Rapture Top Dogs Admit no Proof Exists.

[n2thelight]

One must understand,at the last trump ALL shall be changed saint and sinner alike.The difference is in the state of the soul.

The soul is not automatically immortal it must become that way.To die not in Christ means you stand a chance to die the 2nd death,which is the death of the soul.

The over comers need not fear the 2nd death,those that do although changed, are called the dead

 

[Davy]

Well I don't know...did you actually read my other posts and then consider 1 Cor 15? Honestly, the more I read it, the more I can't believe others miss the obviousness of it.

I don't have time to respond to everything you write in your posts. My response post would be 4x longer than your original! Instead of letting your mind wander, try to concentrate on one topic at a time.

Okay...sure. So...what we have here is proof that a time period will happen where certain things will take place, yeah? People like to call it "the Millennium", obviously for the 1000 year reference, but past that obvious label which sometimes distracts, we can characterise this time period by the fact that Christ is reigning. Over what? A Kingdom? A people? A place? The Rev 20 passage tell us that those killed in the name of Christ, those who do not give in to "Antichrist", will 'come to life and rule and reign with Christ' during this 'Kingdom'.
It also tells us that during this time Satan is "bound from deceiving the nations".

Okay...so...given that Revelation is often not chronological, and is often symbolic in its use of imagry, most biblical scholars will tell you that the clear rule of thumb for interpreting less clear passages is to go to passages that are more clear. This is something that most scholars agree on, regardless of which school of thought they come from.

That passage in italics is totally irrelevant to the actual Scripture. The fact that Christ's Revelation contains symbols and analogy does not mean it has no literal things too. You're argument is no argument, proves nothing.

With that in mind, let's look at some other passages that speak of; the Kingdom, Christ's rule now, Christian's status in Christ now, and Satan's status now.

Since you try to use Revelation's symbology as your basis of argument against the 1,000 years reign in Rev.20 being literal, you then would have to go through all of Revelation and show how the literal things in it are not literal, but only symbology and as you say, imagery. It is impossible to do that and admit that Christ's Revelation reveals Truth. In one fell swoop, your whole basis suggests that our Lord's Revelation has only symbolic value, and has no literal Truth.

Thus the rest of your post falls by the wayside with the basis of your idea.

But I'll tell you this. A LOT of Revelation's symbology doesn't originate within the Book of Revelation. It originates from the Old Testament Books of God's prophets. Also, Revelation contains parallels to what Jesus taught in His Olivet discourse in The Gospel Books. And it contains portions that Paul and Peter also taught from the Old Testament prophets. So you have a REAL problem with your theory, because the REST of God's Holy Writ confirms... the literal Truths written in our Lord's Book of Revelation.

And here you thought the doctrine of men you use against it holds some secret mystery insight into it.

 

[Davy]

I'm a Navy Gulf War and Bosnian War vet, Avionics Tech - served on the U.S.S. Saratoga. Two deployments, one in the Red Sea and the other in the Adriatic. Got to see Israel, Jordon, Turkey, lotsa other places. Not the "glorious militarism" of Vietnam, but I was too young to go. And today, our young people have to run to safe spaces and grab crayons and coloring books if someone hurts their feelings. SMH

What do you mean by "glorious militarism" of Vietnam?

I'm a U.S. Vietnam era veteran, served as a B-52D crew chief.

 

[Davy]

The "whole world wondered after the Beast" happens after the deadly wound is healed, which was in 1929 when Mussolini gave the Vatican state territories back. And the papacy has been steadily garnering worldwide attention and adoration.

It hasn't happened yet. The whole world will wonder after the beast only when he arrives on the scene in Jerusalem, exalting himself as God, sitting in the temple of God (Jerusalem temple for the end).

2 Thess 2:3-4
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
KJV


I'm afraid for you brother. Men's doctrines are not preparing you for that coming false one to Jerusalem.

 

[Davy]

Sure: Revelation 13 says the First Beast will rise up as a religio-political power, but receive a deadly wound, which will be healed, and then all the world will "wonder after the Beast". That Beast is the papacy, according to the prophetic timeline that begins in Daniel and continues through Revelation. This interpretation was EXCLUSIVELY taught by Protestantism as sound Biblical exegesis for over THREE HUNDRED YEARS until just about 150 years ago Jesuit Futurism (which was formulated by the Jesuits to deflect the identity of the Antichrist away from the papacy because so many people were fleeing from it into Protestantism that the priests were running out of children to rape) began to spread throughout Protestantism and today most Protestants reject Historicism. A few of us here preach it faithfully, though.

No, the Rev.13 beast is NOT... the papacy.

There are 2 separate beasts given in Rev.13 & 17, the first one that rises out of the sea is a kingdom beast, as Jesus compared it to the animal symbols in Daniel 7. It's to have 10 horns, 7 heads, and 10 crowns. This was not historical Rome, nor ten member nations associated with the papacy. The ten kings of Rev.17 are to rule with the beast (i.e., The Antichrist which will be a king over them). The second beast of Rev.13 is the "another beast" that John saw, having 2 horns LIKE a lamb, but spake as a dragon (Satan).

That 2nd beast will work great signs and wonders on earth, raining fire down from heaven in the sight of men (Rev.13:11 forward). NO pope... has ever... done such a thing, nor will a pope ever do such.

Jesus gave us another comparison of this coming Antichrist. Jesus called him a pseudochristos in Matthew 24:24, meaning 'a pseudo Christ'. Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defined it as, 'a spurious Messiah'. That... is more specific than the term antichrist. Jesus warned us that if someone comes up to us in that time and says something like, "Lo, Christ is here, or there," He said to believe it not! Thus the coming Antichrist will try and play The Christ, not a little ole pope.

 

[n2thelight]

This is where 1 Cor 15:54 comes in. When we continue reading Chapter 15 we clearly see the IMPLICATION of verse 23. WHEN we receive our resurrection body...that which Christ was the firstfruits of, THEN death is swallowed up in victory. THAT moment is the defeat of death. It is that moment that allows Christ to hand over the Kingdom. That means that this handing over happens AT Christ's coming....not at the end of a "millennium", after death still holds sway for another 1000 years. That is nowhere in this passage at all!

Death is satan whom is the last to be defeated which is at the end of the Lords day.

This handing can't happen at His coming for the simple fact that the Day of God doesn't happen until after the Day of Christ

At the end of the millennium satan is totally destroyed then Christ gives the Kingdom to God

 

[Davy]

So what is... the coming Revelation 13 beast of ten horns, seven heads, and ten crowns?

The answer is, a "one world government". Only someone living in ignorance wouldn't know about it plans today.

Walter Cronkite
"It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government..."

Henry Kissinger
"Today America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Robert Mueller
"We must move as quickly as possible to a one-world government, one-world religion, under a one-world leader."


Those "insiders" well know the plan. Not only that, but like Kissinger revealed above, they may use... war & chaos... in order to bring about the problem in order to offer their... one-world government solution! Don't be deceived brethren!

 

[Naomi25]

Is that fire still burning ?

Oh. Please. Please don't tell me you understand that passage to be talking about the initial judgement that took them down. You do understand it's talking about what came after that for them, yeah? That's why it says "eternal". It's talking about the judgement that comes AFTER death...not just the flames from the sky that Lot fled from.

 

[n2thelight]

Oh. Please. Please don't tell me you understand that passage to be talking about the initial judgement that took them down. You do understand it's talking about what came after that for them, yeah? That's why it says "eternal". It's talking about the judgement that comes AFTER death...not just the flames from the sky that Lot fled from.

There's only one person by name that has been judged to death,and that person is satan,that's why he is also known as the son of perdition,

Nobody is judged until the Great White Throne judgement.

 

[n2thelight]

@ Phoneman777

The first beast is a system the one world government,that system will receive the deadly wound after that satan arrives pretending to be Christ and heals that wound, at which time it shall turn into a one world religious system.Babylon

Those without the seal of God will believe the lie that satan is Christ!!!

That's why there can't be a rapture for the elect with the Holy Spirit speaking through them must get as many as who would listen out of her(babylon)

Revelation 18:4 "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

Mark 13:11 "But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost [Spirit]."

 

[Naomi25]

I don't have time to respond to everything you write in your posts. My response post would be 4x longer than your original! Instead of letting your mind wander, try to concentrate on one topic at a time.

And thus we see the real problem. Letting my "mind wander" means I don't see verses in isolation of each other. In such a fashion we are able to see the connection between Eph 1:20 telling us that Christ already has all authorities under his feet, and 1 Cor 15 telling us what will happen after that.
When you abort such thinking, you find yourself limited to only 1 Cor 15 where, apparently, you think Christ still has this task left to him. Paul would ardently disagree.

That passage in italics is totally irrelevant to the actual Scripture. The fact that Christ's Revelation contains symbols and analogy does not mean it has no literal things too. You're argument is no argument, proves nothing.

I've never said it holds "no" literal meaning. But, to your point, conversely...just because it does hold some literal meaning, does not mean it is not, in many ways, symbolic and analogous...which means my argument is not moot on those basis. If you want to dismiss my argument, you must find a different way.

Since you try to use Revelation's symbology as your basis of argument against the 1,000 years reign in Rev.20 being literal, you then would have to go through all of Revelation and show how the literal things in it are not literal, but only symbology and as you say, imagery. It is impossible to do that and admit that Christ's Revelation reveals Truth. In one fell swoop, your whole basis suggests that our Lord's Revelation has only symbolic value, and has no literal Truth.

Actually, you've missed my point entirely. My point was that because Revelation is often seen as hard to understand we must look OUTSIDE of Revelation to base our arguments against the 1000 years being literal. You will note that ALL the verses I gave were outside of Revelation.
So...essentially...your argument that my argument is moot...is moot.

Thus the rest of your post falls by the wayside with the basis of your idea.

Yeah...that might have been accurate had not your assumption OF my argument been totally wrong. Sorry.

But I'll tell you this. A LOT of Revelation's symbology doesn't originate within the Book of Revelation. It originates from the Old Testament Books of God's prophets. Also, Revelation contains parallels to what Jesus taught in His Olivet discourse in The Gospel Books. And it contains portions that Paul and Peter also taught from the Old Testament prophets. So you have a REAL problem with your theory, because the REST of God's Holy Writ confirms... the literal Truths written in our Lord's Book of Revelation.

Really? Goodness...I'd never heard such a thing! Except...its the very same thing I've been saying for post and posts and posts. In point of fact, the images and symbols of Revelation coming from the OT actually helps support MY argument better than the "literalists" argument. Why? Because the Amillennialist says "that is an image; let's look back to see how the bible has used that image before". Whereas the literalist says that "everything in Revelation is literal". Thus I find myself often defending literal descriptions of demons against 'literalists' who insist these demons must be helicopters. Go figure.

And here you thought the doctrine of men you use against it holds some secret mystery insight into it.

Yeah....here I thought. Too bad others can't.

 

[n2thelight]

Ephesians 6:11 "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil."

Does the above say so you can be rapture or stand?

 

[Naomi25]

Death is satan whom is the last to be defeated which is at the end of the Lords day.

This handing can't happen at His coming for the simple fact that the Day of God doesn't happen until after the Day of Christ

At the end of the millennium satan is totally destroyed then Christ gives the Kingdom to God

Really? Death is Satan? Come on. It doesn't even say that. Death and Satan are not one and the same. Satan may USE death, but Revelation, if nothing else, makes clear there is a difference.
If that's all you've got, I'm sorry. But the passage says what it says. If you can produce some other bible verse that SAYS that Satan is death; the last enemy, then I invite you to do so. Otherwise, I trust that when the bible says 'death', it means 'death'...which is, without a doubt, an enemy that everyone must face.

 

[Naomi25]

There's only one person by name that has been judged to death,and that person is satan,that's why he is also known as the son of perdition,

Nobody is judged until the Great White Throne judgement.

So...your saying that there's hope for them yet??! They were put to death by God for sins of the highest...but until the GWT we can't know, really, which way all those people are going, huh?
Gee...I guess this salvation thing is more open-ended then we have been supposing.

 

[Copperhead]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that both OT and NT evidence must exist for a thing to be established?

No doubt you are wrong. Yes, and Deuteronomy and Acts 17 is the two witnesses (OT and NT) I used to support that. Guess that got missed that when I mentioned both Deuteronomy and the Bereans (Acts 17). Unless Acts is no longer part of the NT.

 

[Davy]

And thus we see the real problem. Letting my "mind wander" means I don't see verses in isolation of each other.

No, what it means is you choose to isolate Scripture by applying outside meanings to it, like your imagery philosophical explanations in your previous posts about the 1,000 years in Rev.20. With you people, you think it alright to just philosophize any Scripture that doesn't fit your own doctrine. God's Word is written as such that we... must accept what it says, even though we may not yet fully understand. The understanding will come through continued Bible study and praying.

 

[Naomi25]

No, what it means is you choose to isolate Scripture by applying outside meanings to it, like your imagery philosophical explanations in your previous posts about the 1,000 years in Rev.20. With you people, you think it alright to just philosophize any Scripture that doesn't fit your own doctrine. God's Word is written as such that we... must accept what it says, even though we may not yet fully understand. The understanding will come through continued Bible study and praying.

Oh, come on...that doesn't even make sense. My connecting LIKE passages is "isolating" scripture? Do you have even the slightest idea of what people do to pull together doctrines? Without it we wouldn't have the doctrine of the Trinity...and I would hope you see the importance and centrality of that.
Your objections to my points are consistently non-sensical.

 

[Copperhead]

What do you mean by "glorious militarism" of Vietnam?

I'm a U.S. Vietnam era veteran, served as a B-52D crew chief.

Just curious, based out of Guam? I thought they were up to the G model by that time. I was Army so not a wizard on what the AF was doing. I mostly had dealings with A-7’s delivering close air support.

 

[Phoneman777]

I really don't do seminary doctrines of men, and that's mostly where you're coming from.

Actually, Historicism is not a doctrine of men, it's Bible doctrine. For example, Daniel 7:17 and 23 says a "beast" is a kingdom. Historicism is the most consistent interpretation with regard to prophetic symbolism.

This is the 21st century, so if my Hugeunot ancestors were still alive today, they would agree the OFFICE of pope even is not the Antichrist.

The Hugeunots against which the papacy sent such a slaughter that they only had time to grab what they could carry and flee across the Alps to Switzerland in the dead of winter to escape it? I think their message today about Antichrist would be the same as it was back then.

The definition of "antichrist" is given in 1 John 2:18, but not only there. Apostle John spoke of both a singular entity as an "antichrist" in that verse, and also the idea of there being "many antichrists" already. So please don't insult my intelligence by trying to push a lie that John wasn't speaking of a singular antichrist entity that those brethren had already heard shall come.

Neither John nor Paul taught the Antichrist is one singular evil dude. The word "Anti-Christos" means "in place of Christ" or "in behalf of Christ". That's EXACTLY what the papacy has claimed to be since the 6th century A.D.

 

[Phoneman777]

What do you mean by "glorious militarism" of Vietnam?

I'm a U.S. Vietnam era veteran, served as a B-52D crew chief.

Copperhead asked me the same thing. A commentary on society's love affair with overseas conflict, which seems to be waning since it's about bankrupted our economy and the only thing we get to show for it is increased military spending and body bags.