Jack Van Impe preaching=Jesus is about to Return!!

Naomi25 said:

The Tribulation spoken of in Matt 24 is clearly the destruction of the Temple. For many reasons that I can get into if you want.
In John 16 it talks of general tribulation, and that is something everyone agrees that we have on a daily basis.
I'm not even saying that tribulation won't increase towards the end...I think the bible indicates it will. What I am saying is that I don't think, biblically, it can be proven that there will be a time period where the Church must be removed so as to avoid God's wrath. We escape God's wrath in Christ.
If God choses to deal with Israel as a nation again, there is nothing in the bible that mandates that it must be done with the Church gone. After all, he's focused on us just fine while they've been here.
Too many holes...too many questions...too many assumptions made that scripture just doesn't say.

Click to expand...

Willie T said:

I do believe Jesus told them to buy swords. What do you think Peter used to cut off Mallkus' ear?

Click to expand...

Willie T said:

I do believe Jesus told them to buy swords. (Luke 22:36) What do you think Peter used to cut off Mallkus' ear?

Click to expand...

Naomi25 said:

And I think that's one of the places they get into trouble...not recognizing the when we reach the NT, Paul teaches us to look back and say, "those promises God made to Abraham, he made them to Christ and to Abrahams spiritual children...the elect."
I know Dispensationalists have a really hard time with this, but its biblical.

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. -Galatians 3:16


But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. -Romans 9:6–8

Click to expand...

Naomi25 said:

LOL! Move to Australia. We aren't even allowed to carry pepper spray.

Click to expand...

VictoryinJesus said:

Pretty amazing! 2 Corinthians 1:20
[20] For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us(the children).—Isaiah 8:13-18 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. [14] And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. [15] And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. [16] Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. [17] And I will wait upon the Lord , that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. [18] Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Click to expand...

Malsi Si Live said:

The Jesuit's didn't invent Islam. The papacy is heretical but it's not the evil the Protestant's make it out to be. Neither is Rome or Catholicism found in end-time prophecy that I know of. Every nation mentioned having anything to do with the last days is Arab, Persian, and Islamic today. There's no greater evil than Islam.

Click to expand...

Willie T said:

Was Crocodile Dundee's great big knife not true?

Click to expand...

farouk said:

In 1 Thessalonians 5.9, Paul, who has just been speaking about the day of the Lord - important as an earthly event in the Old Testament where the church is not in view - says: 'For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ'.

Click to expand...

In Matthew 24.21, the Lord Jesus speaks not simply of the general tribulation principle which all members of the church typically face, but to a unique event: 'For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.'

Click to expand...

Waiting on him said:

We are to provoke them to jealousy.

Click to expand...

Willie T said:

Was Crocodile Dundee's great big knife not true?

Click to expand...

Malsi Si Live said:

Jesus mentions signs that never took place in 70 A.D.

What is the context of Mathew 24? The entire context of Mathew 24 between verse 4 and verse 51 is Christs' answer to the question....
WHEN shall these things be. (one stone on top of another)
WHAT shall be the sign of they coming.
WHAT shall be the sign of the "consummation of the age."

[/ATTACH]

Click to expand...

By no means does that indicate the prophecy was meant only for Jews or the generation Jesus is speaking to. "This generation" is the one that sees all of the events pass that Jesus mentions between verses 2-33.

Click to expand...

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus uses the word 'THIS' because 'this' is the generation that will see and endure what he is talking about. The word THIS is better understood in some verses as "even so" even as" and "so thus." And in some translations "these" and "the same." The antecedent to "this Generation" in verse 34 is ALL of what Jesus said between verses 4-33. Look at it this way... "SO THUS, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Vines says about the word THIS... Even (Adverb, Etc.), Even As, Even So: or houto, "so, thus," is frequently rendered "even so," e.g., Mat 7:17; 12:45; 18:14; 23:28; "so" in 1Cr 11:12; 1Th 2:4, RV.

Click to expand...

Verse 35-36 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Jesus is talking TO the people in front of him about the people who will SEE these things. Not ONCE does the passage suggest Jesus is deviating from talking about "the end" or any other generation other than the one that sees and endures what Jesus said about...

Click to expand...

Mathew was written in late 60's A.D, or even as late as 80 A.D. It makes no sense that the prophecy would be recorded where it would have already passed, or where it was meant only for Jews. That's no more than a perverted pre-trib fabrication. The entire chapter is meant for everyone because Jesus was replying to the question, "
WHEN shall these things be. (one stone on top of another)
WHAT shall be the sign of they coming.
WHAT shall be the sign of the "consummation of the age."

And by the way, there's still one stone standing upon one another!

View attachment 5118

Click to expand...

Naomi25 said:

Actually, except Christ's actual return, and the signs that preceed that actual event, all the signs he spoke about were seen, if not terminated, in the generation of the Apostles. Let me show you:

We see in Acts 5:36-37; 8:9-10; 13:6 and 1 John 4:1 that false prophets were on the scene before 70AD. We also see in 1 John 2:18 that "many antichrists have appeared".
Josephus reported the same things (Josephus, Ant. 20.5.1; 20.8.6; J.W. 2.13.4; 6.5.2.).
Anyone who picks up a history book can find plenty of evidence for wars and rumours of wars. After Nero's death in AD68 wars and rumors of such abounded in the Roman Empire, and the war against Israel itself lasted from 66-70AD.
Acts 7:59-60; 11:19, 28; 12:1-2, as well as Josephus and Eusubius report famines (Josephus, Ant. 20.2.5; J.W. 6.3.3.; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.8-26.), and Acts 16:26 and Josephus report earthquakes (Josephus, Ant. 15.5.2; J.W. 4.4.5; 5.10.3.)

We see persecution of Christians throughout all of the NT, indeed, by the Jews. But Mark 13:9 lists the "courts and synagogues", and Acts 4:3; 5:17-47; 6:11-8:3; 12:1-5; 14:1-6, 19; 16:19-24; 17:5-8, 13; 18:12-17; 20:3; 21:27-28:20; 2 Cor 11:24-33; Heb 10:32-34 all do the same as well.
1 Tim 1:19-20; 6:10; 2 Tim 1:15; 4:10; Heb 2:1-4; 6:1-6; 10:26-31 records betrayals and falling away from the faith by "professing believers".
Lawlessness was a characteristic of the Jewish war, according to Josephus, and we know that by the time the Romans surrounded the city, the zealots had, from the temple...the very place that was supposed to be the place of God, incited murder and mayhem.
Mark 13:9-11 links the preaching of the gospel to "all the nations" with the first-century Jewish persecution of believers. Acts 2:5-11; Rom 1:8; 16:25-26; Col 1:6, 23 also record that the gospel was "preached in the whole world".

So...basically...what we're looking at here, is...biblically, "all these things" that Jesus has spoken of, have began to take place. The Disciples have seen all of these things. The beginning of the "birth pang" signs, which will proceed for the whole interadvental period. And they also saw the destruction of Jerusalem. What this means, biblically, is that Jesus could return any generation, suddenly and unexpectedly.


Only the most unnatural reading of "generation" can lead us to conclude that it is not talking about thepeople Jesus is talking too.
If Christ had wanted to refer to "the generation alive" he could have used the Greek word Genos, which means "descendant, family, relatives, nation, people, class, kind" instead. Rather, he used Genea; Generation. And every other time Genea is used in Matthew, it is used in context of "this generation". Therefore, it is only with extreme difficulty that anyone can...or should, make "generation" mean something other than the generation living when Jesus spoke.


Even if we make the sentence say "so thus, this generation..." it still says "this". And unless Jesus was being highly deceptive to the men he was speaking face to face with, which was not at all his style, we must understand "this" to be "this".
Regardless, αὕτη , seems to be used, just as thoroughly, or more so, in the NT, as "this". Matt 9:26, 13:54, 21:42, 22:20, 22:38, 26:8, 26:12, 26:13; Mark 12:11, 12:16, 12:31, 12:43, 12:44, 13:30.....And about 50 more...


See...the problem with that is that he IS talking to the people in front of him. His Disciples are right there and they've just asked him 3 questions. Are we to imagine that Jesus is really not answering them? That what he is talking about has zero to do with them, but is, inf fact, only to do with an audience that won't be born for another 2000 years? Despite the fact that those sitting there clearly felt he had been talking to them...so much so that when the Roman army was decending on Jerusalem, they fled, just like Jesus told them to. There is a reason why pretty much no Christians died in that seige.

And not once? How about the plain language of it? How about the plain understanding of it? How about when Luke's version tells us outright it's the destruction of Jerusalem? How about all those signs that Christ tells us we'll all see, throughout all this period, and we do...from them, to us? To limit that passage to only "end time us" you make is absolutely pointless for anyone before us. Which makes the biblical mandate of all scripture being profitable for all Christians useless. And it just invalidates much of what Christ said and actually happened. There is absolutely no biblical proof, no written statement in either Matt, Mark or Luke, that state the Disciples didn't believe Jesus was talking to them. None. So what makes you assume that he wasn't? They would have absolutely believed that he was. If you asked someone something, and they began to answer you...speaking to your very face, would you understand that they were actually speaking to a generation 2000 years from now? How non-sensical!
Christ prophecised the downfall of Jerusalem. In fact, when he made the claim it would happen in the life-time of his Disciples...which IS how they would have taken it, he was, in point of fact, laying his "prophet" credentials on the line, so to speak. If it didn't happen, then he would have been proven to be a false prophet. But, as it did happen, and happen exactly as he predicted, that tells us two things: he was indeed speaking of 70AD, and he is indeed a prophet...just as he is priest and king.

Click to expand...

Taken said:

Bill Graham DID NOT "censor" Any Specific Denominational doctrine or views.

First one would need to Understand...
1) Billy Graham was an Evangelical Christian.
2) What IS an Evangelical Christian.

An Evangelical Christian is A Strict Bible Word of God Adherent.

They are not A Catholic, who then, Censors part of the Catholic Doctrine.

They are not A Baptist, A Mormon, A Muslim, A Lutheran, etc.... WHO THEN preaches, those Denominations Doctrine...(but Censors them).

1) A Catholic, A Baptist, A Mormon, A Muslim, A Jew,, A Lutheran, etc.....ALL have their own Specific Doctrines, which THEY ALL Claim are BASED on the Word of God.

2) So....Can ANY or ALL of those "specific" religious denominations/groups, have SOME THINGS THE SAME (as any other religion or denomination) in their CORE Beliefs?

Of course.

3) Would you call A BAPTIST Preacher, A Baptist, who Censors Catholic Doctrine? No.
Because a BAPTIST Preacher IS NOT a Catholic, who is then Preaching Catholic Doctrine, by "censoring parts of the Catholic Doctrine".

Dave L. Was IMPLYING, Billy Graham, was TEACHING Catholic Doctrine...."but censoring it". That is False.

Billy Graham was an Evangelical Christian...
NOT a Catholic, and NOT "adopting the Catholic Doctrine", then picking through it and Keeping what Billy thought was okay, and discarding other parts.

Billy Graham DID NOT STUDY OR GIVE consideration to Catholic Doctrine.

And Evangelical Christian, studies AND gives consideration TO Biblical Scripture; THEE Word of God.(regardless of what OTHER Christians or Denominational Churches do)

You mention your neighbor didn't LIKE Billy Graham...and the reasoning....was Because Billy "catered" to the RICH.

Is that TRUE? Absolutely.
Rich Financially? Absolutely.
Rich Spiritually? Absolutely.

Is that the WHOLE Truth? Absolutely NOT.

Did Billy Graham "cater" to Catholics? Yes.

Is that the WHOLE Truth? No.

Did Billy Graham "cater" to Catholics, in the SAME MANNER, a Catholic Priest would? No.

Catholic Priests teach and preach to Catholics, Catholic Doctrine.

Baptist Pastors teach and preach to Baptists, Baptist Doctrine.

Etc...with every specific group/denomination/member/visitor
the Cleric, of THAT Church, teaches and preaches according to THAT Churches' Doctrine.

And EVANGELICAL Christian, CLERIC, will teach, preach, TO ANY PERSON;

Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Muslim, Atheist, Believer, Converted, Tall, Short, Male, Female, Rich, Poor, Religious Cleric, One with No Religious affiliation, Monarchs, Common People, Domestic, Foreign, Black, White, in Any Nation.

IN OTHER WORDS...they will teach and preach....TO ANY ONE....Strictly From the Biblical Word of God.

They (Evangelical Christian Clerics) DO NOT (typically) have a "HOME CHURCH" from which THEY teach and preach (some do, but not typically).

Billy Graham's Ministry, was VIA, him Traveling, to Churches, as a Guest, to setting up his own tents in different places, renting buildings in different places, and Inviting ANY ONE to come to Hear. Also was invited to different states, different countries, to come and speak the Word of God, that was opened for anyone to come and hear.

Other Evangelical Christian's do the SAME thing. Some Travel all over the world, Some send their voice all over the world, via, radio, and some do so by television. Some have a Central Church AND Travel and Evangalize in other Churches as guests, and other countries.

Billy Graham is noted for his lengthy ministry of traveling and evangelizing, for numerous years, in numerous places, to numerous people from all walks of life.

Jack Van Impe is also an Evangelical Christian, who use to travel, is confined mostly to radio and particularly Television, that ANYONE can tune in and listen or not.

Paul Crouch also was an Evangelical Christian, who established a television network, that continuously expanded to more and more nations around the world.

Perry Stone is an Evangelical Christian, who travels, to other Churches as a guest, and outside of the US, mostly to Israel, also with a Pentecostal Church base, in Tennessee.

While an Evangelical Christian can mingle and converse with ANYONE, clerics or members of specific denominations....they DO NOT Adopt the others DOCTRINE, then "omit or censor" parts of it....

An Evangelical Christians DOCTRINE is strictly the Biblical Word of God, and WILL teach and preach to ANYONE, who is themselves, willing to listen.

And Absolutely Evangelical Christian Clerics are under scrutiny, and criticism and attack just as is every other Cleric, from any named Denomination or any Religion, which also is constantly criticized and attacked.

Just a point...of understanding who is preaching what doctrine and to whom.

Secondly, one what basis, is someone lodging a "complaint" against ANY cleric or "specific" church member.

Your neighbor, not liking Billy Graham, because he "catered" to the rich?
IF your neighbor has paid attention, opened their eyes and ears, your neighbor could have observed his message was FOR ALL, willing to hear. NONE excluded.

Happy New Year,
God Bless,
Taken

Click to expand...

Willie T said:

Was Crocodile Dundee's great big knife not true?

Click to expand...