Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Support for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 330 (872097)
02-20-2020 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by PaulK
02-20-2020 12:23 AM


Re: A Digression to Genesis 6 and then back to Revelation
yes the opening of the scroll occurs in Chapter 5. 4 and 5 are scenes in heaven, 5 is the opening of the scroll, 6 begins the judgments that had been sealed in the scroll.
But if Chapter Four shows the Rapture then of course it's all future e since the Rapture hasn't yet occurred in history.
It seems pretty clear that it doesn’t represent the Rapture. The lack of any mention of the Rapture in Revelation is a major problem to the pre-Trib Rapture so they desperately cast around for something.
Nobody's desperate and there's no need for desperation. If it isn't there it isn't there, so what? The reason it is considered to be there is that there is no mention of the Church on Earth from Revelation 4 on. The Church is pictured in heaven in 4 and 5, and from 6 on we see the judgments on the earth starting in that Chapter with the first six seals. I always assumed the martyrs under the altar when the fifth seal is opened were the Church, but although they are believers who were martyred in the seal judgments they aren't necessarily the Church, and since we see the Church coming with Jesus in Chapter 20 after all the judgments are finished, it's got to be a separate group. the absence of the Church in between is what points to the Rapture in Chapter 4. So the Church is in heaven for the opening of the scroll.
I finally understood that the Rapture can't come at the Second Coming because it would have no meaning at all then. Going up to meet Him to come back down is an empty movement. And as MacArthur points out, if all believers ascend to meet Him in the air, and all the unbelievers are killed, there would be nobody to populate the Millennium, which is the next event on the schedule. Those in the Millennium would be normal human beings who will marry and have children. Those who meet Jesus in the air will be changed to fit them for heaven, where there is no marriage. So there has to be a multitude of believers, but nevertheless fallen human beings, left alive on the Earth after the Tribulation to go on and repopulate the Earth. Since they are fallen sin will accumulate even in this repopulated Earth until a dramatic finale after the thousand years. This part I haven't studied yet. But it does make a case for a separate group of believers from the Church which has been Raptured.
the multitude of Revelation 7 is likely meant to be the survivors of the Church, rescued from the Tribulation. The description matches that of the church (7:9 and 5:9). They are only taken to be others because of the pre-Tribulation Rapture is assumed.
The problem with that idea is that the Church has been promised that we will not have to experience God's wrath, which is what the Tribulation is, because Jesus took God's wrath into Himself in our place, and being Raptured off the Earth is the only way we can be protected from it since the entire Earth will be engulfed in it. So the multitude can't be the Church. It has to be a different set of people who come to belief during the Tribulation and go on to repopulate the Earth during the thousand year reign of Christ, with the Church reigning with Him.
B
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2020 12:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2020 1:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 197 of 330 (872099)
02-20-2020 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Hyroglyphx
02-19-2020 11:26 PM


Re: A Digression to Genesis 6 and then back to Revelation
Missler refers to the Book of Enoch and it is often brought up in the context of Genesis 6, but I haven't studied it and haven't finished listening to Missler either, so I can't comment on your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-19-2020 11:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 198 of 330 (872100)
02-20-2020 5:03 AM


The Sixty Nine Weeks ends just before the crucifixion
Something that has bothered me a lot about the Pre-Tribulation Rapture view is that it involves the rebuilding of the physical temple in Israel, so that it becomes the seat of the Antichrist's declaring himself to be God. I've been puzzled how this could even happen with what are apparently the blessings of many of the Christian churches. Many of them are cheering on the efforts to collect the materials for putting together this temple when the time comes. Perhaps its rebuilding will be in the covenant made by the Antichrist with Israel which begins the period of the Tribulation. I don't know, that just came to mind as a possibility.
But the problem I've always had with this is that Jesus Christ is the final sacrifice for sin, the only sacrifice needed, which makes the reestablishment of a temple where animal sacrifice is performed a blasphemy. I can certainly understand why the Jews want to rebuild it since they don't accept Jesus as their Messiah and probably don't even understand that He is regarded as the final sacrifice for sin. But those churches that are egging on the rebuilding of the temple ought to be objecting to it as a blasphemy.
Earlier today I had a thought that sort of reconciled me to the building of the temple, although I haven't heard a word from the churches about it from any angle. The timeline of the Daniel 9 prophecy of the Seventy Weeks stops at the end of 69 of the weeks at Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the donkey, one week before the crucifixion. I accept this from the teachers as accurate calculation because I'm not sure I could put it all together myself, but if it is correct then it does not include the crucifixion. Jesus announces Himself as Messiah to the Jewish crowds in Jerusalem and that is the end of the 69 weelks, after which we are in the "gap" of the Church Age. This gap in the Jewish prophetic calendar will continue for two thousand years until the Church is Raptured, taken off the Earth, which is understood to be the end of the "times of the Gentiles," after which Jesus will open the scroll of judgments with the seven seals. The first seal is the white horse which represents a false peace on the Earth. The Tribulation will resume at the point a covenant is made between the "Prince who is to come" as Daniel identifies him, popularly known as the Antichrist,* and israel. That is the event that begins the Seventieth Week of Daniel, aka the Day of the Lord, aka The Tribulation. The Church is gone and the Jewish clock starts ticking again with this covenant. The white horse represents the Antichrist figure and his covenant certainly would represent a time of peace, but he will break it later.
I'm just reviewing the events to get them firmly fixed in my mind if nobody else's. The point that stands out in this for me is that the CRUCIFIXION BELONGS TO THE GAP, OR THE CHURCH AGE, it is not in the Jewish prophetic calendar. That comes to an end right after Jesus announces Himself to be the Messiah, leaving the last week of years until some future time. The salvation of the Church is built on the cross, the sacrifice of Christ in our place, but that event isn't in the Jewish calendar.
We understand that the temple was destroyed in 70 AD as judgment. but also because the final sacrifice had occurred, the sacrifice of Christ that makes all other sacrifices irrelevant.
BUT if it's outside the Jewish time line, then maybe I don't have to see the rebuilding of the temple as the blasphemy it is in the context of Jesus' dying for us. Now I'm wondering why I've never heard this mentioned anywhere in discussions of all these prophetic events.
===========================
* Chuck Missler in his talk on the white horse of Revelation 6 says he doesn't think the "prince who is to come" of Daniel 9 should be called the Antichrist. That caused me to wonder if the Pope is going to fill the role in Revelation I've had in mind, since he is the Antichrist. It has always seemed problematic that an old man would have such a role, and I also have the problem that he's already been revealed as usurping the role of Christ over the Church. So maybe this prince who is to come will be someone different. He will have to be a Roman though, and that is one strong indicator for the Pope. Just thoughts I haven't yet worked through.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 199 of 330 (872120)
02-20-2020 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
02-20-2020 3:24 AM


Re: A Digression to Genesis 6 and then back to Revelation
quote:
Nobody's desperate and there's no need for desperation. If it isn't there it isn't there, so what?
If you are reduced to using such strained readings as evidence you are desperate. There is no other reason to do it.
quote:
The reason it is considered to be there is that there is no mention of the Church on Earth from Revelation 4 on.
The reason the likely references to the Church on Earth are rejected is the idea of a pre-Tribulation Rapture. So trying to use that as evidence for a pre-Tribulation Rapture is just begging the question.
quote:
The Church is pictured in heaven in 4 and 5, and from 6 on we see the judgments on the earth starting in that Chapter with the first six seals.
And the references in Revelation 4 and 5 are questionable interpretations - which do not fit well with other parts of the text.
quote:
I always assumed the martyrs under the altar when the fifth seal is opened were the Church, but although they are believers who were martyred in the seal judgments they aren't necessarily the Church, and since we see the Church coming with Jesus in Chapter 20 after all the judgments are finished, it's got to be a separate group
The souls of the martyrs are not identified as bring only those martyred in the Seal Judgements. There is no clear identification of the armies of Heaven in Revelation 20 (and if they are meant to be human they are very likely the multitude from Revelation 7)
quote:
I finally understood that the Rapture can't come at the Second Coming because it would have no meaning at all then. Going up to meet Him to come back down is an empty movement
GDR provided a good answer by N T Wright (Message 138)and if the Rapture is the gathering of the Elect they would go up and come down - but not in the same place. The Elect have to be transported somehow - why not by being caught up in the air?
quote:
And as MacArthur points out, if all believers ascend to meet Him in the air, and all the unbelievers are killed, there would be nobody to populate the Millennium, which is the next event on the schedule.
Only the armies that oppose Jesus are killed in Revelation 20, so there can be surviving unbelievers. Moreover, there is no general resurrection of believers until after the Millenium - so the Rapture and the transformation would seem to occur then.
quote:
The problem with that idea is that the Church has been promised that we will not have to experience God's wrath, which is what the Tribulation is, because Jesus took God's wrath into Himself in our place, and being Raptured off the Earth is the only way we can be protected from it since the entire Earth will be engulfed in it. So the multitude can't be the Church. It has to be a different set of people who come to belief during the Tribulation and go on to repopulate the Earth during the thousand year reign of Christ, with the Church reigning with Him
There is no mention of the Church reigning unless you mean the resurrected martyrs (only they and Jesus get to reign). And I really don’t think that he who shall endure to the end means he who sits it out in heaven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 02-20-2020 3:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 02-20-2020 5:50 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 02-20-2020 6:48 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 330 (872125)
02-20-2020 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by PaulK
02-20-2020 1:37 PM


It only makes sense as a whole of many "strained" separate parts
If you are reduced to using such strained readings as evidence you are desperate. There is no other reason to do it.
I've lost track. Are you referring to the idea that John's being called up to heaven in Chapter 4 is strained? I would agree if we just come across it cold and that is the interpretation offered, as I originally did which is one of the many reasons I struggled with the Pre-Tribulation Rapture idea. But since bit by bit other parts of the interpretations were making good sense eventually the most difficult parts of it fit in as well. After hearing a few teachers discuss the view in their own different ways I started to appreciate the different factors such as that the Church really is absent from the Earth in Revelation 6 to 18. What is strained is efforts some make to prove the Church is there, such as your idea that the "great multitude" of Revelation 7 is the Church. Two things make that unlikely: the fact that the Church comes back with Jesus in Revelation 20 and the fact that the Church is not to go through God's wrath because jesus took that wrath upon Himself so that we would not have to suffer it.
But both those facts also have to be separately recognized and appreciated. I had to get it clear in my head that the tribulations we are told we WILL go through in this life are not the same as God's wrath. There are at least three places in scripture where we are told that, and once it sinks in you know that the Church is not going through the Great Tribulation. Then it started to dawn on me that there really must be two separate bodies of believers, and the "great multitude" of Revelation 7 can't be the Church so it must be a separate population. They are explicitly said to have "come out of great tribulation."
The point is all the parts work together and define each other. No single verse gives you the whole picture. Once you see how Revelation 6-18 is the Day of the Lord prophesied throughout the Old testament, and that it is synonymous with the Great Tribulation we first see in Daniel 9 then echoed in passing mentions by Jesus then we start to appreciate that the Church isn't going to go through it and understand that the Rapture has to occur first. Understanding that the Seventy weeks prophecy is entirely about the Jews and has nothing to do with the Church was a big recognition for me. Accepting that the Church formed in a "gap" in that seventy weeks took a lot of reviewing of the different parts of the story etc etc etc.
None of this is put together in one place, the parts have to be separately appreciated, which takes hearing the relevant scriptures over and over. THEN the parts that seem particularly "strained," such as equating the Rapture with John's being called up to heaven in Chapter 4 are seen to fit into the overall interpretation. There is no strain then, it's all a whole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2020 1:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2020 12:25 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 201 of 330 (872126)
02-20-2020 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by PaulK
02-20-2020 1:37 PM


Re: A Digression to Genesis 6 and then back to Revelation
The reason it is considered to be there is that there is no mention of the Church on Earth from Revelation 4 on.
The reason the likely references to the Church on Earth are rejected is the idea of a pre-Tribulation Rapture. So trying to use that as evidence for a pre-Tribulation Rapture is just begging the question.
Well, I argue above that the separate parts have to be appreciated in some depth before you can see where they fit in. The "great multitude" at first seems to someone living through the Church Age to be the Church since no separate believing entity has ever occurred to us. I for one have always been taught that all the prophesies of the old Testament reach their complete fulfillment in Jesus' death on the cross, I.e. the Church. To see how the believers in the Great Tribulation are not the Church takes knowing the scriptures that tell us the Church won't go through God's wrath as it very clearly says that multitude did. And we know that as we've come to see that the Great Tribulation is the same thing as the Day of the Lord. Nobody just assumes anything about it, it takes a struggle to see how the parts fit together.
quote:
The Church is pictured in heaven in 4 and 5, and from 6 on we see the judgments on the earth starting in that Chapter with the first six seals.
And the references in Revelation 4 and 5 are questionable interpretations - which do not fit well with other parts of the text.
It's all questionable until you see that a whole different pattern is being revealed which we hadn't suspected before. Then it all starts to fit together. If you have assumptions, such as about the "other parts of the text" that prevent you from grasping the parts of this previously unsuspected pattern then you are going to miss it completely.;
I always assumed the martyrs under the altar when the fifth seal is opened were the Church, but although they are believers who were martyred in the seal judgments they aren't necessarily the Church, and since we see the Church coming with Jesus in Chapter 20 after all the judgments are finished, it's got to be a separate group.
The souls of the martyrs are not identified as bring only those martyred in the Seal Judgements. There is no clear identification of the armies of Heaven in Revelation 20 (and if they are meant to be human they are very likely the multitude from Revelation 7)
Yes all those passages are opaque at first, and yes it does take recognizing that other passages put the Church in heaven and completely absent from the Tribulation to start to get the picture of who these groups are. If you really really get that the Church will not go through the Tribulation that's when it starts to come together.
I finally understood that the Rapture can't come at the Second Coming because it would have no meaning at all then. Going up to meet Him to come back down is an empty movement
GDR provided a good answer by N T Wright (Message 138)and if the Rapture is the gathering of the Elect they would go up and come down - but not in the same place. The Elect have to be transported somehow - why not by being caught up in the air?
I suppose it isn't entirely unreasonable, except for the fact that the Church is not to go through the Day of the Lord/ Wrath of God/ Great Tribulation. Once you really really see that in scripture the Church is promised escape from wrath then you know the Church is not present during the Tribulation to go up to meet Jesus. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 says we are "not appointed to wrath" but to salvation by Jesus Christ. If there is wrath on the whole Earth how would we avoid it? The Rapture is a good possibility. Romans 5:9 says that since we are justified by the blood of Christ we are spared God's wrath. The Church at Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10 is also promised they will be spared "the time of testing to come upon the whole Earth" if they are obedient. In Romans 8 we are told "there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" and there are no doubt other places we can see this principle. This has to sink in before you get that believers in the Great Tribulation are not the Church.
And as MacArthur points out, if all believers ascend to meet Him in the air, and all the unbelievers are killed, there would be nobody to populate the Millennium, which is the next event on the schedule.
Only the armies that oppose Jesus are killed in Revelation 20, so there can be surviving unbelievers. Moreover, there is no general resurrection of believers until after the Millenium - so the Rapture and the transformation would seem to occur then.
The Great Tribulation is the Day of the Lord which is not the ordinary tribulation of life, it's God's wrath poured out, and the Church is not there. The only way the Church can not be there is to have been Raptured.
The problem with that idea is that the Church has been promised that we will not have to experience God's wrath, which is what the Tribulation is, because Jesus took God's wrath into Himself in our place, and being Raptured off the Earth is the only way we can be protected from it since the entire Earth will be engulfed in it. So the multitude can't be the Church. It has to be a different set of people who come to belief during the Tribulation and go on to repopulate the Earth during the thousand year reign of Christ, with the Church reigning with Him.
There is no mention of the Church reigning unless you mean the resurrected martyrs (only they and Jesus get to reign). And I really don’t think that he who shall endure to the end means he who sits it out in heaven.
I'll have to look up the relevant scriptures for another post (or wait until MacArthur gets to that subject in his series on Revelation which I've been listening to) but as for sitting it out in heaven, that's exactly what we've been promised, it's what being spared God's wrath means, and it's clearly fulfilled in the Revelation account of the Great Tribulation. Believers are to be rewarded, so we get to be rewarded at that time. Nothing strange about that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2020 1:37 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 202 of 330 (872141)
02-20-2020 9:21 PM


The White Horse is the First Seal
Just want to emphasize that the very first seal that Jesus removes from the scroll that decrees the judgments on earth is the white horse which is false peace on the Earth. This is after the Church is Raptured according to the Pre Trib interpretation so the false churches are free to mislead people. But this is also the period when according to our understanding of Daniel 12 the "Antichrist" or the Roman "prince who is to come" makes a covenant with Israel. That will be the first sign of the Tribulation period.
This will probably follow fairly soon after the Rapture since we are to have seven years in heaven with our bridegroom, based on various Old Testament scriptures, but there could be some time lapse, how long is not given anywhere as far as I know.
But the order of events is:
Rapture of the Church
Opening of the seven seals begins
The White Horse is the first seal to be opened
False peace nsues on the earth and people relax
The Antichrist makes a covenant with Israel. The word "bow" in the white horse judgment harks back to the bow God put in the heavens to seal his promise that He would never again send a worldwide Flood so that bow, without arrows by the way, emphasizes the meaning of peace in this first judgment.
The Antichrist could indeed be the Pope, the head of the biggest false religion on the Earth. Well, second to Islam anyway.
So when this covenant is made we know the Tribulation has begun.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2020 9:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 330 (872142)
02-20-2020 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Faith
02-20-2020 9:21 PM


Re: The White Horse is the First Seal
how long is not given anywhere as far as I know.
3.5 years of peace before he reveals his true colors followed by 3.5 years of hell on earth....
Or as Daniel would put it, a time, times, and half a time.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 02-20-2020 9:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 02-20-2020 9:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 204 of 330 (872143)
02-20-2020 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2020 9:30 PM


Re: The White Horse is the First Seal
The first half isn't going to be a time of peace, just the first seal and its duration is not clear. I'm talking about a possible period of time before the first seal is opened, before the Tribulation begins, after rhe Rapture. I understand the first half of the Tribulation or three and a half years precedes the turning point of the Abomination of Desolation which ushers in the Great Tribulation proper, or the outpouring of God's wrath. That begins with the opening of the seventh seal and the first six are in the first half of the Tribulation period but it's not yet the GREAT Tribulation. As I'm coming to understand it anyway.
The idea is there would be the Rapture and then some time period before the covenant with Israel.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2020 9:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 205 of 330 (872148)
02-21-2020 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
02-20-2020 5:50 PM


Re: It only makes sense as a whole of many "strained" separate parts
quote:
Are you referring to the idea that John's being called up to heaven in Chapter 4 is strained?
The idea that it refers to the Rapture is obviously strained.
quote:
But since bit by bit other parts of the interpretations were making good sense eventually the most difficult parts of it fit in as well.
Even if that were true it is still highly strained. in reality the case is so weak supporters are reduced to clutching at straws - and this is an example.
quote:
After hearing a few teachers discuss the view in their own different ways I started to appreciate the different factors such as that the Church really is absent from the Earth in Revelation 6 to 18.
That is not a fact, it is based on the assumption of a pre-Tribulation Rapture and hence cannot support it.
quote:
What is strained is efforts some make to prove the Church is there, such as your idea that the "great multitude" of Revelation 7 is the Church.
It is not at all strained.
quote:
Two things make that unlikely: the fact that the Church comes back with Jesus in Revelation 20 and the fact that the Church is not to go through God's wrath because jesus took that wrath upon Himself so that we would not have to suffer it.
These are more strained than the idea that the multitude is the Church!
quote:
The point is all the parts work together and define each other
I.e. it’s a mess of assumptions that don’t fit well with the rest of the text.
quote:
None of this is put together in one place, the parts have to be separately appreciated, which takes hearing the relevant scriptures over and over. THEN the parts that seem particularly "strained," such as equating the Rapture with John's being called up to heaven in Chapter 4 are seen to fit into the overall interpretation. There is no strain then, it's all a whole.
Again that is obviously false - the idea that John being called up to Heaven refers to the Rapture is strained even if you follow the rest of the case. It is clearly part of the framing, it does not closely resemble the Rapture, you’ve made no case for John representing the Church, nor explained why we should take this action as referring to an event. Are all Johns actions to be taken as representing events in the story? Or, if it is only some why those, not others? Without that it is just obvious clutching at straws, a desperate attempt to deny the fact that the Rapture is not mentioned and there is no Resurrection until after Jesus return - and even that only covers a minority of Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 02-20-2020 5:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 02-21-2020 6:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 206 of 330 (872150)
02-21-2020 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by PaulK
02-21-2020 12:25 AM


Re: It only makes sense as a whole of many "strained" separate parts
Whatever, PaulK, I disagree strongly and think I made a good case for the Pre Trib point of view, but I know you are just not going to be persuaded and are going to persist with your own judgments, contradicting everything I say anyway. Fine, whatever.
I'm continuing to listen to John MacArthur's series on Revelation and there's so much to it I'm now skipping parts of it just to get to the parts I need most to understand. Here's one of his discussions of Revelation 6, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. He's already discussed the White Horse but now he's giving a somewhat more general overview of that chapter. I want to get to Chapters 7 and 8 for my own purposes but I need to get through this one first. I'm going to post it because I think it's a good overview if anyone is interested.
.
.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2020 12:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2020 7:15 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 02-21-2020 8:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 207 of 330 (872151)
02-21-2020 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
02-21-2020 6:37 AM


Re: It only makes sense as a whole of many "strained" separate parts
quote:
Whatever, PaulK, I disagree strongly and think I made a good case for the Pre Trib point of view, but I know you are just not going to be persuaded and are going to persist with your own judgments, contradicting everything I say anyway. Fine, whatever.
It is a matter of fact that your evidence relies on questionable interpretations- when it isn’t begging the question by assuming a pre-Trib Rapture. It is a matter of fact that you have yet to address the problem of the resurrections of Revelation 20.
And that all means that it is a matter of fact that you did not make a good case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 02-21-2020 6:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 330 (872152)
02-21-2020 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
02-21-2020 6:37 AM


Re: It only makes sense as a whole of many "strained" separate parts
Listening to this sermon by MacArthur I find a lot of it from about the halfway point on to be strangely dated. I don't know if he still holds these views but I'd like to find a better discussion of the four horses. He gave this sermon about twenty years ago which may explain its seeming dated.
He calls Hades "death," but Hades is not death, it's the abode of the dead in spirit form, as they await the final judgment. It's like those who call Sheol of the OT the "grave" or death. That too is an abode of the dead, and not the grave itself.
It's a kind of euphemizing he does from time to time. I was happy that he was willing to recognize that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 were demons, but then later he denies that they actually procreated and made some kind of angel-human hybrid, the Nephilim or the "mighty men of old" who figure in so much of the religions of Greece and Rome, offspring of the gods and women whose stories have become legends. Missler sees it this way, but MacArthur balks at such bizarre? scenarios even when the scripture seems to point to them pretty clearly.
He also imputes the war described in Daniel 11 to this time period, under the red horse, the movements of the Kings of the south and north in relatin to the "prince who is to come" or the Antichrist. I think all that was fulfilled when the Antichrist figure between the Testaments, whose name I'm not remembering right now, desecrates the Temple of the Maccabees who finally defeat him, which is commemorated at Hanukkah.
Sometimes prophecy points to two separate fulfillments so it's possible the future Antichrist will be part of a similar scenario but it just doesn't seem likely to me, it's rather precisely fulfilled in the time of the Maccabees, and I think MacArthur is misreading that passage.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 02-21-2020 6:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 209 of 330 (872155)
02-21-2020 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Hyroglyphx
02-19-2020 11:26 PM


Re: A Digression to Genesis 6 and then back to Revelation
I finished listening to the talks on Genesis 6 and was disappointed that neither MacArthur or Missler made use of the Book of Enoch although both mentioned it.
As to the "Sons of Men," the phrase appears in a few places in bible and usually seems to infer angels. We know from scripture that Lot was harboring two angels and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to rape them. Seems like its implying that angels can take on human form; I can only assume with full anatomy -- genitalia and all.
That is what I would also conclude. I'm also aware of accounts of people who encountered what had to be angels, who appeared in the form of men. Not fallen angels, those are encountered too, but these were God's angels sent to be helpers. Pastor Bill Mc... oh drat my memory is so bad these days, anyway the pastor of a church in Saskatchewan where there was a big revival in the seventies, and this pastor gives his description of it at You Tube. Anyway he and his wife fly to a South American country for a conference on revival, Brazil? Argentina? Memory fails again. where they discovered they had lost the address they were to go to, and were alone in a huge airport not knowing the language etc. A "man" came up to them, bowed to them, and told them where they were to go, to get such and such a bus etc. All without discussion, he just gave them this information and they believed it. So eventually they were on the bus going to their destination but not knowing the stop where they were to get off. At some point a man sitting behind them leaned forward and told them they were to get off at the next stop. See, they didn't know these men, they hadn't discussed their situation with them, the men just knew what they needed to know and gave them the information. What else could they have been but angels? Looking exactly like men. A man in the airport, a man on the bus.
The other story was told by a woman who was in one of the towers on 9/11 when the plane hit, and was with a crowd of people trying to get down the stairs, everybody of course pretty panicked. At one point a man held a door open for her, I don't know if others also went out that door, but the man smiled at her and told her not to worry she was going to be fine. Total stranger, completely calm, smiling and reassuring specifically toward her. She was already a nominal Christian but that experience got her born again. Sorry can't remember her name either.
I have to continue this in a new post because the text is acting up somehow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-19-2020 11:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 210 of 330 (872156)
02-21-2020 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Hyroglyphx
02-19-2020 11:26 PM


Re: A Digression to Genesis 6 and then back to Revelation
As we know from the story, the Nephilim were the progeny of these unholy unions.
Missler seems to know this but he also garbles it in some way, and MacArthur denies it completely.
Their existence seems to play a big factor in the great Flood. The Book of Enoch was discovered in several different places, like Ethiopia and even fragments were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. While it holds no place in the modern cannon, it seems like it was of enough importance to Jews and early Christians to salvage it; presumably because it was revered as legitimate scripture.
As I recall it was in fact included in some early canons.
I'm sure you know who Enoch is in the bible. And the book itself implies that Noah was the author. We can deduce this from Table of Nations:
"And they shall confine those angels who disclosed impiety. In that burning valley it is, that they shall be confined, which at first my great-grandfather Enoch showed me in the west, where there were mountains of gold and silver, of iron, of fluid metal, and of tin." -- Book of Enoch; Chapter 66:4
The contents of the book is basically a really long form version of Genesis 5-6. In it, it discusses the names of supposed fallen angels and what happened as a result:
"These are the names of their chiefs: Samyaza, who was their leader, Urakabarameel, Akibeel, Tamiel, Ramuel, Danel, Azkeel, Saraknyal, Asael,
Armers, Batraal, Anane, Zavebe, Samsaveel, Ertael, Turel, Yomyael, Arazyal. These were the prefects of the two hundred angels, and the remainder were all with them.
Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees.
And the women conceiving brought forth giants,
Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labour of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;
When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;
And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.
Then the earth reproved the unrighteous." -- Book of Enoch; Chapter 7:9-15
Of course, 300 cubits is a ridiculous size... For perspective and scale Noah's Ark was 300 cubits. So are we supposed to believe that Ark-sized giants were procreating with normal-sized women? And no physical evidence to support it? But I digress...
Suggests some kind of error to me, but it's not talking about the procreating fallen angels but their offspring who were the giants. In any case that has got to be some kind of error.
The other thing is, if the Flood wiped these Nephilim out (as we know who the survivors of the Flood were) then how is it they reappear in scripture elsewhere?
If they were half angel and half human they may have been able to survive the Flood, or some of them?
The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them. Numbers 13:32-33
Yes but I've wondered just how big those giants were. That isn't described except for the grasshopper comparison. Pretty big I guess but how big? Bigger than the Philistine giant David killed. Name escapes me again. I recall that he was about nine feet tall.
So just so you know, its these kinds of internal inconsistencies and absurdities that erodes one faith... The more you know about the bible, the less you start to believe. That's been my case in any event.
All it does to me is make me want to know more about it, it doesn't make me doubt the account. The Book of Enoch isn't on a par with scripture so I don't have to take that number straight, but even that I wouldn't just dismiss, I'd want to have more evidence. Maybe I just have a greater tolerance for "absurdities" as actual possibilities. There is possibly some reason to wonder about the dinosaurs, also giants, as something other than naturally occurring genetic oddities.
Weird things happening to the text again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-19-2020 11:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024