Before the flood is actually "after"

[Timtofly]

Logic says, if another angel came out of the temple, there must be a prior angel that came out of the temple first. Where then is this first angel that came out of the temple if not meaning the one meant in verse 14?

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

Now let's look at it like this. Verse 17 indicates another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. Once again, logic says, if another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle, there obviously has to be a previous angel that also came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

In all of Revelation 14, how many entities are in possession of a sharp sickle? Just one, or more than one? 2 actually. The one in verse 14 and the one in verse 17. Verse 17 can't be another angel that came out of the temple in possession of a sharp sickle unless another angel came out of the temple first, he too in possession of a sharp sickle. IOW, whatever verse 17 indicates comes out of the temple is, in this case, an angel, then so must the one that came out of the temple first also be an angel.

After all, it makes zero sense to say another angel came out of the temple, but that the one who came out of the temple first, he is not even an angel. Since when does 'another angel' not imply a previous angel?

Revelation 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.


This verse, for one, tells us who it is that is wearing a golden crown, and that it isn't Christ.

John was constantly seeing angels. There was always another one coming into view. The 7th Trumpet angel would be the prior angel at that point, then 3 more angels join the angel with the 7th Trumpet.

The first had the everlasting gospel.

The second one declares Babylon is fallen.

The third one announces the winepress.

The son of man is always Jesus. The other 3 angels join the 7th angel blowing the 7th Trumpet.

 

[No Pre-TB]

It is CLEAR HE LEFT HEAVEN AND WAS With JOHN

This is why I posted other comments on this subject. People understand the context as his second advent. Are you saying his speaking to John in Rev 1 was his advent? Did you not read,

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day,

John saw visions of God. Christ didn’t leave heaven to give him visions. And surely, Christ second advent hadn’t happened.

 

[No Pre-TB]

You are Quoting Job as if he were a deity.
Actually basing your doctrine on obvious error.

There is 1 God, Jehovah. And this is the reason I also posted other comments. Because others do not deny Job’s truth. I’m not aware of anyone that has ever stated Job lied, was confused or his words were untrue. Not one person but you. I’ve looked at over 20 commentators; Pre-TB ones, historical analysis ones, Pre-Wrath ones, etc
No one says what you believe. I’m afraid you’re alone here.

 

[No Pre-TB]

See, you are thinking you can find obscure verses that actually VOID other verses.
IOW building a doctrine from your mind.

Once again, you’re assuming something from me that isn’t true. You’re very judgmental and I’m not sure why that is. I don’t look for verses to refute verses. Is that how we should use God’s word? Picking and choosing? Diminishing its worth? Every word of God is useful.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Logic says, if another angel came out of the temple, there must be a prior angel that came out of the temple first. Where then is this first angel that came out of the temple if not meaning the one meant in verse 14?

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

Now let's look at it like this. Verse 17 indicates another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. Once again, logic says, if another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle, there obviously has to be a previous angel that also came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

In all of Revelation 14, how many entities are in possession of a sharp sickle? Just one, or more than one? 2 actually. The one in verse 14 and the one in verse 17. Verse 17 can't be another angel that came out of the temple in possession of a sharp sickle unless another angel came out of the temple first, he too in possession of a sharp sickle. IOW, whatever verse 17 indicates comes out of the temple is, in this case, an angel, then so must the one that came out of the temple first also be an angel.

After all, it makes zero sense to say another angel came out of the temple, but that the one who came out of the temple first, he is not even an angel. Since when does 'another angel' not imply a previous angel?

Revelation 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.


This verse, for one, tells us who it is that is wearing a golden crown, and that it isn't Christ.

Reread it in context.
Three MESSENGERS are mentioned in that chapter.
Jesus sitting on a cloud is not mentioned or implied to be a messenger ( angel).
Once you factor in context and meaning, what SEEMS LOGICAL is shown to be false.

Btw you showed men in heaven, with glorified bodies wearing crowns.
Not angels wearing crowns.

 

[rebuilder 454]

There is 1 God, Jehovah. And this is the reason I also posted other comments. Because others do not deny Job’s truth. I’m not aware of anyone that has ever stated Job lied, was confused or his words were untrue. Not one person but you. I’ve looked at over 20 commentators; Pre-TB ones, historical analysis ones, Pre-Wrath ones, etc
No one says what you believe. I’m afraid you’re alone here.

Lol
Job never knew it was the devil doing all that evil to him, nor did God ever tell him what really went on.
Job represents the destruction of the flesh, and raw unwavering faith, even though Job was deceived and had no clue it was actually the devil doing it to him.
You finding dead men to refute the bible is such folly.
You mean to tell me you, and your teachers, do not know that Job was in the dark about who was doing all that evil to him????
You really think God was doing all that to him and Job was enlightened and was NOT CONFUSED about the source of his trouble???
And you actually have found some dead means commentaries that are also unlearned about those facts?????
Then you take that misunderstanding and jump to the next folly ,of trying to save your theory, by saying Job ( a confused man in the dark) was correct in blaming God???????
And you found dead men that also believe incorrectly?????????
Huh??????

 

[rebuilder 454]

There is 1 God, Jehovah. And this is the reason I also posted other comments. Because others do not deny Job’s truth. I’m not aware of anyone that has ever stated Job lied, was confused or his words were untrue. Not one person but you. I’ve looked at over 20 commentators; Pre-TB ones, historical analysis ones, Pre-Wrath ones, etc
No one says what you believe. I’m afraid you’re alone here.

I will keep right on reporting what is written.
The fact that I stand outside your dead men is a compliment since they are unable to discern Job did not know what was really going on.
And actually thought God was doing all that evil to him.
Thank you for distinguishing truth from made up folly, and outrageous reframing of Gods word, for a doctrine that painted you into a corner big time.
Just keep going against the bible as I am forcing you to do.

It actually gets even worse.
Job also ILLUSTRATES that unless HEAVEN ENLIGHTENS us...we remain ignorant.
Another truth you seem to be unaware of.
Vividly illustrated in Job.
And more people than yourself are unaware of those 3 vivid facts I have reported??????

 

[rebuilder 454]

This is why I posted other comments on this subject. People understand the context as his second advent. Are you saying his speaking to John in Rev 1 was his advent? Did you not read,

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day,

John saw visions of God. Christ didn’t leave heaven to give him visions. And surely, Christ second advent hadn’t happened.

The bible say different.
I am once again forcing you to go against it.
John STANDING ON EARTH, SAW JESUS STANDING ON EARTH.
"I turned and saw"
Physically turned
Physically saw.

 

[rebuilder 454]

....but I do understand you MUST change it.
It can not stand as written.
It alone COMPLETELY reveals your doctrine as false.

 

[rebuilder 454]

He has never left heaven per Acts. You’re referring to his bright light and voice Saul encountered? He didn’t descend from heaven. And he won’t till he returns to resurrect which cannot happen till the restoration; an event that cannot happen till all things shakeable or removable can be removed like the heavens. Because the things unmovable will remain.

Acts 26
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: ****FOR I HAVE APPEARED UNTO THEE**** for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

 

[rebuilder 454]

Jesus left heaven, without postrib permission,
,and APPEARED TO PAUL. Both standing on the planet.

 

[rebuilder 454]

He has never left heaven per Acts. You’re referring to his bright light and voice Saul encountered? He didn’t descend from heaven. And he won’t till he returns to resurrect which cannot happen till the restoration; an event that cannot happen till all things shakeable or removable can be removed like the heavens. Because the things unmovable will remain.

1cor 15
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

 

[No Pre-TB]

Lol
Job never knew it was the devil doing all that evil to him, nor did God ever tell him what really went on.
Job represents the destruction of the flesh, and raw unwavering faith, even though Job was deceived and had no clue it was actually the devil doing it to him.
You finding dead men to refute the bible is such folly.
You mean to tell me you, and your teachers, do not know that Job was in the dark about who was doing all that evil to him????
You really think God was doing all that to him and Job was enlightened and was NOT CONFUSED about the source of his trouble???
And you actually have found some dead means commentaries that are also unlearned about those facts?????
Then you take that misunderstanding and jump to the next folly ,of trying to save your theory, by saying Job ( a confused man in the dark) was correct in blaming God???????
And you found dead men that also believe incorrectly?????????
Huh??????

I take the word of God seriously. It seems anything that opposes your doctrine, you have an excuse for. Any verses I mention, you’ll have an excuse. Is that how we should interpret?

As long said, I’ve not seen 1 commentary from anyone currently alive or dead that has said Jobs words are not truthful.

 

[No Pre-TB]

The bible say different.
I am once again forcing you to go against it.
John STANDING ON EARTH, SAW JESUS STANDING ON EARTH.
"I turned and saw"
Physically turned
Physically saw.

Right, you believe Christ descended to earth to meet John. That’s a second advent. Rightttttt

I stand by Jamieson when it’s said:

yet the Holy Ghost has made him unconsciously (1Pe 1:11, 12) use language expressing the truth, that the resurrection is to be preceded by the dissolution of the heavens.

 

[rebuilder 454]

I take the word of God seriously. It seems anything that opposes your doctrine, you have an excuse for. Any verses I mention, you’ll have an excuse. Is that how we should interpret?

As long said, I’ve not seen 1 commentary from anyone currently alive or dead that has said Jobs words are not truthful.

Lets get real here.
Did Job understand it was the devil doing the evil to him?
You are just attempting to dodge the obvious, by injecting personal precepts.
Yes we all can see what a studious man you are and how "correct" you present yourself as being.
Did he or did he not believe God was doing it to him???
It appears you will not go there.

Amazing to me that elephant in the room just will not go away.
Ignoring it is a strategy...just not an honest one.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Right, you believe Christ descended to earth to meet John. That’s a second advent. Rightttttt

I stand by Jamieson when it’s said:

yet the Holy Ghost has made him unconsciously (1Pe 1:11, 12) use language expressing the truth, that the resurrection is to be preceded by the dissolution of the heavens.

I report what is said and have no need to REFRAME it.
You painted yourself into a corner that the facts have testified against your doctrine

 

[Davy]

In mat 24 we see Jesus declaring his coming Is compared to The days before the flood.
I have noticed this in the postrib rapture doctrine seem to be forbidden from that verse.
My question is , does "before" mean " before" ?
Was Noah and Jesus actually trying to say "after" the judgement?

NO, Jesus compared the day of His coming to DURING the days of the flood of Noe.

What you are FALSELY TRYING TO DO is plant a FALSE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE idea into Jesus' Words!

Others here may think you're just playing ignorant, but I see what you are trying... to do, which is the kind of working that Satan's children do.

Matt 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
KJV

Timeline:
Before the flood came -- they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage.
DAY OF CHRIST'S RETURN -- "the flood came, and took them all away".


Luke 17:26-27
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
KJV

Are there other Bible Scripture Witnesses about that ORDER of Christ's future return? YES!

In 1 Thessalonians 5, Apostle Paul showed the "day of the Lord" will come "as a thief in the night". That means by SURPRISE. The wicked and deceived will NOT be aware of its coming at an instant! Paul even showed the deceived will be saying "Peace and safety" just before the "sudden DESTRUCTION" comes upon them!

What time is that pointing to them about the day of Christ's return? It points to Jesus returning AFTER... the tribulation, actually to end it by that "sudden destruction" on the "day of the Lord"!

But what do the FALSE Pre-trib Rapture charlatans do to try and force the Scriptures to say. They LIE against God's Word with claiming the "day of the Lord" will happen PRIOR... to the start of the "great tribulation", and that the Church is raptured out prior to the tribulation, when Scripture says just the opposite!

So likewise false pre-tribber unbuilder 54 here is trying... to force Jesus' coming BEFORE THE FLOOD, when Jesus compared the time of "destruction" with the time of His future coming!

Know what else Jesus and Paul showed by those deceived not knowing when the "sudden destruction" will come upon them? It makes it OBVIOUS that the time of "great tribulation" MUST END AT THAT MOMENT WHEN JESUS COMES. That means when Jesus comes, NO MORE "great tribulation", no more beast, Satan cast into his pit prison, and Christ begins His 1,000 years reign over all... nations on earth. Pre-tribbers don't like this, because this means Christ's return is POST-TRIB.

 

[Zao is life]

Revelation 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

This verse, for one, tells us who it is that is wearing a golden crown, and that it isn't Christ.

Likewise we can say that this verse, for one, tells us that the one in Rev.14:14 is Christ:

And in the midst of the seven lampstands one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. -- Rev.1:13

And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. -- Rev.14:14

Jesus is called the Son of man in the New Testament many, many times, it is a title He called Himself by, and a title His apostles called Him by, a title that He is called by many times in the gospels, in Acts and in the epistles,

and no one else except Jesus is called the Son of man in the New Testament. The second-last time He is called the Son of man, is in Rev.1:13. In your post above you believe that Rev.1:13 would be the last time Jesus is called the Son of man.

IMO it would be really odd - really odd - and totally inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament to say that the one in Rev.14:14 is not talking about Christ. If there was something wrong with Revelation having the Son of man wearing a golden stephanos crown, then I would agree with you, but I don't see what could be wrong with that.

I don't see anything wrong with Him being seen on a white cloud either, nor even anything wrong with Him being called an angel:

Revelation 10
1 Then I saw another powerful angel descending from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun and his legs were like pillars of fire.
2 He held in his hand a little scroll that was open, and he put his right foot on the sea and his left on the land.
3 Then he shouted in a loud voice like a lion roaring, and when he shouted, the seven thunders sounded their voices.

5 Then the angel I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven
6 and swore by the one who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, and the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, "There will be no more delay!
7 But in the days when the seventh angel is about to blow his trumpet, the mystery of God is completed, just as he has proclaimed to his servants the prophets."

Logic says, if another angel came out of the temple, there must be a prior angel that came out of the temple first. Where then is this first angel that came out of the temple if not meaning the one meant in verse 14?

IMO it's more logical to say that it would be the one after the third angel mentioned in verse 9 - so the fourth angel mentioned in the chapter. Verse 17 is a fifth angel and verse 18 a sixth.

 

[rebuilder 454]

NO, Jesus compared the day of His coming to DURING the days of the flood of Noe.

What you are FALSELY TRYING TO DO is plant a FALSE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE idea into Jesus' Words!

Others here may think you're just playing ignorant, but I see what you are trying... to do, which is the kind of working that Satan's children do.

Matt 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
KJV

Timeline:
Before the flood came -- they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage.
DAY OF CHRIST'S RETURN -- "the flood came, and took them all away".


Luke 17:26-27
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
KJV

Are there other Bible Scripture Witnesses about that ORDER of Christ's future return? YES!

In 1 Thessalonians 5, Apostle Paul showed the "day of the Lord" will come "as a thief in the night". That means by SURPRISE. The wicked and deceived will NOT be aware of its coming at an instant! Paul even showed the deceived will be saying "Peace and safety" just before the "sudden DESTRUCTION" comes upon them!

What time is that pointing to them about the day of Christ's return? It points to Jesus returning AFTER... the tribulation, actually to end it by that "sudden destruction" on the "day of the Lord"!

But what do the FALSE Pre-trib Rapture charlatans do to try and force the Scriptures to say. They LIE against God's Word with claiming the "day of the Lord" will happen PRIOR... to the start of the "great tribulation", and that the Church is raptured out prior to the tribulation, when Scripture says just the opposite!

So likewise false pre-tribber unbuilder 54 here is trying... to force Jesus' coming BEFORE THE FLOOD, when Jesus compared the time of "destruction" with the time of His future coming!

Know what else Jesus and Paul showed by those deceived not knowing when the "sudden destruction" will come upon them? It makes it OBVIOUS that the time of "great tribulation" MUST END AT THAT MOMENT WHEN JESUS COMES. That means when Jesus comes, NO MORE "great tribulation", no more beast, Satan cast into his pit prison, and Christ begins His 1,000 years reign over all... nations on earth. Pre-tribbers don't like this, because this means Christ's return is POST-TRIB.

Again you COMPLETELY REFRAME what is said.
Jesus used Lot and Noah SIDE BY SIDE to prevent some reframing postrib rapture doctrine traction.

You are unaware ,or just plain embarrassed ,how your doctrine has been debunked solidly and thoroughly.
Apply the context, facts, components, and setting.
Psssst...YOU HAVE TO CHANGE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

But it gets worse. YOUR DOCTRINE NEEDS some part of that, to ALIGN with your theory.
Psssst...NONE OF IT DOES....NONE OF IT.
That is WHY you actually change the bible.
So sad.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Dallas has a sister city. Ft Worth

Postribs.."no we can not look at Ft Worth.
It is not a city.
You are deceived Dallas has no city close by.
Ft Worth is an illusion.
Lets just look at Dallas since Ft Worth is forbidden.
You are racist.
God is not racist."
^^^^^^ This is the insanity I am seeing^^^^^^^^