Biblical Prophecy Thread

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

Oh God no! You know which parts I mean. I've had enough of people on the internet demanding I do hours of research just to prove my statements to them, im not going to add more to my busy schedule by opening up the Bible and spending hours researching to find all the parts I considered untrustworthy just for you. If the fact that you know what I mean isn't enough for you then im just gonna ignore you.

That's fine.

Because in every situation where someone has made the claim you make, I've found a very logical & rationale explanation for their specific "issue" with the inerrancy of scripture.

If you make the claim and can't support it with any evidence, that's on you

 

[catfishpunter]

Going back to the red heifers, is it possible that because the AC has read the Bible and knows exactly what will happen that is he making these events happen as if it were the end times so that he will “come back” as Jesus, become the ultimate false god and lead people astray and deceive them?

That's a great question. I don't know that Satan would try and pursue that particular angle with the red heifers, but he will certainly have his Antichrist minion sign a seven year peace treaty with Israel to guarantee peace and allow Temple sacrifices to take place. He will, of course, break that treaty halfway through it and declare himself to be God.

On a related note, my wife and I had a long talk about something related to this over the weekend. She said, "I just don't get it. I mean, Satan knows that he's going to lose, so why does he keep it up?"

Satan's ultimate aim is to be what he falsely promised Eve for herself - he wants to be "like God." He wants worship that is due only to the Almighty, and his schemes are bent towards that end. When he distracts and frustrates us from worshipping God, or gets us to waste our time and buy into the many diversions he empowers around the world, that's a small step for him towards a victory that's never coming.

His end is eternal torment, and he knows it... and yet, I think he may be deluded in his thinking.

Scripture calls him the "father of lies" [John 8:44]. All dishonesty and deceit found its birth in him. The first lie wasn't the lie he told Eve; rather, it was the lie he told himself, that there was value in rebelling against God. Somehow, some way, he believed it.

That's mind-blowing to me. Here, he who was previously Lucifer, who was created by God with tremendous power, beauty and wisdom, decided to rebel against God. He had the privilege of eons of standing before God and seeing His greatness on display. He knew, more than any human has ever known, of the greatness of God. It was clear to Lucifer that God was "holy, holy, holy" - that He was different, set apart, and altogether something not created; rather, the Creator.

And still, in that fulness of knowledge, Lucifer rebelled. He turned his back on the knowledge of God and instead pursued a lie, that he could somehow be like God.

And this is just my opinion, but like I said earlier, I think he may actually believe that. Romans 1 tells us what has happened to all men:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." [Romans 1:19-22]

We chose to deny the things that were clear about God. We can see in Creation, that this all didn't just come from nowhere. The unfathomable complexity, scale and clear design inherent in Creation speaks to God's "eternal power and divine nature." The passage makes it clear that even the little bit of God that we can understand from Creation should help us understand that God is eternally powerful and divine. In other words, He's not like us. Because of that, we should have two responses:

1. We should honor such a being as God, recognizing, as best as we know how, that He is eternally powerful and divine.
2. We should be thankful to Him, because it is clear that such a powerful and divine Creator is worthy of thanks.

And yet, people chose to reject that, and because of that choice, "they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." In fact, while they claimed to be wise, "they became fools."

Jesus makes it clear that we are responsible for choices and actions in proportion to the knowledge that we have been given. In Luke 12, he explains to Peter and the disciples that those who know more of God and choose to reject Him will be punished more severely than those who don't know God. The greater our level of knowledge and awareness, the greater our responsibility for that knowledge.

"Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more" [Luke 12:48b].

That's wild, isn't it? Go back and read the whole passage to understand it better.

So, back to Lucifer, who was in Heaven to see the full glory of God and stand in His presence day after day. He knew better than any man all about God. He could clearly see God's "eternal power and divine nature" in a way that we won't see until we are in Heaven.

And yet, he walked away. What comes next is my opinion, not fact.

Looking at what Jesus said in Luke 12 and what Paul said in Romans 1, I believe that Satan is now under a severe delusion. I think he thinks it's still worthwhile to try and attract worship that is due God, that in some way he can still be "like" God. [End opinion, back to fact]

He can't. He's nothing like God.

He is out there right now, walking the earth (he's not in Hell), pursuing that aim.

Is he orchestrating efforts behind the scenes to put his own man on an earthly throne to attract people away from Jesus?

Absolutely.

The "anti-christ" spirit is exactly what he's all about. In this case, Satan wants to present people with an alternative to Christ that they will worship instead of Jesus. Satan has been preparing antichrist puppets at all times, waiting for the opportune moment to take center stage in the world.

Paul tells us in his second letter to the Christians in Thessalonica that the only reason this hasn't happened yet is because Satan is being restrained. He is actively at work right now, waiting to push his "Antichrist," the man who Paul calls "the man of lawlessness" and "the son of destruction" into the place of power.

When this happens, Satan will attract the worship of millions (billions, maybe, depending on how many people survive on the earth??) via his antichrist proxy, which is exactly what he has always wanted.

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." [2 Thessalonians 2:1-12]

 

[ETNVol]

OK, so you have just affirmed that there is a line that you can cross.

I never said no one could be saved.

EVERYONE SINS PROBABLY 10 TIMES A DAY, I am sure this does not include you.

Solomon has many many followers today..........are you one of those?

There is a line that a believer crosses. Nowhere have I said there wasn't. The old fire and brimstone preacher J. Harold Smith was noted for a signature message, God's 3 Deadlines. One of those deadlines was for believers who insisted on living in sin. Their stubborn (and sometimes fatal) insistence on sin didn't change the fact they were believers.

Yes, we all sin, probably more than than 10 times. That's pretty much the point I've been making. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Not a single work is required for salvation. Not even just one. A believer ordinarily manifests works, but there are those who don't (or more realistically, have very little in works). Paul was railing against believers who were visiting prostitutes and dividing the church. James was similarly preaching to believers who were not helping the poor and showing favoritism to the wealthy. Yet, from their mouths, both were talking to believers. How were these sinful people believers? Because our works have no part in salvation, because they're not good enough. Our works are as filthy rags. The 'best we can do' is not the standard. The standard is Jesus Christ, and no one can meet that standard. All we can do is appropriate his perfection through faith.

 

[ETNVol]

You're repeating the same dysfunctional argument. Just cuise people died for it doesn't make it true and you can call me a fool but you're blindly following something made by man not by God.

Why do you insist on "made by man"? You can't prove that.

I will once again ask a simple question, which you have thus far refused to answer. What Jesus do you believe in? You called yourself earlier a "man of God". What God? You claim the scripture is untrustworthy, a man-made document. So if your "God" is not the God described in Scripture, who is he, and where did you learn of him?

There's nowhere else to turn, friend. The only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ and the only Jesus Christ we can have is the one of scripture. As Peter said, "To whom shall we go?"

 

[ETNVol]

Going back to the red heifers, is it possible that because the AC has read the Bible and knows exactly what will happen that is he making these events happen as if it were the end times so that he will “come back” as Jesus, become the ultimate false god and lead people astray and deceive them?

Of course satan has read the Bible. He knows it far better than any of us do. He's had thousands of years to study it. The AC will do that very thing you're suggesting, he will convince Israel that he is messiah. That's a more accurate description of what "anti-christ" truly means, a being in place of Christ, more than a being opposed to Christ (though he is obviously very opposed).

God is sovereign. The devil could try to counterfeit certain things, but ultimately, God's plan is God's plan and the devil's ability to disrupt it is limited to whatever part God empowers him. If Satan had the power to trigger a false tribulation where he could instill his man as the emperor of the world, he would have already done so.

Is this the end? I believe we are getting close, for a multitude of reasons. The purpose of Daniel's 70th week (among half a dozen other things) is the restoration of Israel to God. Israel disappeared for ~1900 years. ~75 years ago, it was reborn in a day. There have been apocalypse predictions throughout history, but they were all impossible before 1948.

Then there are the technologies to consider. The 2 witnesses in Revelation will be killed in the streets of Jerusalem, lie there for 3 days, then rise from the dead and ascend to Heaven. The Bible tells us the whole world will watch this, something impossible in previous generations. Now, 1000 people with iphones can stream it to the whole world. The globalists have the tech to track us all. Once digital currency comes, they'll be able to track and control your spending as well. It's as if we're seeing trial runs for the mark of the beast already.

I could offer many reasons, some opinion, some biblical why I believe we're at the end, but I believe our technology is the biggest clue of all. If God does not intervene, we're nearing a time where humans will be cloned. Nearing a time where a couple will literally pick all of the traits their children will have. Nearing a time where chips will be put in our bodies to allow us to be synched to a global network. At some point, we're not even humans any longer. Or as Elon Musk has called it, the "demon" of AI could weaponize itself against us in ways we haven't even considered. I believe Christ will return before these abominations go too far.

 

[catfishpunter]

God is a perfect gentleman. He gives people exactly what they want. If they want a future with Him, He gives it to them. If they want a future without Him, He gives it to them.

The world is hungry for a future without Him and without His people. They have no idea what they're asking for.

 

[Old Glory]

I am going to reread the last few replies to my question again because there is a lot to digest but I would just like to say how much I appreciate you two taking the time for those replies. I asked what I believe was just a simple question and you both gave answers well beyond what I was expecting. Much love brothers.

 

[Densel]

Why do you insist on "made by man"? You can't prove that.

I will once again ask a simple question, which you have thus far refused to answer. What Jesus do you believe in? You called yourself earlier a "man of God". What God? You claim the scripture is untrustworthy, a man-made document. So if your "God" is not the God described in Scripture, who is he, and where did you learn of him?

There's nowhere else to turn, friend. The only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ and the only Jesus Christ we can have is the one of scripture. As Peter said, "To whom shall we go?"

Because it was made by man, it's a historical fact that the Bible didn't magically appear out of nowhere, it was written by several authors throughout history, human authors. And i've already awnsered all of your questions so don't lie. Just ask new ones. And finally I believe in Jesus, I just don't believe in the same facts about him that you do and that doesn't make my faith any less valuable than yours.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

God is a perfect gentleman. He gives people exactly what they want. If they want a future with Him, He gives it to them. If they want a future without Him, He gives it to them.

The world is hungry for a future without Him and without His people. They have no idea what they're asking for.

Other than the "rapture" is not in the bible.

 

[ETNVol]

Other than the "rapture" is not in the bible.

Neither is "Bible", "trinity" or a great many other words in the English translations.

But the greek word 'harpazo' - from which we derive the word - is most definitely in the oldest manuscripts.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Neither is "Bible", "trinity" or a great many other words in the English translations.

But the greek word 'harpazo' - from which we derive the word - is most definitely in the oldest manuscripts.

Great, thanks, but it is still not there. there will be no rapture. We are in tribulation now. Now is your chance, there are mo more chances..........with the flood was the first chance.

The "rapture" was not even a thing until a guy, named John Nelson Darby started the idea in 1830s. Understand what you are saying is a "new idea" that seems old to you becasue you were taught it. You were also taught that pluto was a planet when you were a kid, but seemingly, that is no longer true.

Those who think that there will be a rapture have this thing that they will be taken before the tribulation.........are buying the easy button ...............good luck with that...

please read the following link.

Rapture Doctrine invented by John Darby in 1830 AD

www.bible.ca

 

[ETNVol]

Great, thanks, but it is still not there. there will be no rapture. We are in tribulation now. Now is your chance, there are mo more chances..........with the flood was the first chance.

The "rapture" was not even a thing until a guy, named John Nelson Darby started the idea in 1830s. Understand what you are saying is a "new idea" that seems old to you becasue you were taught it. You were also taught that pluto was a planet when you were a kid, but seemingly, that is no longer true.

Those who think that there will be a rapture have this thing that they will be taken before the tribulation.........are buying the easy button ...............good luck with that...

please read the following link.

Rapture Doctrine invented by John Darby in 1830 AD

www.bible.ca

The bible is clear. I don't jsut think there will be a rapture, I know there will be one. There is no way to reconcile the timeline of events, God's promises, nor much of the end times events without it. Believers are not subject to wrath, and the Tribulation is God's wrath, literally hell on earth. The notion that someone can "endure" it spiritually or physically is folly and arrogance.

The word rapture is translated 'caught up'. Rapture comes from the Latin word rapturo, which is a translation of the Greek word harpadzo, which also means “caught up” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Claiming it's not there is simply false. If you need a Strong's concordance, I can send you one. Someone taught you foolishly, and you cling to that false teaching, just as you do the nonsense someone taught you about Darby and works salvation.

No, we are not in the tribulation, at least not the 7 year period described in the bible, though I believe it may be starting very soon.

Morgan Edwards wrote of the rapture in the 1700s, several decades before Darby was even born. There are other examples of people who did (or did not) believe in such an event who predate Edwards, but he is by far the most documented. Edwards wrote he was in that group of believers who believed Christ would rescue his church before the Tribulation begin. Given that he identified with a group of people who believed in a rapture, though they did not use that word, we have evidence that the belief wasn't restricted to or invented by him.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

The bible is clear. I don't jsut think there will be a rapture, I know there will be one. There is no way to reconcile the timeline of events, God's promises, nor much of the end times events without it. Believers are not subject to wrath, and the Tribulation is God's wrath, literally hell on earth. The notion that someone can "endure" it spiritually or physically is folly and arrogance.

The word rapture is translated 'caught up'. Rapture comes from the Latin word rapturo, which is a translation of the Greek word harpadzo, which also means “caught up” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Claiming it's not there is simply false. If you need a Strong's concordance, I can send you one. Someone taught you foolishly, and you cling to that false teaching, just as you do the nonsense someone taught you about Darby and works salvation.

No, we are not in the tribulation, at least not the 7 year period described in the bible, though I believe it may be starting very soon.

Morgan Edwards wrote of the rapture in the 1700s, several decades before Darby was even born. There are other examples of people who did (or did not) believe in such an event who predate Edwards, but he is by far the most documented. Edwards wrote he was in that group of believers who believed Christ would rescue his church before the Tribulation begin. Given that he identified with a group of people who believed in a rapture, though they did not use that word, we have evidence that the belief wasn't restricted to or invented by him.

Ok, put it this way.

Taking text out of the equation:

What harm could come from thinking that the rapture is BS? (Green team)

What harm could come from thinking that the rapture is true? (Tan team )

Who cares either way? GOD or Satan or both? Which would root for which team?

 

[weaponoffreedom]

That's a great question. I don't know that Satan would try and pursue that particular angle with the red heifers, but he will certainly have his Antichrist minion sign a seven year peace treaty with Israel to guarantee peace and allow Temple sacrifices to take place. He will, of course, break that treaty halfway through it and declare himself to be God.

On a related note, my wife and I had a long talk about something related to this over the weekend. She said, "I just don't get it. I mean, Satan knows that he's going to lose, so why does he keep it up?"

Satan's ultimate aim is to be what he falsely promised Eve for herself - he wants to be "like God." He wants worship that is due only to the Almighty, and his schemes are bent towards that end. When he distracts and frustrates us from worshipping God, or gets us to waste our time and buy into the many diversions he empowers around the world, that's a small step for him towards a victory that's never coming.

His end is eternal torment, and he knows it... and yet, I think he may be deluded in his thinking.

Scripture calls him the "father of lies" [John 8:44]. All dishonesty and deceit found its birth in him. The first lie wasn't the lie he told Eve; rather, it was the lie he told himself, that there was value in rebelling against God. Somehow, some way, he believed it.

That's mind-blowing to me. Here, he who was previously Lucifer, who was created by God with tremendous power, beauty and wisdom, decided to rebel against God. He had the privilege of eons of standing before God and seeing His greatness on display. He knew, more than any human has ever known, of the greatness of God. It was clear to Lucifer that God was "holy, holy, holy" - that He was different, set apart, and altogether something not created; rather, the Creator.

And still, in that fulness of knowledge, Lucifer rebelled. He turned his back on the knowledge of God and instead pursued a lie, that he could somehow be like God.

And this is just my opinion, but like I said earlier, I think he may actually believe that. Romans 1 tells us what has happened to all men:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." [Romans 1:19-22]

We chose to deny the things that were clear about God. We can see in Creation, that this all didn't just come from nowhere. The unfathomable complexity, scale and clear design inherent in Creation speaks to God's "eternal power and divine nature." The passage makes it clear that even the little bit of God that we can understand from Creation should help us understand that God is eternally powerful and divine. In other words, He's not like us. Because of that, we should have two responses:

1. We should honor such a being as God, recognizing, as best as we know how, that He is eternally powerful and divine.
2. We should be thankful to Him, because it is clear that such a powerful and divine Creator is worthy of thanks.

And yet, people chose to reject that, and because of that choice, "they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." In fact, while they claimed to be wise, "they became fools."

Jesus makes it clear that we are responsible for choices and actions in proportion to the knowledge that we have been given. In Luke 12, he explains to Peter and the disciples that those who know more of God and choose to reject Him will be punished more severely than those who don't know God. The greater our level of knowledge and awareness, the greater our responsibility for that knowledge.

"Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more" [Luke 12:48b].

That's wild, isn't it? Go back and read the whole passage to understand it better.

So, back to Lucifer, who was in Heaven to see the full glory of God and stand in His presence day after day. He knew better than any man all about God. He could clearly see God's "eternal power and divine nature" in a way that we won't see until we are in Heaven.

And yet, he walked away. What comes next is my opinion, not fact.

Looking at what Jesus said in Luke 12 and what Paul said in Romans 1, I believe that Satan is now under a severe delusion. I think he thinks it's still worthwhile to try and attract worship that is due God, that in some way he can still be "like" God. [End opinion, back to fact]

He can't. He's nothing like God.

He is out there right now, walking the earth (he's not in Hell), pursuing that aim.

Is he orchestrating efforts behind the scenes to put his own man on an earthly throne to attract people away from Jesus?

Absolutely.

The "anti-christ" spirit is exactly what he's all about. In this case, Satan wants to present people with an alternative to Christ that they will worship instead of Jesus. Satan has been preparing antichrist puppets at all times, waiting for the opportune moment to take center stage in the world.

Paul tells us in his second letter to the Christians in Thessalonica that the only reason this hasn't happened yet is because Satan is being restrained. He is actively at work right now, waiting to push his "Antichrist," the man who Paul calls "the man of lawlessness" and "the son of destruction" into the place of power.

When this happens, Satan will attract the worship of millions (billions, maybe, depending on how many people survive on the earth??) via his antichrist proxy, which is exactly what he has always wanted.

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." [2 Thessalonians 2:1-12]

Love how you start with " Thanks a great question" makes you seem like you are arguing\lecturing from a point of authority, which you are not.

 

[Mr.Fitzwell]

 

[ETNVol]

Love how you start with " Thanks a great question" makes you seem like you are arguing\lecturing from a point of authority, which you are not.

This is his thread. If you're not willing to be civil you shouldn't be here, which you've shown repeatedly that you aren't. And he's demonstrated vast superiority in knowledge to you on this topic, so with respect to you and most people period, he is discussing the topics from a position of superior knowledge.

 

[ETNVol]

Ok, put it this way.

Taking text out of the equation:

What harm could come from thinking that the rapture is BS? (Green team)

What harm could come from thinking that the rapture is true? (Tan team )

Who cares either way? GOD or Satan or both? Which would root for which team?

1) this is a thread that is rapture-centric. If you want to debate the veracity of the rapture, please start another thread.

2) Very much it's important. Millions of people will transform in front of the eyes of nonbelievers one day, and people will be looking for an explanation. People left behind might find this thread an explanation. It's also a great source of hope for believers. Paul referred to it as the "blessed hope".

God does not "root" for a team. What he does do is smile on those who do as the Bereans did: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[catfishpunter]

Love how you start with " Thanks a great question" makes you seem like you are arguing\lecturing from a point of authority, which you are not.

You've not been insulted by anyone on this thread, yet continue to insult others yourself. That's not great.

Share what you know, if you want to. If you've read the Bible and have a belief about the meaning of end-times prophecy, by all means, share it. There are many of us who believe there is an incredible urgency to the times in which we live, as we see the spiritual reflection of the "days of Noah" and the "days of Lot" lived out among us. If we're not at the end, one thing is for certain - every day that passes puts us closer to the day of the Lord's return.

There are those of us who see it many different ways - pre/mid/post-Tribulation rapture, for instance - and people who love Jesus and have good reason for holding those views or others are encouraged to share.

So share, if you're a student of the Word and have something that you think we ought to consider. We're all sorting out what might come, and doing so out of anticipation and excitement to one day see our Lord and to encourage others to seek Him today.

In that sense of cautious anticipation, we're no different than the faithful who awaited the arrival of the Messiah the first time He came. They weren't exactly sure what was going to happen, though they had bits and pieces of a picture of Jesus scattered across the Old Testament, starting with Genesis 3, when God promises that He will send someone who will crush the head of the serpent.

The picture of the Messiah's first coming was never laid out clearly in a linear fashion in one place, yet the Old Testament is the story of the immeasurable grace of God from before the beginning of time, a story that leads right up to the life of Jesus.

Even people who lived with Jesus, knew His backstory, saw Him crucified, and heard that He had risen failed to piece it all together at first. The believers on the road to Emmaus needed Him to explain all the prophecies written about Him.

"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" [Luke 24:2].

And now, in our day and age, we study God's Word, reading it daily, understanding how to live and obey Jesus, knowing Him and following Him more closely. We help our brothers and sisters do the same, and encourage others to follow as well.

That's the entire point. We are called to be like iron sharpening iron, strengthening one another by sharing what we know and learning from each other.

Sharing about end-times prophecy is a very small part of our lives as believers, and yet that's what we're doing in this particular thread.

Do you love Jesus and follow Him as Lord and King?

Awesome. Me too. We're going to be spending eternity together, so insults don't become us now.

Share.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

1) this is a thread that is rapture-centric. If you want to debate the veracity of the rapture, please start another thread.

2) Very much it's important. Millions of people will transform in front of the eyes of nonbelievers one day, and people will be looking for an explanation. People left behind might find this thread an explanation. It's also a great source of hope for believers. Paul referred to it as the "blessed hope".

God does not "root" for a team. What he does do is smile on those who do as the Bereans did: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

no

 

[weaponoffreedom]

You've not been insulted by anyone on this thread, yet continue to insult others yourself. That's not great.

Share what you know, if you want to. If you've read the Bible and have a belief about the meaning of end-times prophecy, by all means, share it. There are many of us who believe there is an incredible urgency to the times in which we live, as we see the spiritual reflection of the "days of Noah" and the "days of Lot" lived out among us. If we're not at the end, one thing is for certain - every day that passes puts us closer to the day of the Lord's return.

There are those of us who see it many different ways - pre/mid/post-Tribulation rapture, for instance - and people who love Jesus and have good reason for holding those views or others are encouraged to share.

So share, if you're a student of the Word and have something that you think we ought to consider. We're all sorting out what might come, and doing so out of anticipation and excitement to one day see our Lord and to encourage others to seek Him today.

In that sense of cautious anticipation, we're no different than the faithful who awaited the arrival of the Messiah the first time He came. They weren't exactly sure what was going to happen, though they had bits and pieces of a picture of Jesus scattered across the Old Testament, starting with Genesis 3, when God promises that He will send someone who will crush the head of the serpent.

The picture of the Messiah's first coming was never laid out clearly in a linear fashion in one place, yet the Old Testament is the story of the immeasurable grace of God from before the beginning of time, a story that leads right up to the life of Jesus.

Even people who lived with Jesus, knew His backstory, saw Him crucified, and heard that He had risen failed to piece it all together at first. The believers on the road to Emmaus needed Him to explain all the prophecies written about Him.

"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" [Luke 24:2].

And now, in our day and age, we study God's Word, reading it daily, understanding how to live and obey Jesus, knowing Him and following Him more closely. We help our brothers and sisters do the same, and encourage others to follow as well.

That's the entire point. We are called to be like iron sharpening iron, strengthening one another by sharing what we know and learning from each other.

Sharing about end-times prophecy is a very small part of our lives as believers, and yet that's what we're doing in this particular thread.

Do you love Jesus and follow Him as Lord and King?

Awesome. Me too. We're going to be spending eternity together, so insults don't become us now.

Share.

I am not insulting you, I am giving continued opposition to a Bible thread that is not in the bible. It is a teaching that if you were to go back 200 years, they would have no idea what you were talking about...............that and "the antichrist".

If you do not want to argue your point, or do not think it to be worth the trouble, no problem, but as long as there is BS, I am going to call it.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

This is his thread. If you're not willing to be civil you shouldn't be here, which you've shown repeatedly that you aren't. And he's demonstrated vast superiority in knowledge to you on this topic, so with respect to you and most people period, he is discussing the topics from a position of superior knowledge.

Oh ok, didnt know that, obviously

 

[weaponoffreedom]

1) this is a thread that is rapture-centric. If you want to debate the veracity of the rapture, please start another thread.

2) Very much it's important. Millions of people will transform in front of the eyes of nonbelievers one day, and people will be looking for an explanation. People left behind might find this thread an explanation. It's also a great source of hope for believers. Paul referred to it as the "blessed hope".

God does not "root" for a team. What he does do is smile on those who do as the Bereans did: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

You do not want to answer the question, because if you did, you would reveal the fault in your point of view and its learned deception........ You dont think that GOD roots for a team? He destroyed everything in a flood, but the ones that followed him, the story of Noah, is no different, once that boat door was closed, it was closed, their were no rafts for those who, while drowning, suddeningly felt an overwhelming sense of faith. This like the furnace situation, are the warnings.

 

[catfishpunter]

I am not insulting you, I am giving continued opposition to a Bible thread that is not in the bible. It is a teaching that if you were to go back 200 years, they would have no idea what you were talking about...............that and "the antichrist".

If you do not want to argue your point, or do not think it to be worth the trouble, no problem, but as long as there is BS, I am going to call it.

I apologize. I should have gone directly to the Greek when this all started with you a few weeks ago. I try to avoid going that deep in the weeds because it's not how I study on a daily basis, and it can overwhelm and confuse new believers or folks just learning about Jesus for the first time.

That said, you are emphatic in your statements, so it's worth looking at the source of what you claim to be true. We'll go over the Antichrist now and the Rapture later (I have to go work today).

You argued that the term "antichrist" is used as an adjective in 1 John, which is the only book where that term appears in the Bible. I previously said that you could substitute any other adjective in there and get the same descriptive effect. I shouldn't have ceded any ground there, and instead gone right to the Greek, because when it comes to authority, that's as good as we can get today.

Here's 1 John 2:18, with which you are familiar. If I remember correctly, you prefer the King James version, so we can use that:

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."

You previously stated the following:

"I am sorry, but that is not what it says. The word antichrist is used as an adjective, and also in the plural, not as a noun, anywhere. This is a very simple concept, by difficult for some to accept."

Well, you're wrong. Exactly wrong.

The Greek text uses the word ἀντίχριστος ("antichristos") when it says "and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come..." That is a singular, masculine noun in the Greek. The case is nominative, meaning that it is the subject. While John's meaning of the word is worth debating, it is not debatable that this word refers to a single masculine noun.

There are many places non-Greek scholars (and I am no Greek scholar, yet careful study can draw us through the meaning of any word) can go to get excellent, trustworthy information on how to interpret a Greek word accurately. Strong's has great references online for free. For easy comparison's sake, though, I'm going to post a screenshot of from Bill Mounce's Greek website. Bill is a world-renowned scholar and instructor of New Testament Greek, and his references here line up with what you'll find elsewhere.

Notice that in 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, and 2 John 1:7 the word "antichristos" is used. That is a singular, masculine noun being used in the nominative case. In 1 John 2:22 and 2 John 1:7, John tells us how to identify anyone who is "antichrist." In 1 John 2:18, however, he acknowledges that his readers already know that an "antichrist" is coming.

John clearly identified a single person as "antichristos." What is up for debate, and has been up for debate since the earliest Church fathers, is who John meant, and when this man will arrive.

John also uses other forms of the "antichrist" noun in these verses. He uses "antichristou" in 1 John 4:3. That form of the noun is also singular and masculine, but it is used in the genitive case, which is what is used to have a noun show possession.

Finally, we get to the use of antichrist in the plural sense, which happens only once in Scripture. That is in verse 1 John 2:18, where John first uses "antichristos" as we discussed above, and then expands on that idea to let his readers know that, while an antichrist is coming, they should also be aware that many other antichrists have appeared. Those are "antichristoi," which is the plural, masculine nominative form of the noun.

John and his readers were clearly aware that some singular person he identified as "antichristos" was coming, and Christians have been trying to figure out exactly who John meant for almost 2,000 years.

So yes, "The Antichrist," which we capitalize for English convention, is very much represented in the Bible.

Tonight, we'll do the exact same thing and go right to the Greek for ἁρπάζω, or "harpazó," the word that appears throughout the New Testament and means, "to seize, catch up, snatch away." This is the word that was translated into the Latin word "rapturo" 1600 years ago, and from which we derive our word "rapture."

I'll show definitively that the concept of a harpazó is present in the New Testament. Just like antichristos, its presence is not up for debate, though the details of how and when it may occur most certainly are debatable.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I apologize. I should have gone directly to the Greek when this all started with you a few weeks ago. I try to avoid going that deep in the weeds because it's not how I study on a daily basis, and it can overwhelm and confuse new believers or folks just learning about Jesus for the first time.

That said, you are emphatic in your statements, so it's worth looking at the source of what you claim to be true. We'll go over the Antichrist now and the Rapture later (I have to go work today).

You argued that the term "antichrist" is used as an adjective in 1 John, which is the only book where that term appears in the Bible. I previously said that you could substitute any other adjective in there and get the same descriptive effect. I shouldn't have ceded any ground there, and instead gone right to the Greek, because when it comes to authority, that's as good as we can get today.

Here's 1 John 2:18, with which you are familiar. If I remember correctly, you prefer the King James version, so we can use that:

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."

You previously stated the following:

"I am sorry, but that is not what it says. The word antichrist is used as an adjective, and also in the plural, not as a noun, anywhere. This is a very simple concept, by difficult for some to accept."

Well, you're wrong. Exactly wrong.

The Greek text uses the word ἀντίχριστος ("antichristos") when it says "and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come..." That is a singular, masculine noun in the Greek. The case is nominative, meaning that it is the subject. While John's meaning of the word is worth debating, it is not debatable that this word refers to a single masculine noun.

There are many places non-Greek scholars (and I am no Greek scholar, yet careful study can draw us through the meaning of any word) can go to get excellent, trustworthy information on how to interpret a Greek word accurately. Strong's has great references online for free. For easy comparison's sake, though, I'm going to post a screenshot of from Bill Mounce's Greek website. Bill is a world-renowned scholar and instructor of New Testament Greek, and his references here line up with what you'll find elsewhere.

Notice that in 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, and 2 John 1:7 the word "antichristos" is used. That is a singular, masculine noun being used in the nominative case. In 1 John 2:22 and 2 John 1:7, John tells us how to identify anyone who is "antichrist." In 1 John 2:18, however, he acknowledges that his readers already know that an "antichrist" is coming.

John clearly identified a single person as "antichristos." What is up for debate, and has been up for debate since the earliest Church fathers, is who John meant, and when this man will arrive.

John also uses other forms of the "antichrist" noun in these verses. He uses "antichristou" in 1 John 4:3. That form of the noun is also singular and masculine, but it is used in the genitive case, which is what is used to have a noun show possession.

Finally, we get to the use of antichrist in the plural sense, which happens only once in Scripture. That is in verse 1 John 2:18, where John first uses "antichristos" as we discussed above, and then expands on that idea to let his readers know that, while an antichrist is coming, they should also be aware that many other antichrists have appeared. Those are "antichristoi," which is the plural, masculine nominative form of the noun.

John and his readers were clearly aware that some singular person he identified as "antichristos" was coming, and Christians have been trying to figure out exactly who John meant for almost 2,000 years.

So yes, "The Antichrist," which we capitalize for English convention, is very much represented in the Bible.

Tonight, we'll do the exact same thing and go right to the Greek for ἁρπάζω, or "harpazó," the word that appears throughout the New Testament and means, "to seize, catch up, snatch away." This is the word that was translated into the Latin word "rapturo" 1600 years ago, and from which we derive our word "rapture."

I'll show definitively that the concept of a harpazó is present in the New Testament. Just like antichristos, its presence is not up for debate, though the details of how and when it may occur most certainly are debatable.

I get the scriptures, and the words. Are you going to answer my question: What is the harm in thinking that there is no rapture? What is the harm in thinking there is ? Which could be more damning?

Some text refer to "The Antichrist" in more modern versions of the bible in conflict with the KJV. They have even added subtitles named "The Antichrist", in conflict with KJV. Why would this be? Why the change? Should there be a change?

Lets take the scriptures out of this arguement for a bit, I know you can look them up, and so can I. For the readers of our argument's sake.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

I get the scriptures, and the words. Are you going to answer my question: What is the harm in thinking that there is no rapture? What is the harm in thinking there is ? Which could be more damning?

Some text refer to "The Antichrist" in more modern versions of the bible in conflict with the KJV. They have even added subtitles named "The Antichrist", in conflict with KJV. Why would this be? Why the change? Should there be a change?

Lets take the scriptures out of this arguement for a bit, I know you can look them up, and so can I. For the readers of our argument's sake.

The scripture should remain at the heart of any argument.

 

[catfishpunter]

I get the scriptures, and the words. Are you going to answer my question: What is the harm in thinking that there is no rapture? What is the harm in thinking there is ? Which could be more damning?

Some text refer to "The Antichrist" in more modern versions of the bible in conflict with the KJV. They have even added subtitles named "The Antichrist", in conflict with KJV. Why would this be? Why the change? Should there be a change?

Lets take the scriptures out of this arguement for a bit, I know you can look them up, and so can I. For the readers of our argument's sake.

You've brought up more questions about the Antichrist, so let's deal with that first before talking about the rapture. It's probably best to be thorough on a single area before jumping into a second, though I will indeed come back to your rapture questions. We won't leave Scripture out, though. We can prayerfully and thoughtfully consider elements of Scripture and come to different conclusions about minor, non-salvation-related issues, such as the Antichrist and the rapture, but we should still base all of those discussions firmly in Scripture.

As for the Antichrist questions, I assume that after the last post about the Greek text that we're agreed now that the word "antichrist" does show up as a single, masculine noun in two of John's epistles?

The question you raise in the post above is really good. If the Greek word "antichristos" is translated in some versions as "antichrist," why is it listed as "The Antichrist" in others? It has to do with the philosophy chosen by various translators when working on a new translation.

Check out the chart below. It is by no means comprehensive (and there are dozens of different versions of these online, all with minor variances), but the basic concept is what's important. Translators will vary in how they approach their work. Some will adopt a "word-for-word" approach, where they try and capture the exact wording as much as possible, even though it may result in a little "clunky" translation that's more difficult to read. The New American Standard is famous for being a very literal, "word-for-word" translation. The King James Version is close to that end of the spectrum as well, though some of the modern word-for-word translations are probably more accurate. Still, though, if you like the KJV, no need to change from it. I've got one upstairs, and I read it online from time to time, too.

Other translators are "thought-for-thought" translators. That is, they seek to most closely express the underlying meaning of the passage in language that is understandable. As such, they may allow for more deviations from literal "word-for-word" translations if the interpreting team believes that a word substitution more clearly elucidates the actual meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew word or phrase. There are several well-known translations that follow this approach, the New International Version being one of the most popular.

There are other translators who are more interested in capturing the concept in the most plain, culturally relevant language possible. Those people are paraphrasers rather than strict translators, and they produce works like The Message, which Eugene Peterson paraphrased. These may be helpful translations for helping see a piece of Scripture in a different light, but I wouldn't consider them on par with translations that seek to produce a more faithful representation of the original text. I don't own any of these Bibles. When I've read them, I always find myself going back to a more traditionally-produced translation to see if the paraphrased version was accurate or not.

So, how do various versions approach "antichristos?"

We'll look at 1 John 2:18. The original Greek lacks the Greek article. There is no "the" there in the Greek. Thus, the "word-for-word" translators translate the passage as such:

New American Standard Version - "and just as you heard that antichrist is coming..."
English Standard Version - "and as you have heard that antichrist is coming..."
King James Version - " as ye have heard that antichrist shall come..."

The Amplified Version does something interesting. It maintains a "word-for-word" translation, but includes "amplifications" in brackets to help readers understand the actual underlying meaning of the text. The text in brackets is not in the original languages, but is added as a running "translator's note," if you will, to help the reader understand.

Amplified Version - "and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming [the one who will oppose Christ and attempt to replace Him]..."

The "thought-for-thought" translators do as follows:

Christian Standard Bible - "And as you have heard that antichrist is coming..."
New International Version - "and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming..."
New Living Translation - "You have heard that the Antichrist is coming..."
New King James Version - "and as you have heard that the[a] Antichrist is coming..."

The New King James Version notes with that "[a]" that the "the" is omitted in some versions.

In other words, different translators are prayerfully and thoughtfully making decisions about how to remain faithful to the underlying text while clearly elucidating its underlying meaning. Some of the "thought-for-thought" translators thought that just leaving the text as "antichrist" wasn't clear enough, since we can't see that the Greek word itself is in the singular, masculine form, so they have added the word "the" to help readers understand. Other translators have not gone that route, and as always, it's up to us to dig deeper into the source when we're uncertain.

Ultimately, when it comes to our daily study, we all have to make our own decisions about where we fall on the translation spectrum, which translation works best for us and helps us understand Jesus most fully. My recommendation is to get several trustworthy translations and keep them nearby. We live in a time and place of unparalleled Scriptural luxury, and it's great to take advantage of it. When you're doing intense study, cross-reference all of them, and when things get hard to understand, consult the Greek or Hebrew online. There are a lot of great reference sites to help with that.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

You've brought up more questions about the Antichrist, so let's deal with that first before talking about the rapture. It's probably best to be thorough on a single area before jumping into a second, though I will indeed come back to your rapture questions. We won't leave Scripture out, though. We can prayerfully and thoughtfully consider elements of Scripture and come to different conclusions about minor, non-salvation-related issues, such as the Antichrist and the rapture, but we should still base all of those discussions firmly in Scripture.

As for the Antichrist questions, I assume that after the last post about the Greek text that we're agreed now that the word "antichrist" does show up as a single, masculine noun in two of John's epistles?

The question you raise in the post above is really good. If the Greek word "antichristos" is translated in some versions as "antichrist," why is it listed as "The Antichrist" in others? It has to do with the philosophy chosen by various translators when working on a new translation.

Check out the chart below. It is by no means comprehensive (and there are dozens of different versions of these online, all with minor variances), but the basic concept is what's important. Translators will vary in how they approach their work. Some will adopt a "word-for-word" approach, where they try and capture the exact wording as much as possible, even though it may result in a little "clunky" translation that's more difficult to read. The New American Standard is famous for being a very literal, "word-for-word" translation. The King James Version is close to that end of the spectrum as well, though some of the modern word-for-word translations are probably more accurate. Still, though, if you like the KJV, no need to change from it. I've got one upstairs, and I read it online from time to time, too.

Other translators are "thought-for-thought" translators. That is, they seek to most closely express the underlying meaning of the passage in language that is understandable. As such, they may allow for more deviations from literal "word-for-word" translations if the interpreting team believes that a word substitution more clearly elucidates the actual meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew word or phrase. There are several well-known translations that follow this approach, the New International Version being one of the most popular.

There are other translators who are more interested in capturing the concept in the most plain, culturally relevant language possible. Those people are paraphrasers rather than strict translators, and they produce works like The Message, which Eugene Peterson paraphrased. These may be helpful translations for helping see a piece of Scripture in a different light, but I wouldn't consider them on par with translations that seek to produce a more faithful representation of the original text. I don't own any of these Bibles. When I've read them, I always find myself going back to a more traditionally-produced translation to see if the paraphrased version was accurate or not.

So, how do various versions approach "antichristos?"

We'll look at 1 John 2:18. The original Greek lacks the Greek article. There is no "the" there in the Greek. Thus, the "word-for-word" translators translate the passage as such:

New American Standard Version - "and just as you heard that antichrist is coming..."
English Standard Version - "and as you have heard that antichrist is coming..."
King James Version - " as ye have heard that antichrist shall come..."

The Amplified Version does something interesting. It maintains a "word-for-word" translation, but includes "amplifications" in brackets to help readers understand the actual underlying meaning of the text. The text in brackets is not in the original languages, but is added as a running "translator's note," if you will, to help the reader understand.

Amplified Version - "and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming [the one who will oppose Christ and attempt to replace Him]..."

The "thought-for-thought" translators do as follows:

Christian Standard Bible - "And as you have heard that antichrist is coming..."
New International Version - "and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming..."
New Living Translation - "You have heard that the Antichrist is coming..."
New King James Version - "and as you have heard that the[a] Antichrist is coming..."

The New King James Version notes with that "[a]" that the "the" is omitted in some versions.

In other words, different translators are prayerfully and thoughtfully making decisions about how to remain faithful to the underlying text while clearly elucidating its underlying meaning. Some of the "thought-for-thought" translators thought that just leaving the text as "antichrist" wasn't clear enough, since we can't see that the Greek word itself is in the singular, masculine form, so they have added the word "the" to help readers understand. Other translators have not gone that route, and as always, it's up to us to dig deeper into the source when we're uncertain.

Ultimately, when it comes to our daily study, we all have to make our own decisions about where we fall on the translation spectrum, which translation works best for us and helps us understand Jesus most fully. My recommendation is to get several trustworthy translations and keep them nearby. We live in a time and place of unparalleled Scriptural luxury, and it's great to take advantage of it. When you're doing intense study, cross-reference all of them, and when things get hard to understand, consult the Greek or Hebrew online. There are a lot of great reference sites to help with that.

OK, great, for the sake of display, can you answer my question? If not there is no need to continue.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

The scripture should remain at the heart of any argument.

Agreed, and IF you would read, I said that before. But that is not the current media of my question. Understand that ALL answers are not in the book. Context is important, and my question is of context. Now do you want to answer my questioin?

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

Agreed, and IF you would read, I said that before. But that is not the current media of my question. Understand that ALL answers are not in the book. Context is important, and my question is of context. Now do you want to answer my questioin?

I get the scriptures, and the words. Are you going to answer my question: What is the harm in thinking that there is no rapture? What is the harm in thinking there is ? Which could be more damning?

Some text refer to "The Antichrist" in more modern versions of the bible in conflict with the KJV. They have even added subtitles named "The Antichrist", in conflict with KJV. Why would this be? Why the change? Should there be a change?

Lets take the scriptures out of this arguement for a bit, I know you can look them up, and so can I. For the readers of our argument's sake.

Your inability to keep your thoughts and logic straight is contributing to the spin here.

 

[ETNVol]

I get the scriptures, and the words. Are you going to answer my question: What is the harm in thinking that there is no rapture? What is the harm in thinking there is ? Which could be more damning?

It's not a matter of what you or I think. It's in scripture, therefore, we must deal with that reality, not a fantasy world where it does not exist.

What's the harm? For one, you teach someone there is no rapture, then the rapture takes place, and that person was a non-believer, then what are they going to think has happened? You've ingrained it in their skull that there is no rapture, so when the man of sin tells them that people were beamed off planet earth because they weren't ready for the truth or to be part of his new society, they'll believe it. The Great Deception. Yet another coming event that we shouldn't pretend doesn't exist.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

It's not a matter of what you or I think. It's in scripture, therefore, we must deal with that reality, not a fantasy world where it does not exist.

What's the harm? For one, you teach someone there is no rapture, then the rapture takes place, and that person was a non-believer, then what are they going to think has happened? You've ingrained it in their skull that there is no rapture, so when the man of sin tells them that people were beamed off planet earth because they weren't ready for the truth or to be part of his new society, they'll believe it. The Great Deception. Yet another coming event that we shouldn't pretend doesn't exist.

that is a stupid arguement. the non believer is irrelevant. if they did not believe, they would then, but it qould be to late.

 

[ETNVol]

that is a stupid arguement. the non believer is irrelevant. if they did not believe, they would then, but it qould be to late.

Who told you that? There’s zero support in scripture for that notion.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Listen fellas.....................I have shown you the scriptures, and I have shared the fact that the rapture was proliferated by a Rev. John Darby, and is less than 200 years old, after a vision of a fifteen year old girl, said she saw this.

Who told you that? There’s zero support in scripture for that notion.

no one has to tell me when I smell a bullshit arguement..............wait one

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Look fellas, I have proven to you that the viewpoint of the rapture was proliferated by John Darby, and is less than 200 years old. If you were to ask colonial preachers as soon as the founding of this country, with ideas that Christ would "rapture" his followers away, they would not know what you were talking about. X2 for the idea of "The Antichrist".

So in short wait for your rapture, and I'll see you later!

I am done with this thread, it is pointless to argue is questions will not be answered

 

[catfishpunter]

Look fellas, I have proven to you that the viewpoint of the rapture was proliferated by John Darby, and is less than 200 years old. If you were to ask colonial preachers as soon as the founding of this country, with ideas that Christ would "rapture" his followers away, they would not know what you were talking about. X2 for the idea of "The Antichrist".

So in short wait for your rapture, and I'll see you later!

I am done with this thread, it is pointless to argue is questions will not be answered

You have asked all sorts of questions, and I've taken a lot of time and care to answer them as thoughtfully as thoroughly as possible. There are still some questions I haven't addressed regarding the Rapture, but like I said in the last post, I wanted to finish all your Antichrist questions before switching subjects.

You've made another statement regarding the Antichrist here, which is that "colonial preachers as soon as the founding of this country... would not know what you were talking about..." if we mentioned "The Antichrist."

That's not true.

See below for writing from Irenaeus, who lived from 130 AD - 202 AD. He is one of the most famous of all early Church fathers. He heard the preaching of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, author of Revelation, the Gospel of John, and the three epistles 1-3 John.

This writing below is from Book 5 of his work, "Against Heresies."

• Chapter XXV.-The Fraud, Pride, and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist, as Described by Daniel and Paul.

1. And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols.

Irenaeus was one degree of separation from John, the author who wrote about the Antichrist. The Church has been aware of the theory of a coming final Antichrist for almost 2,000 years.

 

[ETNVol]

Listen fellas.....................I have shown you the scriptures, and I have shared the fact that the rapture was proliferated by a Rev. John Darby, and is less than 200 years old, after a vision of a fifteen year old girl, said she saw this.

no one has to tell me when I smell a bullshit arguement..............wait one

You did none of the above. You just ignored the fact that the Darby nonsense is easily debunked, posted no scripture that supports something other than a rapture, don't seem to have posted anything except some rambling partial sentences about the antichrist, along with a good measure of insults.

That you try to go back to Darby is just ignorance, shows that you cannot answer the biblical foundation of the rapture, and so you revert to insistence in believing what someone erroneously taught you. You've grabbed hold of false doctrine, you struggle to defend it, so you go in circles chasing your tail, posting things that have no logic and in most cases, no bearing to the topic at hand. That's a sad place to be.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

You did none of the above. You just ignored the fact that the Darby nonsense is easily debunked, posted no scripture that supports something other than a rapture, don't seem to have posted anything except some rambling partial sentences about the antichrist, along with a good measure of insults.

That you try to go back to Darby is just ignorance, shows that you cannot answer the biblical foundation of the rapture, and so you revert to insistence in believing what someone erroneously taught you. You've grabbed hold of false doctrine, you struggle to defend it, so you go in circles chasing your tail, posting things that have no logic and in most cases, no bearing to the topic at hand. That's a sad place to be.

Many disagree, either way, have a good day

 

[weaponoffreedom]

You have asked all sorts of questions, and I've taken a lot of time and care to answer them as thoughtfully as thoroughly as possible. There are still some questions I haven't addressed regarding the Rapture, but like I said in the last post, I wanted to finish all your Antichrist questions before switching subjects.

You've made another statement regarding the Antichrist here, which is that "colonial preachers as soon as the founding of this country... would not know what you were talking about..." if we mentioned "The Antichrist."

That's not true.

See below for writing from Irenaeus, who lived from 130 AD - 202 AD. He is one of the most famous of all early Church fathers. He heard the preaching of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, author of Revelation, the Gospel of John, and the three epistles 1-3 John.

This writing below is from Book 5 of his work, "Against Heresies."

• Chapter XXV.-The Fraud, Pride, and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist, as Described by Daniel and Paul.

1. And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols.

Irenaeus was one degree of separation from John, the author who wrote about the Antichrist. The Church has been aware of the theory of a coming final Antichrist for almost 2,000 years.

Wrong. But I am done arguing about it.

 

[Mr.Fitzwell]

 

[Old Glory]

Doc Holiday on TikTok

Replying to @megs8872

www.tiktok.com