Doctrine of imminent return & pre trib

[randyk]

I don't think of Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy. [well, maybe when I read Rev2:9b, 3:9a I might, lol; ones who believe the "THEN SAITH HE to His servants" means (not the 95ad "The Revelation" as it does mean, but) personal revelations from God to them that they are personally meant to "proclaim" as from Him through them to the rest of the world ("wrest" )]

What I'm saying is, Paul has said:

2Cor11: "26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen [the Gentiles], in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren"

[and]

1Th2:14 [re: the PRESENT and ONGOING EXPERIENCES they were ALREADY SUFFERING LONG TERM] "For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews"



... they were already suffering at the hands of all of these [bolded/underlined ^ ], what's the difference they are to *note especially* as being *different* when the time comes to [supposedly] experience "THE Antichrist" ('whose coming/presence/advent/arrival,' 2Th2:9). How can they [or we] know what's different from all other experiences they were already experiencing, and that of the future time that leads up to Christ's "return" (since the Church is supposedly to experience "the AC's" presence too). For example, how would one know for a fact that he [the AC] hasn't arrived 3 years ago (for example) as some ppl DO believe and suggest the time period is presently already in existence (meaning, Jesus will arrive on the scene in about half a year [for example], according to their scheme of things)?

Just a few questions of many that are very unclear to me, in that view. (Besides not seeing ANY passage which refers to our "Rapture" in a post-trib context, etc.) What's the difference between him and all Judaizers in existence from the beginning [since the first century]??

[edit adding: "when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet shall be." Rev17:8 (how would this fit? [pretty sure I know what you might say here]; and why does it require the presence of "the Church which is His body" (the one to whom "the Rapture" pertains) on the earth at that future time, as well? Would not the 144,000 be sufficient to the task?? [I've read studies that suggest Paul was a "type" of the future 144,000, with which I am inclined to agree; and regarding this, Micah 5:3 seems to be saying "FIRST one thing, AND THEN the other [the remnant of His brethren shall RETURN]" TWO SECTIONS! and the verse even uses the word "UNTIL" (like Rom11:25!)])]


[let me be clear that I am NOT saying they (Judaizers, etc) won't be in existence in the future 7-yr trib... but THAT is not the question concerning which I am presenting to you here in this post]

1st let me insist that many Christians view the modern cults as signs of the "false prophets" that Jesus said would precede his 2nd Coming. Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith clearly fall into this category, and I don't know why you would disregard them as such? I actually had LDS come to my door last night!

But your question concerns the assumed importance of knowing the difference between the Antichrist and early Judaizers? I haven't been claiming that the "Judaizers" were the false prophets Jesus referred to! Rather, I was claiming that Rabbinic Judaism, and perhaps some cult pseudo-Christian groups constituted the "false prophets" Jesus referred to.

But your assumption that we have to recognize Antichrist when he comes isn't my position at all. It is scarcely significant, since Jesus wanted us to focus on our own time and on our own antichrists. John the Apostle said there were already antichrists present in his own time!

Since we are not to be about trying to figure times and seasons it is not important to know any difference between Antichrist and current antichrists. It is only of value for us to see the Antichrist for the danger *all antichrists* are! In looking upon the description of the Antichrist in the book of Revelation we are able to pinpoint antichrists in our own time, and avoid the dangers associated with them.

Your pretrib arguments I can deal with elsewhere.

[randyk]

Did you see the part of divaD's post I bolded. THAT is what I thought was humorous. The manner in which he WORDED it, I thought funny. Not you.





It would be a similar thing if I were offended at your calling ME "DWM" ['divorced white male,' and its variants], when I really prefer being called "TDW". (an ill-applied taking of offense, IMO) Nothing was intended directly OF YOU. (I'd already been speaking of this age and that age and not this age and not that age. So I thought his CHOICE OF WORDS, funny! NOT YOU)

I disagree. You were making sport. But that's okay. Overall you have, in my mind, a great bearing as a Christian. Our differences aside between Postrib and Pretrib I consider you to be an exemplary Christian.

It is an interesting fact I've learned along the way that when we intentionally or unintentionally oppose God's word we end up with bad conduct. Cleaning up that conduct sometimes helps us become more humble and open to God's corrections. If you find this to be true we are on the same page!

[TheDivineWatermark]

1st let me insist that many Christians view the modern cults as signs of the "false prophets" that Jesus said would precede his 2nd Coming. Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith clearly fall into this category, and I don't know why you would disregard them as such? I actually had LDS come to my door last night!

Hello. Are you saying I said they were "true" ones??

But your question concerns the assumed importance of knowing the difference between the Antichrist and early Judaizers? I haven't been claiming that the "Judaizers" were the false prophets Jesus referred to! Rather, I was claiming that Rabbinic Judaism, and perhaps some cult pseudo-Christian groups constituted the "false prophets" Jesus referred to.

This is what I also meant. IOW, I'm asking you regarding "THE APOSTASY," whenever it comes (as you suggest), how would the Thessalonians then, or you and I today, know/recognize that point in time?

But your assumption that we have to recognize Antichrist when he comes isn't my position at all.

Since you agree he "comes" and I believe have said with him comes "the apostasy," wouldn't the Thessalonians and we recognize the point when he "BE REVEALED" (since you are saying we'll be here then)?

It is scarcely significant, since Jesus wanted us to focus on our own time and on our own antichrists.

...and apparently the "be revealed" moment of the AC, according to your view of 2Th2.

John the Apostle said there were already antichrists present in his own time!

Agreed. So what? What has that to do with what I'm asking about "the man of sin BE REVEALED" (at a point in time, as I understand it)?

Since we are not to be about trying to figure times and seasons it is not important to know any difference between Antichrist and current antichrists.

Unless he's already "come/present/arrived" as some have suggested is true (and everyone through history has thought it was someone they know). How would you tell, is my question, whether he is or he isn't yet?

Or do you take the Idealist Viewpoint of "The Revelation"? [that, it is never talking about an ACTUAL set of time, but EVERY time for EVERY believer throughout Church history; only]??

It is only of value for us to see the Antichrist for the danger *all antichrists* are! In looking upon the description of the Antichrist in the book of Revelation we are able to pinpoint antichrists in our own time, and avoid the dangers associated with them.

I can see "application" of many things in Scripture, for ALL TIMES. But that is avoiding the question I'm asking, which IS ABOUT *THAT TIME* [since this IS the "End Times Forum" ]; how do you ascertain whether or not "that time" IS PRESENT, unless you don't believe there is a literal time period The Revelation is describing...?

I talk about "present application" in other forums, but in the END TIMES CHAT/FORUM, I talk about the literal time period that The Revelation is covering (not just its present applications we can draw from, once we "understand" it. Not unimportant, just not usually what ppl are asking/discussing when here in the ETC )

Your pretrib arguments I can deal with elsewhere.

[randyk]

Hello. Are you saying I said they were "true" ones??

No, of course not!

This is what I also meant. IOW, I'm asking you regarding "THE APOSTASY," whenever it comes (as you suggest), how would the Thessalonians then, or you and I today, know/recognize that point in time?

I don't see it as a technical recognition of THE apostasy--only a statement of fact that "you cannot expect B until after A." So, if apostasy is happening today, that's okay, because apostasy must precede the coming of the Lord. They had to know that Christ comes to end *all apostasy* and *all antichristianity.* We will know the Antichrist when he comes in the same way we know *any* antichrist, by his attempt to divert us from the right path.

So we don't have to know THE Antichrist. We just have to know that *all* of the antichrists will precede the coming of the Lord for his Church. That means, to put it bluntly, Jesus was saying that you should *not* expect his return for the Church until the last antichrist is destroyed. In other words, don't expect his Coming period, until the heavens brighten with lightning, shining from the east to the west, and the Antichrist is destroyed *at* the Coming of the Lord.

Since you agree he "comes" and I believe have said with him comes "the apostasy," wouldn't the Thessalonians and we recognize the point when he "BE REVEALED" (since you are saying we'll be here then)?
...and apparently the "be revealed" moment of the AC, according to your view of 2Th2.
Agreed. So what? What has that to do with what I'm asking about "the man of sin BE REEALED" (at a point in time, as I understand it)?

Unless he's already "come/present/arrived" as some have suggested is true (and everyone through history has thought it was someone they know). How would you tell, is my question, whether he is or he isn't yet?

I can see "application" of many things in Scripture, for ALL TIMES. But that is avoiding the question I'm asking, which IS ABOUT *THAT TIME*

You may be right that there is something important about recognizing THE Antichrist, and I will pursue that and other points in awhile. Gotta go.

[randyk]

This is what I also meant. IOW, I'm asking you regarding "THE APOSTASY," whenever it comes (as you suggest), how would the Thessalonians then, or you and I today, know/recognize that point in time?

As I said, I don't think it's essential to know the difference between the Antichrist and previous antichrists. However, he is described in some detail in both Dan 7 and Rev 13. So it bears noting that there is some distinctiveness here, with respect to the Antichrist.

But what I'm saying is more important, that knowing the times and seasons isn't our job. We are to focus on the antichrists of our own time. That is what the Apostle John meant when he said, "already there are many antichrists." He wasn't pointing us strictly in the direction of the Antichrist. Rather, he was suggesting that we have to deal with antichrists in our own time. The future Antichrist is an example of what we can expect throughout the current age.

The distinctive features of the Antichrist are pretty well known. He heads a group of 10 nations. He emerges out of the ancient Roman Imperial Tradition. He conquers 3 kings. He exalts himself over God. He takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself Deity. He suffers what appears to be a fatal wound, but recovers. However, this may have reference to the imperial tradition that leads up to his revelation.

But Paul is stating not so much that we should be looking for the Antichrist as declaring our need to be aware, presently, of this kind of apostasy, designed to direct us away from the truth. This stuff *must precede* the coming of the Lord.

So we should be focused more on these deceptions than on eschatology itself, than on the time of Christ's coming. It is by maintaining awareness of these deceptions, and by remaining vigilant against them, that we maintain our own spiritual integrity and successfully accomplish our mission in the Gospel.

If we fall before these impediments, our purpose is destroyed. Then it really doesn't matter what our views are about the coming of the Lord or our expectation of when he will come, since we will have failed.

[ForHisglory]

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Does one think this scene has already happened, or is still yet to ocur? If the former, when does one feel this scene took place? Why that might matter, these 24 elders are already present when John sees this scene. If the scene literally occurred, say 2000 years ago around the time of the ascension or shortly after, these 24 elders then can't symbolize what some Pretribbers conclude they symbolize, I guess that being the NT raptured church.

For me it is clear that this scene has already occurred.
It speaks in verse 2 and 3 of a time DIRECTLY connected with Isaiah 59:16
He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness upheld him.
Also Isaiah 52:10.
So there is no one able to open the book, speaks of the time BEFORE Jesus came to earth.
Then verse 5 speaks of Jesus triumphant having died on the cross, and ascendant to the throne.

So this scene moves us from one period of time to another, and then one to Johns future with the opening of the seals.

[ForHisglory]

Its just too big of a stretch to nowhere to apply the "them" translation instead of "us". It literally leads to nowhere and leaves the 24 totally in the dark. When you apply the "us" the entire issue is dramatically put to bed and the timing is now a moot argument because the 24 are clearly the raptured Saints sitting on thrones, wearing their white Robes and Crowns having been redeemed by the blood from all nations, peoples and languages and will soon reign over the earth with Christ as promised. Suddenly there is this mass of details in the text that all perfectly align.

There just isn't any sound scripture or logic to support the "them" translation. Its not just weak, its really weak and leaves you with a horribly vague mystery instead of a revelation.

Absolute rubbish to state it is weak. There is NOTHING weak with the Elders declaring what Jesus has done which gives HIM the right to open the scroll.
The song they sing DIRECTLY confirms what Jesus has done, and will do and who for.
There is NOTHING to say the Elders are raptured saints. For to claim this, means the four living creatures are ALSO raptured saints. You are sounding like a broken record, rather than dealing with what is stated. It is burying your head in the sand, going yada yada yada.
Actually it all aligns when you have humans being redeemed, NOT angelic beings who have been sitting before the throne of God.
Almost ALL sound translations have them. Only TR based scriptures like KJV have us.

[TheDivineWatermark]

It sounds possibly like Isaiah 52:9-10 sounds a bit like the following (but I'm not certain of it):

21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

22 So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God from that day and forward.

23 And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword.

24 According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.

25 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;

26 After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid.

27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations;

28 Then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.

29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God.

--Ezekiel 39:21-29 (Gog-Magog War? I think)

[Johosophat]

Absolute rubbish to state it is weak. There is NOTHING weak with the Elders declaring what Jesus has done which gives HIM the right to open the scroll.
The song they sing DIRECTLY confirms what Jesus has done, and will do and who for.
There is NOTHING to say the Elders are raptured saints. For to claim this, means the four living creatures are ALSO raptured saints. You are sounding like a broken record, rather than dealing with what is stated. It is burying your head in the sand, going yada yada yada.
Actually it all aligns when you have humans being redeemed, NOT angelic beings who have been sitting before the throne of God.
Almost ALL sound translations have them. Only TR based scriptures like KJV have us.

You know good and well I was not questioning what they said about what Jesus has done, I was speaking of the translation of "we" in verse 9-10. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding and not intentional.

I think you are taking it a bit too personal and I think its better if we just agree to disagree for now.

Peace and grace to you brother.

[Johosophat]

It sounds possibly like Isaiah 52:9-10 sounds a bit like the following (but I'm not certain of it):

21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

22 So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God from that day and forward.

23 And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword.

24 According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.

25 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;

26 After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid.

27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations;

28 Then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.

29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God.

--Ezekiel 39:21-29 (Gog-Magog War? I think)

I agree with this.

[divaD]

You don't see the problem you're making here? You're trying to force a definitive definition upon "this generation" in Matthew 24, using a reference to 2 Thes 2 and Rev 13. In other words, you're inserting, improperly, contexts from other passages simply because they refer to "signs and wonders!" Have you considered the possibility that the "signs and wonders" of Antichrist differ from the "signs and wonders" of the "false Christs and false prophets" that Jesus spoke of in his own generation?

No, you've acted very closed-minded. You don't even want to enter into any discussion because you think you've heard it all. But from listening to you, it seems your sources are a very narrow group of interpreters, who want to see things in a particular way. I don't think this will benefit you in this case, or in the future.

I don't have sources I rely on in order to interpret something, so not sure what you are meaning there. I mainly rely on my own self. My conclusions are the results of my own reasoning of things. If I'm incorrect here, then simply provide undeniable proof that there were also fake great signs and lying wonders happening 2000 years ago leading up to 70 AD. Because clearly that is one of the things that has to be fulfilled before Matt 24:34 is said to be fulfilled. In general all it takes is finding at least one thing that contradicts, and it is debunked at that point.

[TheDivineWatermark]

Originally Posted by ForHisglory

Rev 1:5 speaks of us, not angelic beings. Rev 5 does NOT have the elders saying the same thing, but rather saying it about us - highlighting what happened in the heavenlies when Jesus came back victorious. Otherwise you have the 4 living creatures ALSO being human along with the 24 elders.

I think we went over this long ago. [back in a bit after I go retrieve that info]

[in addition to the comments I made on this earlier]

I posted at least parts of an article by this John Niemela quite awhile ago (when this topic was covered in the past... but I'm not very successful at using the Search feature here), so this article is pretty much the same thing, if not the exact one). Plus more comments by others on that same subject, below.

John Niemela:

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Nie...5TheTwenty.pdf

[If I recall rightly, he says that the text in v.9 says "us/we" in something like 23 of 24 manuscripts, and the 1 manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) leaves out the pronoun altogether; and that most manuscripts in v.10 say "them/they," and he (the writer of the article) provides some reasoning for this, meaning, the reason why verse 9 would have it as "us/we" whereas verse 10 has it as "them/they" (I think he says only TR has v.10 as "us/we" and he gives reason why he thinks it does so)]


[also]

"Some critics and expositors have rejected this ήμᾱς [hēmas] (us), for the reason that it is omitted in the Codex Alexandrinus, and in the Ethiopic version; though the latter is not much more than a loose paraphrase. The Codex Sinaiticus, however, which was discovered in 1860, and which is of equal antiquity and authority with the Codex Alexandrinus, contains it. The Codex Basilianus, in the Vatican, contains it. The Latin, Coptic or Memphitic, and Armenian, which are of great value, contain it. And so do all other manuscripts and versions. And to discredit it simply and only because it does not appear in that one single Codex of Alexandria, is most unreasonable and unjust to the weight of authority for its retention." -- Joseph A. Seiss, The Apocalypse: Lectures on the Book of Revelation


[and]

Tony Garland:

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teachi...rs/05.html#3.5 [scroll down to the pertinent parts]

[ForHisglory]

[in addition to the comments I made on this earlier]

I posted at least parts of an article by this John Niemela quite awhile ago (when this topic was covered in the past... but I'm not very successful at using the Search feature here), so this article is pretty much the same thing, if not the exact one). Plus more comments by others on that same subject, below.

John Niemela:
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Nie...5TheTwenty.pdf
[If I recall rightly, he says that the text in v.9 says "us/we" in something like 23 of 24 manuscripts, and the 1 manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) leaves out the pronoun altogether; and that most manuscripts in v.10 say "them/they," and he (the writer of the article) provides some reasoning for this, meaning, the reason why verse 9 would have it as "us/we" whereas verse 10 has it as "them/they" (I think he says only TR has v.10 as "us/we" and he gives reason why he thinks it does so)]
[also]
"Some critics and expositors have rejected this ήμᾱς [hēmas] (us), for the reason that it is omitted in the Codex Alexandrinus, and in the Ethiopic version; though the latter is not much more than a loose paraphrase. The Codex Sinaiticus, however, which was discovered in 1860, and which is of equal antiquity and authority with the Codex Alexandrinus, contains it. The Codex Basilianus, in the Vatican, contains it. The Latin, Coptic or Memphitic, and Armenian, which are of great value, contain it. And so do all other manuscripts and versions. And to discredit it simply and only because it does not appear in that one single Codex of Alexandria, is most unreasonable and unjust to the weight of authority for its retention." -- Joseph A. Seiss, The Apocalypse: Lectures on the Book of Revelation
[and]
Tony Garland:
http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teachi...rs/05.html#3.5 [scroll down to the pertinent parts]

Strange claims.
It is basically only the Textus Receptus translations that have the word "us", those based upon Majority Texts do not.
Here are some links:
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/06...d-person-them/

They key point is basically that some manuscripts do have the word us in them - however they have a flaw in that they do not have the corresponding us in verse 10. It is added to bring about agreement, though the Greek has them.

Further there is the whole point attested elsewhere in this thread that it is BOTH the four living creatures AND the 24 elders who make this statement, which confirms it is not about themselves that they sing.
IOW when the KJV was translated they had the word "us" in verse 9, and also the word "us" in verse 10, but also had the contradictory "they shall reign" - βασιλεύσουσιν and chose to change it to "we shall reign" striving to match what they had in verse 9.
However when Majority Texts are looked at, we find that the "us" isn't present in the oldest texts, and that the agreement is therefore with "they shall reign" which IS in ALL the texts.

Now when we consider which possibility is correct, and note that the 4 living creatures are singing this song, then this should leads to admit that the proper rendering is - they shall reign. This means the 24 elders are not seeing themselves as the ones redeemed by Gods blood for reigning. They already reign as angels in their own role.

Now as it seems the ENTIRE support of the Rapture occurring BEFORE the tribulation rests on whether this is a correct rendering or not, then you are on very shaky ground, both for its lack of uniform support in translation, or even the oldest textual support, and also for the fact that it doesn't actually makes sense for the 4 living creatures to be included in this group. This then requires some very bizarre reasoning to argue that the 4 are not included.
I am not sure there is much else worth saying on this issue, as otherwise it will be round and round in circles.

[ForHisglory]

You know good and well I was not questioning what they said about what Jesus has done, I was speaking of the translation of "we" in verse 9-10. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding and not intentional.
I think you are taking it a bit too personal and I think its better if we just agree to disagree for now.
Peace and grace to you brother.

Hi, I am not taking it personal. What I am disagreeing is with the claim that something is weak, when this is just a statement of yours of opinion, but which the text itself does not support.
I have looked into the origin of "us" in the KJV, and have looked into the reasoning why it doesn't belong there at a level of whether the sentence supports, starting with verse 10 and working backwards.
I have posted something about this in response to TDW so wont put it again.
However it is INCREDIBLY powerful statement made by the 4 living creatures and the 24 elders about what Jesus achieved and is yet to do. It is NOT about them, but about Jesus.
When you get that they are giving glory to Jesus - and not claiming anything about themselves - then you may see the power in what they are saying.
It is ALL for His glory!
I suppose this is a personal view of mine, because I believe claims which deflect when angels are highlighting the great things He has done, to be about the role they will have as kings etc...

[randyk]

I don't have sources I rely on in order to interpret something, so not sure what you are meaning there. I mainly rely on my own self. My conclusions are the results of my own reasoning of things. If I'm incorrect here, then simply provide undeniable proof that there were also fake great signs and lying wonders happening 2000 years ago leading up to 70 AD. Because clearly that is one of the things that has to be fulfilled before Matt 24:34 is said to be fulfilled. In general all it takes is finding at least one thing that contradicts, and it is debunked at that point.

Okay, I have provided that elsewhere--yesterday. I quoted Barnes Notes on the fact that there existed "false Christs and false prophets" in the generation of Jesus. That, in your words, debunks your position that there were no "false Christs and false prophets in the generation of Jesus.