Christianity and the End Times

Yes you do. You invented a distinction - one which is absurdly only visible after the fact to pretend that Jeremiah wasn’t talking about prophecy. And that - according to you - is the way to read the Bible.You’re not stupid. You have to know you’re just making silly excuses to try to deny what Jeremiah said.

quote:

---

Yeah, sorry I tend to like the sites like Jihad Watch that tell the truth more than the leftist propaganda sites.

---

That’s really funny coming from someone that believes InfoWars.

quote:

---

Why not? He's embraced all the doctrinally antichristian religions of the world including atheism. I wouldn't put anything past this Pope

---

Because he hasn’t embraced any other religion to the extent of denying basic Christian doctrine and because there is no way such a move could fail to cause a split in the Catholic Church (they had a split over Masses in local languages instead of Latin!) - with the Pope in a very small minority this time.What would be the point in making a declaration that would basically cost him his position ?

And you just go on and on rejecting the Bible.Still that was one of my points in this thread, so thanks for providing such clear evidence.

If the Bible was really so great or even if you really believed it was that great you wouldn’t keep twisting it to try and fit your doctrine.So it’s all really empty boasting, like your claims to be making great arguments. Paying lip service to an idea isn’t the same as truly believing it.It’s like Matthew 23:27-28 except you can’t even manage the appearance of righteousness - even there you’re fooling yourself.

We’ve seen that Daniel placed the End Times in the 2nd Century BC and the Synoptic Gospels in the 1st Century AD. Now for the biggy.The Revelation is framed as a vision, but I won’t be dealing much with that element focussing on the things which clearly deal with the End Times.Chapter 1 tells us that the end is coming. It clearly states that those who pierced Jesus will see his return. The obvious reading is that this refers to the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus, again pointing to a date in the 1st Century AD.Chapters 2-3 are messages to seven Churches, telling them what to do, and implying or directly stating (3:11) that Jesus will soon return.Chapters 4-5 do not say anything of direct relevance to this topic.

quote:

---

God's will probably not the right way to say it since it does imply He's in favor of what He will,s but I don't mean it that way.

---

But that is bizarre. The whole point is that God decides everything. Why would God will something he didn’t want ?That’s the problem with extreme ideas of the Sovereignty of God. If God’s choices decide everything then things have to be exactly the way God wants them - or there’s something wrong with God.That’s why the idea that God chooses to allow humans a degree of freedom is less problematic - and dismissing it on the fallacious grounds that it makes God weak is a dubious move.

quote:

---

Good for Jonathan Cahn. Already three years ago he was saying what I just figured out recently, that the Roman Empire doesn't need to be revived in order to fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 2, it never left us.

---

Rome is pretty much irrelevant to Daniel. The only mention refers to the Republic’s intervention in Antiochus’ war on Egypt.And of course the Roman Empire is gone. You just have to try to pretend otherwise because your twisted interpretation of Daniel doesn’t even work for you.

quote:

---

As he puts it in the interview I link below, it's been spreading throughout the world since its official collapse. He refers to the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, to the titles based on the word "Caesar" as in "Kaiser" as I mentioned in Message 88 and even to the Roman Catholic Church as continuing it which I've also mentioned. He talks about the European nations that sent out explorers and established colonies all over the world.

---

The Holy Roman Empire was never Roman in anything more than name, and not even an Empire. The Catholic Church claimed power on religious grounds, split with the Eastern Empire which was the real continuation of the Empire and frequently ran into trouble with unruly monarchs even before the Reformation. Now, the Holy Roman Empire is long gone and the Catholic Church’s power has greatly declined.A few remnants of cultural influence here and there hardly constitute the Empire continuing. No more than the remaining cultural influence from the Babylonians or the Persians constituted those Empires surviving in the prophecies of Daniel.

quote:

---

He even mentions the fact that the US government buildings are based on Roman architecture, which I demonstrated earlier in this thread

---

Classical influence in architecture is no great secret. But how does aping Roman - or Ancient Greek, or even Egyptian - architecture prove that the Roman Empire still exists ? There is no Emperor or army, no rule. The US is an independent state with an elected leader - who has limited power and serves for a limited term. It is not the Roman Empire nor subject to it.This Ghost Kingdom is not a kingdom at all it’s just a phantom conjured up by imagination, based on scraps of cultural influence.

quote:

---

I find it compelling probably mostly because of how I see events shaping up in recent times with the European Union and its symbol of a goddess riding a beast

---

Which is based on Greek mythology - it’s a symbol of Europe - and obviously nothing to do with the Revelation. So, you’re desperate.

quote:

---

I was also very startled to find so much Roman symbolism in our government buildings, even the symbol of the "fasces" which became the symbol of fascism. What is that doing there? Why do we have gods and goddesses in the symbolism of a nation supposedly founded on Enlightenment principles of liberty?

---

Because Classical symbolism was very popular when it was painted I would imagine. The fasces was a symbol of authority for elected officials in the Roman Republic, so then - before the Fascists appropriated it - it was not inappropriate.

quote:

---

Why is our first President depicted as a god in the fresco in the Capitol dome when he rejected the role of king?

---

I’m sure you can find the answer if you look.

quote:

---

How did these influences sneak into the symbolism of our nation?

---

They didn’t sneak in. The fasces in particular is quite visible - it’s on the Great Seal and it was even on the reverse of the dime for nearly 30 years on top of a number of other uses.

quote:

---

For me this answered the question people often ask these days: where is America in the scripture? Well, it's part of the worldwide Roman Empire that has been shaping up for centuries. It shouldn't be if we go by our founding philosophy but it is.

---

It is more to do with the Roman Republic than the Empire. There are reasons why people drew parallels between Cincinattus and George Washington.

quote:

---

I think this is all a work in progress, the Roman Empire as a ghost empire just as Cahn sees it, that nobody has really recognized, that will take formidably real shape in the time of the Antichrist,

---

Except for the fact that a bit of symbolism here and there - especially symbolism that has more to do with the Republic than the Empire isn’t really much of an Empire.

quote:

---

...when we will also have a worldwide religion that will call itself Christian just as the Antichrist will call himself Christian.

---

We can see that by looking at you. You may well know it given how desperate you are to point the fingers at others.

quote:

---

We don't have to have a literal replay of the old Roman Empire for all this to add up to its continuation into the present and suggest its fullblown manifestation in the near future.

---

To have it as a continuing Empire it needs to be a continuing Empire. It isn’t. It died with the fall of Constantinople.

You’ll note that the description doesn’t single out any particular nation and would have described other nations at other times. Given the evidence of Revelation 1:7 it’s more likely to refer to the Roman Empire.

Nevertheless Rome fitted the description when the Revelation was written and Revelation 1:7 indicates that the Second Coming was going to occur within the lifetime of the men who crucified Jesus.

There is no secret rapture in Matthew 24:36-42 either. It occurs when the Son of Man comes (v39) - which is after the Tribulation (v29-30)

quote:

---

The thing is, Matthew 24 gives two different descriptions of His coming. From 29 to 30 Jesus is describing what happens after the tribulation, which is so horrific not many will survive it, so it is very unlikely there would have been any life as usual going on, such as marrying and giving in marriage, which is to characterize the time just before His coming as described in verse 37 as like the days of Noah.

---

That what it says seems odd doesn’t change what it says.The sign of the Fig Tree (v32-35) makes it clear that the Tribulation is a part of the signs preceding the second coming.

quote:

---

So the Rapture is to be like the days of Noah, coming upon us completely by surprise as life is going on as usual, but the Second Coming of Jesus to the earth will follow upon a time of great tribulation when life could not have been going on as usual, and it will come with a lot of fanfare and nobody will be able to miss it

---

Did you miss v37 ? Verses 36-42 are about the Second Coming. It’s right there in the text.

quote:

---

The Second Coming is in two parts, the Rapture and the final coming as conquerer, with the tribulation in between.

---

That certainly isn’t in Matthew 24.

quote:

---

The parable of the fig tree comes as a pause between the two descriptions

---

Sure and it is telling us that the signs - including the Tribulation - are the warning that the Second Coming is near. The second description follows directly on from the parable - it will occur after the signs.

No, I’m just following the text. Arguing that the text doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t change what it says.

Luke 17 has so much text in common with Matthew 24 it is apparent that it is the same material.And Luke 17:30 tells us that this, too, is about the Second Coming, not a Secret Rapture.Revelation 3:10 does not mention how any will be preserved - and it is in a message to the Church in Philadelphia. Verse 3:11 says that Jesus is coming quickly - so it clearly reads as referring to the current membership of that church.Revelation 3:3 only repeats the warning to watch for the signs.Luke 21:36 does not say anything about how the disaster may be escaped. However it might well refer to fleeing from - or staying away from - Jerusalem as advised in verse 21.So, still no secret rapture.