Christianity and the End Times

quote:

---

Right, we know how to read the Bible, you should learn from us. We read this kind of scripture as written directly to us as it is supposed to be read. But as I said, believe what you want.

---

Sure Faith, the way to read the Bible is to twist it, to pretend that it says what you want.That’s how we know you aren’t a real Christian.

quote:

---

Oh well, evidence is not persuasion.

---

More to the point providing contrary evidence is liable to persuade others that you are wrong.

quote:

---

Everybody probably arrives at a "preferred interpretation".
Why shouldn't I "prefer" a more convincing interpretation?

---

That’s your explanation of why your preferred interpretation is better you find it more convincing but can’t offer anything actually convincing ?

quote:

---

Co-reigning with Christ mattered to Christ.
So I believe it matters.

---

Do you have some inability to follow a discussion ? Obviously what I mean is that it does not help your argument.

quote:

---

One Person is Christ Who is to reign - (Revelation 19:15)
The OTHER persons [plural] are those who overcome (Revelation 2:26,27)
The Manchild is consistent with the evidence because " THEY overcame him ..."

---

As I have already pointed out there is no reason to think that they overcame him refers to the manchild.

quote:

---

In Acts 1:11 the disciples are assured that AS He ascended, similarly He will descend again someday.

---

And another non-sequitur.

quote:

---

One reason that I prefer to interpret the Manchild consists of those saints that have DIED is because the text says that they loved not their soul-life, even unto DEATH.

---

And, I repeat there is no reason to think that text refers to the manchild.

quote:

---

I don't promise to convince you. Why would I guarantee your persuasion?

---

I didn’t ask for that. Instead I pointed out that your arguments were incredibly weak and that is hardly my fault. It is not that I am failing to see evidence or that you see a bigger picture. It is just that your entire case rests on dubious interpretations which should not persuade anyone at all.

quote:

---

I have no problem understanding the warnings of Matthew 24:41-42
as they are consistent perfectly with the parables about His coming and expecting His servants to be on their guard.

---

Then why try to pretend that they are about some secret pre-tribulation Rapture when Matthew 24:36 tells us that it will follow the signs listed in Matthew 24:6-31 (including the Tribulation) and
Matthew 24:37 tells us that the immediately following verses take place with the Second Coming ? And that is confirmed by verse 42, verse 43 and verse 44.

quote:

---

This kind of warning is more likely about unsuspecting moment rather than a tumultous and sensational annoucement. The following verse also suggests SUPRISE in arrival rather than LOUD ANNOUCEMENT of arrival.

---

Indeed, but there is no announcement, only signs - and signs that may only be recognised as such by those familiar with the warning. And it is explicitly stated that these events will follow the signs. Moreover the signs are precisely what the disciples are told to watch for. What good are they as signs if they arrive too late to be of any use ?

quote:

---

If you have a better way to live for Christ's coming again, you follow that.

---

I think I would avoid the displays of arrogance and dishonesty for one.

quote:

---

Nonsense. This is explicit heads up that as He ascended, similarly He will come again.

---

If it was nonsense you could and should show how the point connects to the argument. You haven’t done that.

quote:

---

No reason that you like is what you mean.
Your preferences lie elsewhere.

---

No, no reason is what I meant. And you have offered none so it seems that you have no valid reason either.

quote:

---

So far - no alternative.

​

You're going to have to stop chiding weakness sooner or latter and offer a better explanation.

---

Well that isn’t true either. I’ve offered alternatives for every passage you’ve cited or near enough.

quote:

---

So why is the Manchild NOT a collective remnant that comprise a THEY ?

---

Because he seems to represent the figure in Revelation 19:11-16 who even you agree is Jesus.I’m still waiting for you to produce a valid reason to think that the manchild does represent a collective they.

quote:

---

Oh, I think it is that indeed.

---

If you could actually point out this evidence I am supposedly missing you might have a point. But since you don’t It is doubtful that even you believe that.

quote:

---

Wishful thinking is comforting.

​

I have not yet given ALL the reasons for interpreting a collective in both the Woman of universal brightness and her Man-child.

---

Repeating obviously invalid reasons and refusing to support them is hardly a sign that the rest of your case is any better. The wishful thinking is yours.

quote:

---

No need for me to "pretend". More wishful thinking on your part.

---

If you are pretending for no reason at all, you are still pretending. The text is quite clear that it refers to events following the Tribulation.

quote:

---

Verse 38 says " ... in those days BEFORE the flood"

​

So a rapture BEFORE the great tribulation is not at all an outlandish understanding of His discussion there.

---

And verse 37 says: So clearly it refers to the Second Coming not the tribulation.

quote:

---

The disciples ask for more things then just the signs. Signs are one matter among other things that they ask Christ about

---

But I am not talking about the questions, I am talking about the answer. As you certainly ought to know.

quote:

---

But concerning verses 40 and 41 " at that time " is compared to that time - BEFORE the flood. So then it is reasonable to understand the call to watch and be ready pertains to that time BEFORE the events of the great tribulation.

---

Why is it reasonable or ignore verse 37 which explicitly says it is about the coming of the Son of Man ?

quote:

---

But I would not argue that there would then be absolutely NO indications that the completion of the age was near.

---

Just not the signs that Jesus told them to watch for, eh? You might wish to paint Jesus as engaging in a rather unpleasant deception but I hardly think that was the author’s intent.

quote:

---

While post tribulation times is conceivable, what is really weak is your insistence that pre-tribulation rapture simply cannot be interpreted here. That criticism is what is WEAK.

---

Ah, so the Biblical text is WEAK compared to your assertions. That certainly clarifies where you stand.

quote:

---

It would not be my "preferred interpretation" for contextual reasons. Before the flood means to me to correspond to before the calamities of the great tribulation.

---

And the fact that Matthew 24:37 tells us the passage is about the Second Coming, as do verses 42 and, 44 means nothing to you.

I note that this is primarily about interpretations of the woman, with very little said about the manchild as such. Which is certainly not a way to make a good case.The more so when you have a,ready argued that the birth and taking up to Heaven cannot refer to Jesus - at the least a valid alternative explanation should have been provided then.Indeed the entire argument rests on what you think the symbolism means, which is hedged with uncertainty, and seems to be no more than opinion.This is certainly not a good case.

quote:

---

Skeptics often try to establish a Coach / Student relationship with Christians, as if the latter should seek guidance from the skeptic how to argue a case.

---

I am certainly not trying to do that. But you certainly need help.

quote:

---

All things considered the Manchild better represents the ARMY that comes down with Christ as their Head, Leader, General. Indeed it is through Him that they overcome.

---

The manchild isn’t spoken of as overcoming in Revelation 12. Indeed he does nothing in that chapter, he is simply born and taken up to Heaven.

quote:

---

I would also point out that the rejoicing voice in Revelation 12 says that the kingdom has come NOW. That is at the taking up of the Manchild to God and to His throne. Yet still on earth great tribulation is raging.

---

The reason for the rejoicing is not in the manchild being taken up to Heaven but in the fall of Satan.

quote:

---

10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down

---

The end of the accusations hardly seems sufficient in itself for the Kingdom to begin (unless, perhaps you wish to imagine Heaven as corrupt before then, with the Devil and his Angels wielding power there? Power which goes beyond merely making accusations). However verse 12 tells us that the Devil has but a short time on Earth. It seems likely to me, that the voice means that the Kingdom will arrive soon, and inevitably, on Earth and the fall of the Devil is the sign.

quote:

---

I am a veteran of discussion forums of this type. And PaulK will now adopt an effective strategy which consists of him saying LITTLE and provoking me to respond by laboring to say MUCH

---

Not at all. It seems instead that you choose to say much of insignificance because you lack any worthwhile case.

quote:

---

This lopsided exchange is advantageous to the guy who only writes a little and disadvantagous to the guy who takes a lot of time to work through objections.

---

if you thought the attempt to bury me in insignifcant points was not a useful tactic you wouldn’t use it. But it is your choice to do so and your tactic, and I accept no responsibility for your actions.

First I shall have to remind Jaywill that I do not believe that the sign in the sky is meant to be interpreted literally. Thus the assertion that:

quote:

---

If Paulk argues that the Manchild is Jesus we have to adopt this view:

​

When Jesus was born in Bethlehem He was immediately caught up to Heaven.
Mary fled to a wilderness (without Jesus).
The rest of her children who were born after she RETURN to Israel were
objects of Satan's war on them.

---

is a ridiculous falsehood. Made the more ridiculous by the fact that you yourself do not interpret the verses literally.There really isn’t a coherent argument here although I will point out that the dead who are said to have overcome the accuser did not do so though literal war to by defeating in battle. In Revelation 13:7 it is war. Overcome is used in a different sense, so there is no contradiction there.And finally

quote:

---

Don't expect me to adopt you as my coach to instruct me HOW I should debate with you

---

Pointing out that your case is hopelessly weak is hardly instructing you HOW to debate.

I don’t really watch videos or listen to podcasts.I do read some blogs. This one is quite interesting. Is That in the BibleBut I do see a lot of misunderstanding of what scripture really says here and I think it is worth talking about. (The way the two nativity stories get mashed together is an obvious example since it appears so often.)But I admit I have rarely seen anything as blatant as Jaywill’s misreading of Matthew 24.

quote:

---

But meaning is subjective, is it not?

---

Yes and no. At the base level meaning is intersubjective, meaning that it is a shared subjectivity - generally agreed. Given a sufficiently clear statement anyone fluent in the language should understand it the same way.It is quite clear in this sense that Matthew 24:36-44 deals with events at the time of the Second Coming - after the Tribulation Jaywill claims that it is about a Secret Rapture before the Tribulation but that is not a viable reading. There is simply no doubt about that.There is certainly more subjectivity in interpreting the Revelation - it is unclear, and uses symbolism (likely symbolism which modern readers are liable to misunderstand). But that is why I insist that Jaywill makes a case for his interpretation more than insisting on a contrary one there.

quote:

---

I know you always know way better than two thousand years of Christian theology, but nevertheless I will point out that that is regarded by ALL Christianity as the first prophecy of the Savior promised by God from Eden.

---

In the context of the Adam and Eve story it’s pretty clear that it’s just meant to explain why humans (mostly) don’t get on with snakes. You have to read quite a lot into it to assume it is anything more.

quote:

---

Certainly Jesus Christ HAS. It is superficial to assume God is happy that NO ONE ELSE beside Him can co-share the responsibility.

---

It is also something I haven’t disputed. And of very little relevance. So why keep going on and on about it ?

quote:

---

Non-sequitur" is your dodge of this relevant evidence. I do not PROMISE to convince you of anything. Let readers decide where the better case is.

---

And yet you have yet to show any real relevance. You prefer to go on and on repeating it instead. [quote] So this SUDDEN mention of [COLOR=orange] "And they overcame him [Satan]" ... WHO ELSE in the chapter might it better refer TO? [/quote]Obviously it is the brethren first mentioned in verse 10. Really, simple literacy is enough to see that.And you go on and on but still produce no case for identifying the man-child of Revelation 12:4-5 with the brethren of Revelation 12:10-11. Well, drowning me in irrelevancies is not going to work.

Just more irrelevance. There’s nothing to identify the manchild of with the overcomers in there at all. I guess I’ll have to take it as an admission that dishonest debating tactics are all you have.

quote:

---

Who are the "THEY" of Revelation 12:11 ?

---

And yet another sign of your inability to read For comprehension.I already answered that question in the post you replied to, but I’ll repeat it.

quote:

---

Not impressed with bluster.

---

But it is not bluster. The answer was clearly given in a short post and you managed to miss it.

quote:

---

The "brethren" indicated are the persecuted saints as "the rest of her seed" mentioned in verses 17. They don't appear to be in any position to REJOICE under such severe opposition.

---

The ones who were to rejoice were the heavens and all who dwell in them (verse 12). Obviously saints being persecuted on Earth don’t qualify.And if - as you now claim - the brethren of verses 10-11 are being persecuted on Earth in verse 17 they certainly cannot have been Raptured as you originally claimed. They can’t even be dead as you also claimed.

quote:

---

You answer is pretty poor. It much LESS persuasive then the THEY symbolized as a Manchild, who overcame Satan (rather than be under his CONTINUED attack)

---

The actual text is less persuasive than something someone made up? Maybe to you.

quote:

---

The is the ones in heaven were just raptured to Heaven and to God's throne - the Manchild.

---

And according to you that is the saints in verses 11-12 - the saints you said were dead and now say are still alive on Earth and being persecuted in verse 17.That was your evidence that the manchild was more than a single person. Funny how you suddenly change your mind on the issue. And you don’t even have a sensible reason. You can’t change the fact that the brethren of verse 10 are those who overcame in verse 11 by assuming that they are also those who are persecuted in verse 17.

quote:

---

What evidence do you have that before Jesus Christ was caught up to God and to His throne, there were human heaven dwellers ?

---

I made no claim about whether the dwellers in Heaven were human or not.