as well. It's called foreshadowing...and it happens all throughout the Bible.

veteran said:

Since the pre-trib doctrine of man teaches to be ready to get raptured out by Christ PRIOR to the tribulation, just who do you think they are being prepared for, since the antichrist's coming is what BEGINS the tribulation?

And you're right, any brethren not seeing per Scripture the coming of a false messiah first, can become subject to the great apostasy away from Christ. But the pre-trib ideas are specifically designed to lead towards the first supernatural working messiah that shows up.

Also, many are not aware how God's Word teaches about a short time of world peace for the tribulation time, and not all out war like the pre-trib doctrine especially preaches to fear people into wanting to escape. The tribulation is upon both the faithful in Christ's Church, and upon the apostates in Christ's Church. For the faithful, they will be persecuted even by their own deceived Christian brethren during that time, simply because they will be following a fake Christ unknowingly that will seek out the faithful. The tribulation upon deceived brethren is... their deception to the wrong Christ. That's what the "hour of temptation" will be about, falling away to deception to the coming false messiah instead of waiting for our True Lord Jesus Christ coming to end that tribulation.

Click to expand...

if i didn't know any better i'd think you're a troll.
show me biblical evidence that pre tribers are more likely to fall for the antichrist than other tribers.

teamventure said:

if i didn't know any better i'd think you're a troll.
show me biblical evidence that pre tribers are more likely to fall for the antichrist than other tribers.

Click to expand...

John 10:29

“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Matthew 6:34

“So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


I am not captured by a spirit of fear on this occasion, for we were not given a spirit of fear. There is no evidence pre tribers will fall for the antichrist.

there's some scripture to the contrary venteran. i'm sorry i think you are right on with how you call out apostacy and stuff but on this specific issue you make no sense.

Shalom Retrobyter,

I'd like to thank you for the grace displayed to some of the more vitriolic defenders of strange doctrine and also thank you for the fruit of your labor in the study of God's word. While I love to read the scripture and sometimes attempt to look deeper into the original meaning and context, I neither read the Greek or Hebrew and don't feel greatly inclined to learn it. My understanding from the gospels is that the Apostles themselves (except perhaps John) were mostly unschooled men who'd received what they knew through the readings at synagogues and then from the Master Himself. I've always believed that the Holy Spirit is able to teach us, even with less than perfect translations of scripture. I can't say exactly when I'd begun to doubt the pretrib rapture doctrine or when the Lord began teaching me truth as regards His return, but I did begin a study at one point trying to build an elaborate arguement from scripture to disprove the pretrib rapture doctrine. This was only last year while I was feeling the call of the Lord to share more with the Church at large. The Lord Himself put a quick end to the study on my part, opening my eyes to what is plainly written in the book of the revelation in chapter 20 and verses 4 and 5. The only way that you can get to a pretribulation rapture from these verses is to spiritualize them and then you also come into conflict with the words of Christ Himself, which you've pointed out as well. What I am inclined to believe of the pretrib doctrine is that it is derived from a thinly veiled anti-semetism.
I am from a mixed lineage of peoples from eastern europe and Spain, raised as a Roman Catholic, and a second generation born in the USA. As a child, having read the scripture from an early age, and also having read a bit about the Nazi regime's "final solution," the Spanish inquisitions, the bloody conquests of the "New world," including my own government's solutions to the "Indian problem," I carried alot of guilt around for the people that I identified with from birth. In Christ I've found an identity with another nation and people who's home is not here, who are pilgrims and strangers in this world. I believe in the Millenial Kingdom and the restoration of the Jews, because these are promised in God's word and no doctrine of men can change that. I also know that the millenial kingdom is not the end of His plan for His people, but all is in accordance with the fulfillment of scripture and the faithfulness of God to His word. I've read a post in this thread mentioning Martin Luther as though he were some apostle and I've heard him extolled as a great leader of the reformation, yet he himself was an anti-semite (the part of my family from the Austrian-Hungarian empire were taught that Jews had horns, killed the Son of God, and were the vilest of creatures.) I know nothing at all of the cult mentioned earlier in the thread which were the source of the pretrib rapture doctrine, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear that they were anti-semitic as well. I don't think that you can get to the kind of religious hatred displayed in anti-semetism without a large degree of self righteousness. Such hatred is never justified in scripture and I'm quite convinced that even Martin Luther has reason to be ashamed at the judgment seat of Christ for things written, said, or done. Show me an innocent man and I know that you'll be showing me Jesus Christ. The reason that the gospel is "good news" is that His blood has paid the price, even for such great evil, to those who have put their trust in the sacrifice of our Lord. The new creation changes everything, not just perception, but spirit. We who were once dead in sin and transgression are made alive in Christ.
Recently I had begun reading again from Genesis, trying to listen more intently to what the Holy Spirit is saying with regard to His word, and I had to park on some verses for a while. I've been meditating on light and darkness. Previously I'd spent more time considering the word "darkness" and it's relevance to our times. Now I've been more focused on "light" and the spiritual significance of it's absence. Some people say that it is the church which is "restraining" until the lawless one is revealed, but I don't really understand how the church could be said to be restraining anything (unless you would say that our presence is holding back wrath as some do.) What I've believed is "restraining" or preventing complete lawlessness is law itself, however human law can clearly be corrupted as it is being corrupted right before our eyes in the nation of my birth. Now I'm getting the notion that it is God's law, which is restraining. Even the new covenant includes a law of sorts, a royal law and decree whick is one of love leading to life rather than condemnation leading to death. Both covenants bring us law which restrains, one through fear and one through love. I'm inclined to believe that the works of the anti-christ are meant to destroy both. Do you have an opinion, or better, a scriptural understanding of the topic? I'd be pleased to hear it (or read it) and it certainly is relevant to the thread. Thank you for your kindness in Christ.
Michael

Here are a few more passages that I would say support the idea that those truly regenerated won't be decieved by the anitchrist...whether or not the rapture is true.

Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 23:27 ESV)

Quite clearly we will know the instant Jesus returns. We will not have to be told, or become aware that someone is capable of great miracles. Indeed, this passage says that it's not possible to deceive the the elect!!

For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. (1 Thessalonians 5:2-5 ESV)

We are God's elect. We might not know the day or hour, but we do know who it is we worship. We do know that his return will be instantly visible to all, and we also know that that 'no spirit but the Holy Spirit can say Jesus is Lord'. We know that anything that doesn't glorify Jesus, is a false doctrine. The very fact that we need to stop and consider if such a one 'could be Jesus...does this glorify Him?' will prove in itself that Jesus Himself has not returned!

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 ESV)

God sends a strong delusion to those who delight in evil. It says nothing about the elect being decieved.