Christianity and the End Times

Not exactly resuming the debate yet but at least bringing us back to the topic of end-times prophecy, as I think I mentioned earlier, spending time in the Daniel prophecies has unexpectedly strengthened my belief in the "pre-trib Rapture" idea, that is, the idea that Christian believers will be transported alive to the presence of Christ before the unfolding of the Seventieth Week of Daniel. (There are various ideas about the timing, some saying it won't be before but in the middle and even after, but at this point I think it's before.) Paul teaches in various places that those who remain alive at the coming of the Lord will be so transported to His presence, changed and transported. The traditional idea has been that this will occur at the actual Second Coming, believers rising in the air to meet Him as He descends. The idea that it would occur before some final events occur just before His actual return is fairly new. What has been tipping me toward this idea is the impression that the Church is not present in the book of Revelation, but also the way the seventieth week splits off after the revelation of the Messiah and the Church Age begins.This doesn't mean I believe all the theology surrounding this idea. For instance I believe the Antichrist was revealed centuries ago while most believers today think he's yet to be revealed. I've been doing some reading up on this view. Those who hold it deny the Rapture. I believe in both the Rapture and the interpretation of the revelation of the Antichrist as historically past.On this subject a long list of the Reformers all shared the same view of his having already been revealed, and there is also a list of Early Church Fathers who had the view that he would be reveled as soon as the Roman Empire came to an end. This is maybe surprising, in fact it is still somewhat surprising to me beause I don't see the prophecy as requiring the fourth empire to come to an end before the little horn of Daniel 7, which is understood to be this Antichrist, takes his role in history. Nevertheless MANY in the early church had this view. They even prayed that the Roman Empire/Caesar would be preserved by God because they didn't want this Antichrist to emerge.Clearly the Early Church Fathers knew they were in the Fourth Empire of Daniel's prophecies, knew it was the Roman Empire and were looking for further fulfillments as yet future. This is certainly an argument against PaulK's insistence that Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in the time of the Maccabees.And then the Reformers discovered all this as they began to see the errors in the Roman Church of which they were all a part. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nobody says it was "written out of his own head," whatever that could possibly mean. Did all the other gospel writers "write out of their own heads"L Or if you think they relied on other written material, did the writers of THOSE accounts "write out of their own heads? If any did, then any of them could have, the events being so noteworthy they would have been strongly impressed on the minds of those who experienced them. But none of them needed written accounts even if some were made use of here and there. They talked to each other, the gospel was being preached everywhere, the facts were being constantly rehearsed in their hearing and also preached by themselves.Luke wrote it the way people write about events they know about from eyewitnesses or their own experience. He probably had notes. He certainly HAD read many eyewitness accounts. He was probably keeping a journal during his travels with Paul. No writer tries to rely exclusively on his own memory. And all the traditionalists say he had to have interviewed many of the people who were eyewitnesses to the events he recounts.And do note the comment of the blogger I posted about how the "scholars" area all relying on their own subjectivity rather than objective criticial thinking, objective facts, anything they actually KNOW. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I thought that was the point I was trying to make. Luke wasn't an eyewitness but used accounts both oral and written by eyewitnesses and early Jesus followers to compile the Gospel. I think we are in agreement. Just as you are subjectively criticizing them. Also, I would add that various scholars are far apart on many issues. You can't lump them all into a like-thinking group. I might also add that it might be an idea to listen to Biblical scholars whose views may differ greatly as opposed to non-scholars whose views also may differ greatly. It is a faith and not a science.As far as I know, I'm the only one whose theology is 100% correct.

Nothing in there appears to provide any arguments Luke did not draw on writings. I'll note that quoting authors that throw around "leftist" the same way you do as if that were some kind of argument really are not proving anything except that they are content with ad hominem." He certainly HAD read many eyewitness accounts. "So writings, then.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Clearly the Early Church Fathers knew they were in the Fourth Empire of Daniel's prophecies, knew it was the Roman Empire and were looking for further fulfillments as yet future.

---

Likely they had much the same aversion to the idea that prophecies could fail. I will say this for them - at least living in the time of the Roman Empire they didn’t make up fantasies about the Roman Empire coming back as if it had never been away.

quote:

---

This is certainly an argument against PaulK's insistence that Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in the time of the Maccabees.

---

I don’t say that they were fulfilled because they obviously were not completely fulfilled. Nevertheless I have made the case that they are about that time and there has been no reply but unsupported assertions to the evidence of Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12.

It's strange then that what you repeat to us is usually nonsense and not from the Bible. I note how you cite two commentators who told you what to think about the Bible. You should try opening it when you post here. Maybe then you wouldn't be such a screaming harpy.

Of course you don't - because you don't like what it says about Him. You cherry-pick the bits you like and ignore the rest. Your inner unction is a maze with no exit. Yes, inner unction should always be questioned. Inner unction is the source of impulses good and bad. It isn't even a question of "instead". Everybody should go with evidence and science first. Then, if there's no evidence, you can fall back on faith. Faith should never, ever, ever be the starting point for anything.

I listened to it. Granted Dr.Moody is on our side in this ongoing debate, but he is no slouch nor carny conman. His rationality (for a believer) is sound. Unbelievers would of course attack any presuppositions as to reasonable belief in general... One group believes that a communion and inner understanding of Gods guidance is possible and that one who seeks it finds it. The other group logically asks how this is even possible and continually pushes such an idea out of their head. One group seeks confirmation while the other group vigilantly rejects it. Granted I am being overly simplistic, but if we had to place given people into one group or the other, which group would the early church fathers be placed in and why?Add by Edit: Dr.Moody even quotes Mark Twain in his sermon..

quote:

---

It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.~ Mark Twain

---

Edited by Phat, : added quote

This is a perfect example of how your group believes. If your statement were presented to my group for criticism, they would run to the Bible...our source of evidence. (Granted I'm no longer trying to convert you...nor should you try and deconvert us. It is enough for now to compile a valid argument. ) I consulted my concordance and found 268 matches in the NIV mentioning "faith" and began to read them in context. Granted I would rather trust the Bible than I do you, but allow me to give you a shot in this discussion. Can you find anything in the Bible that supports your philosophy? If not, is it because modern humanity has gotten smarter than ancient writings? OK...lets expand further: Show me two articles by any modern psychologist or teacher that confirms your philosophy regarding evidence and science opposing faith and being superior to faith. Once we have quotes, we can discuss this further. (I certainly have the biblical quotes and we can discuss them in context)

I am pondering your question as I recall my feelings, experiences, and discussions over the past 25 years since I first became a believer. And I also am mulling over your arguments and likely counter-argument to anything I say. This is healthy...I will edit this later...the answer requires a detailed response

Really, these discussions would go a lot smoother if you understood what evidence is. Once again you don't get your own evidence; everybody has the same evidence. Thomas.Ironically enough, though he is derisively called "Doubting" Thomas by the faith crowd, it wasn't he who demanded evidence; it was Jesus who offered it: So the moral of the story is: Don't believe what the commentators tell you. Every scientific paper puts evidence ahead of faith. They don't consider faith at all.

Wow. A total, absolute total, misunderstanding of what science is. After all this time...Scientific papers will NEVER EVER contain faith as being an answer to anything - except perhaps adding a motivation that something can be done against the odds - like praying to win a tennis match or blowing yourself up in a terrorist attack.If any scientist said he believed something to be true without supporting that believe with rigorous, objective evidence he'd be laughed off the campus.Have you really understood this little after all this time?

No I'm not. I've been arguing based on various facts and not my own feelings, and I just pointed to the list of their errors provided by the blogger. The 'scholars'' just sit around making up stuff according to their preconceived antisupernatural bias, and maybe voting on it,.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My ongoing argument sought to showcase the thought process of our basic two sides. As I said before, "One group believes that a communion and inner understanding of Gods guidance is possible and that one who seeks it finds it. The other group logically asks how this is even possible and continually pushes such an idea out of their head. One group seeks confirmation while the other group vigilantly rejects it. Granted I am being overly simplistic, but if we had to place given people into one group or the other, which group would the early church fathers be placed in and why?"....that was my original question as I addressed Faith and ringo. My understanding grows as our discussions and arguments develop. Keep in mind that as a self-proclaimed member of the first group I am not seeking to derail what I believe...whereas ringo was so objective that he never allowed faith to grow..he now has to explain the evidence that led him to abandon using faith at all. Perhaps, though I would add this:
"be skeptical of unbelievers attempting to explain what the Bible actually means".

Yes, sorry, not fulfilled, but that the Maccabean period was the intended target of the prophecies.I wonder what you'll all think if the Rapture does occur and you can see some prominent leader "confirming a covenant" for seven years, probably with Israel, probably promising a protection of some sort. I suppose there will be many theories about how it was the wicked people who were taken away not the true Christians, well that's pretty much guaranteed to be forcibly promoted, because of course there will be a lot of "Christians" still on the earth, and they will be much more likeable than some who were taken, such as myself. They will probably be in favor of gay marriage and abortion as a woman's right rather than murder, and unprotected borders and whatnot. Yes, of course. Those who remain and don't think such things are going to suffer terribly though. I really wish I had the gift of evangelism so that I could persuade some of you to join us now and be raptured rather than have to go through all that.Anyway. Since I've changed my mind about the pre-trib Rapture I've been reading up on people who promote it. A lot of it is concerned with figuring out when it is most likely to occur. Well, we know date setting is wrong, people keep getting in trouble for doing that, but it isn't wrong to think about the "times and the seasons" that point to a general timing for it, since Jesus Himself said we should be doing that, chiding the Pharisees who didn't know when the Messiah would come in their day, since scripture was quite clear about that. Especially the Book of Daniel which pretty much said right out that they were living in the time at the end of the Seventy Weeks prophecy.Well in our time it would be the revelation of the Antichrist and the making of the seven-year covenant that starts the ticking of the clock for the final Seventieth Week of Daniel. I think the Antichrist has already been revealed, although I do hold out the possibility that it will be a political leader along the lines of a Hitler, who will convince many that he's a good guy who is going to make things right for everybody; but the covenant would be the confirmation.Somebody I heard on this subject pointed out that Jesus mentions the reading of signs that tell us when summer is near, and then I heard a reading of the book of Jeremiah in which the lament is given "The harvest has come, summer is over, and we are not saved" which kind of stood out in the reading. Hm. Summer. Gee wouldn't it be terrific if we got raptured this summer. Oh happy day.But there's another consideration. Major events in the Church have so far happened on the Jewish Holy Days and there are still the High Holy Days coming up in September. Jesus died as the sacrificial lamb on Passover/Pesach, and the Church was "born" as they say on the Feast of Weeks or First Fruits or Savuot, when the Holy Spirit came on the believers and they spoke in tongues and received miraculous gifts. Pentecost is the last day of the first harvest season of the agicultural year that begins on Passover with barley harvest and ends on Pentecost with wheat harvest. Harvest is a major symbol of salvation in the Bible.SO there is always a looking toward the Fall High Holy Days for the next fulfillment of prophecy, in this case the pre-trib Rapture. Rosh Hashana is the next in line of the Holy Days. This yaar it occurs from the evening of September 9 to the evening of September 11. Is there anything about this particular Rosh Hashana that makes it likely to be THE day? Well, some are arguing for the year 2018 but in ways I can't really follow, so I don't have any reason to think so myself. I certainly like the idea though, I'm ready to leave.Again I feel really bad for those who will remain though. Some people very close to me. You can still get saved but at a terrible price. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.