Who Will Take Care of Your Beloved Pets after the Rapture?

***

Who Will Take Care of Your Beloved Pets after the Rapture?

***

I’m sure this has been a great concern to my readers, so having you, my dear friends in mind, I am passing along this helpful information.  ~ja

Here is a brief excerpt from After the Rapture Pet Care, the great folks who will look after your pets after you have gone on.

I agreed – it’s a real concern, and a legitimate concern. Our pets are given to us by God for us to care for. We are stewards of their lives. Should we simply forget them at the Rapture, allow them to starve or worse?

While planning our system, we thought about the stories of pet rescues in New Orleans after Katrina. Imagine how many more pets would have been saved if there had been a database of pets and volunteers activated immediately. This is something we could do for Christian owned pets.

Carol began recruiting other non-Christian animal lovers nationwide to volunteer to take care of left-behind pets if the Rapture occurs. As a Christian, my role has been to put together a program that is Biblically appropriate and provides true value to Christians. I believe we’ve come up with a plan that is affordable, unique, Biblical and practical.

***

For more information, click here.

***

228 comments on “Who Will Take Care of Your Beloved Pets after the Rapture?

  1. TIA,

    Just to be clear from my side.  They were discussing the End of the World, not the OT Sacrificial system.

    I’ll tell ya what.  Since Daniel is a Book written by a Jew, for a Jew, to a Jew, then please Ask A Jew and see what he states.  I would LOVE to see you convince a knowledgeable Jew that it means OT Sacrificial system instead of end of the world.  That would be amusing and fun.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  2. TIA,

    Jesus referenced NO OTHER BOOK but the Book of Daniel.

    I don’t care about Ezekiel when Jesus did not say Ezekiel.  I do not care about Genesis when Jesus did not say Genesis.

    Everyone knows that Daniel is END TIME PROPHET. Period.

    ________________________________

    Like

  3. Ed,

    You keep moving the goalposts. You bring up “the Antichrist”, but Daniel doesn’t mention “antichrist”. I try to discuss what “antichrist” actually means in the Bible. Now all of a sudden you only want to talk about Daniel. Okay, then stop talking about “the Antichrist”, because Daniel doesn’t!

    But since you only want the discuss Daniel, let’s discuss Daniel. You conveniently didn’t quote Daniel 8 in it’s full context. You started at verse 9 with “And out of one of them came forth a little horn…” The logical question is, “Out of one of who?” We need to go back to the earlier verses in the chapter. They talk about a ram with two horns (a symbol of the Medo-Persian empire) and a goat (Greece/Alexander the Great) whose empire was split in four (Seleucus, east, Syria, Babylonia, etc.; Cassander, west, Greece, etc.; Ptolemy, south, Egypt, etc.; Lysimachus, north, Thrace, Cappadocia, etc.). The little horn in verse 9 is none other than Antiochus Epiphanes. He fought toward the south (Egypt), east (Persia), and the pleasant land (Israel), just as verse 9 says. He took away the daily sacrifice in the temple, just as verse 11 says. Even most dispensational commentaries admit these obvious conclusions. The problem is that they then also insert the idea of “the Antichrist” which is not found in the text.

    “Jesus referenced NO OTHER BOOK but the Book of Daniel.”

    Jesus only specifically mentioned Daniel, but there are most definitely references to other books of the Bible in Matthew 24. If you’re saying that you can’t look at any other book of the Bible besides Daniel in order to understand Matthew 24, that’s a very bizarre hermeneutic. I would hope you would grant at the least that the parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21 could be relevant to understanding Matthew 24. Besides that, much of the terminology in Matthew 24 comes from OT prophets other than Daniel (eg. “sun, moon, stars”).

    Okay, but back to Daniel, since that’s all you want to talk about. You haven’t yet interacted with my comments on “coming” in Matthew 24:3, 30 and Daniel 7:13 (and also Matthew 26:61-64). I completely understand that, because the dispensational system can’t make sense of those passages. Daniel 7:13 (which Matthew 24 and 26 are referring to) clearly indicates to the “son of man” “coming” up to “the Ancient of Days” in heaven. But dispensationalists think that “coming” always refers to Christ coming back to earth.

    It was problems like that that finally bore on my conscience for over a decade until I finally understood that the problem wasn’t the Bible or my lack of understanding. The problem was the dispensational system itself, which can’t deal with texts as they are given and has to read things into the text (as you are doing in Daniel 8) or resort to bizarre convolutions and definitions to make texts say what they need them to say in order to fit the system.

    “Everyone knows that Daniel is END TIME PROPHET. Period.”

    Yes, Daniel is the “end time prophet.” He spoke of the “end times” of the Old Covenant. You admit yourself that he was writing to Jews and for Jews. Well guess what? The heart of the Jews’ religious system was destroyed in A.D. 70. Again, that’s what the book of Hebrews is all about. Revelation too. Daniel was told to seal his book because the time was not yet near. John, who was also an “end time prophet”, was told to not seal Revelation because the time was near. That was 2000 years ago Ed!!!

    “Since Daniel is a Book written by a Jew, for a Jew, to a Jew, then please Ask A Jew and see what he states.”

    Here’s a Jewish view of Daniel 8 that agrees with what I wrote above:
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04854.html (see chapter 8)

    In any case, what a Jew thinks is kind of irrelevant since they (as a nation) didn’t even recognize the Messiah when He came. If they got that wrong, you should at least take everything else they “understand” about the Scriptures with a grain of salt.

    Here’s one more question to leave you with. Are you still waiting for Jesus to set up His kingdom, or has he already done so? See Daniel 2:24-45, Matthew 12:28, Luke 17:20-21, and John 18:36.

    Like

  4. Everyone in my sphere knows that Daniel is discussing the Anti-Christ.

    Everyone in my sphere knows that the Jews are awaiting their Messiah

    Everyone in my sphere knows that THE Anti-Christ is the false Messiah…For the Jews.

    Everyone in my sphere knows that THE Anti-Christ will mimic THE Christ.

    Everyone in my sphere knows that the Jews are awaiting their Messiah.

    I never moved the goal post at all.  I’ve stuck to one story.  And I am sticking to it.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  5. “Everyone in my sphere knows that Daniel is discussing the Anti-Christ.”

    Exactly. That’s my point. “Your sphere” is an “eschatalogical cult.” Daniel doesn’t mention “the Antichrist”, but you all “know” that’s what he’s writing about. There’s no way for me to disprove what you believe, because you believe it in spite of what the Bible itself says.

    “I never moved the goal post at all. I’ve stuck to one story. And I am sticking to it.”

    You did move the goal posts. You keep referencing “the Antichrist”, but you don’t want to discuss how the word “antichrist” is actually used in the Bible. You believe it because that’s what the dispensational system teaches and then discount any evidence to the contrary.

    Can’t you see how dispensationalism is like a cult? I know you can’t see it. I couldn’t see it either until I came out of it, just like people in cults can’t see it and deny that they’re in a cult. Just to be clear, I’m not saying dispensationalism is a cult, just that it has characteristics that are cult-like.

    Just look at your last response, Ed. You didn’t even address any of the arguments I made. You simply repeated dispensational mantras. That is cult-like behavior.

    Like

  6. TIA,

    I stick with Chapter 8 due to the fact that Jesus used the word “desolation”.  That is what he called it…the Abomination of Desolation.  And he said for the reader to understand.

    The Anti-Christ IS the Abomination of Desolation, and Daniel 8 discusses this desolation.  And it is the person that stops the sacrifices.  Plain and simple.

    And I do take what the Jews believe seriously…not with a grain of salt, because the Jews are a light to the Gentiles.  The Jews hold the Oracles of God.  Not Gentiles.  They don’t see Jesus as the Messiah because they were NOT SUPPOSED to see Jesus as their Messiah.

    Here is why they do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah (Taken from a Jew on the web):

    Well, since Jesus fulfilled *none* of the prophecies in my Bible, we don’t really have to worry, do we?

    Judaism teaches that the messiah will fulfill the following prophecies: * The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26) * Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4) * The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17) * He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10) * The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with “fear of God” (Isaiah 11:2) * Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4) * Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) * He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) * All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12) * Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) * There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8) * All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19) * The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11) * He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7) * Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5) * The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23) * The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55) * Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9) * The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot * He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9) * Jews will know the Torah without Study (Jeremiah 31:33) * He will give you all the desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4) * He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9)

    Well, since Jesus fulfilled *none* of the prophecies in my Bible, we don’t really have to worry, do we?

    Judaism teaches that the messiah will fulfill the following prophecies: * The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26) * Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4) * The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17) * He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10) * The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with “fear of God” (Isaiah 11:2) * Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4) * Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) * He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) * All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12) * Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) * There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8) * All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19) * The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11) * He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7) * Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5) * The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23) * The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55) * Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9) * The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot * He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9) * Jews will know the Torah without Study (Jeremiah 31:33) * He will give you all the desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4) * He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9) Source(s): I’m Jewish.

    The above is from a the web, from a Jew.  Me, I am not Jewish.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  7. TIA

    The Abomination of Desolation.  Those are the words of Jesus…not some eschatological nut case.  He said to look and daniel, and that is what I did.  He did not say look at Ezekiel, or Isaiah.  The whole conversation that he was discussing was the time of the end and his return.  Those are the things that will happen during THAT TIME…not some time in the past.

    Your view of eschatology is in the minority…not the majority. 

    I stand by what I said.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  8. “They don’t see Jesus as the Messiah because they were NOT SUPPOSED to see Jesus as their Messiah.”

    You mean like how dispensationalists are NOT SUPPOSED to understand biblical prophecy?

    I’m done for now, Ed. I pray that the Lord will bring these things to your mind sometime when you are open to hear them.

    Like

  9. No longer noisy. I’m not contributing to, or even reading, all of the continuing back and forth. It’s not worth the possible wrecking of good relationships. We have both apologized, so we can move on. I’m sure there will be other issues that we can debate in the future. (yay!)

    Like

  10. I’m done for now, Ed. I pray that the Lord will bring these things to your mind sometime when you are open to hear them.

    Smiling because isn’t that how all debaters think? I sure do 🙂

    Like

  11. Who knew that a humorous blog site about after-Rapture pet care could evoke such passion? Does the number of comments on this post break some of record, I wonder? My back and forth with Ed helped me to understand some of my inner spiritual turmoil, and how that turmoil affects my discussions–much more than I realized! Constructive criticism is always a good thing to hear.

    Like

  12. TIA,

    Before you go, please take another look at the story of Joseph.  Joseph did not reveal himself to his “brethren” the first time, but he did the “second” time.  He had compassion on them, and forgave them.

    Joseph is a “shadow and type” of Jesus.  They did not see Joseph as their brother the first time, just as the Jews did not see Jesus as their Messiah the first time.  Jesus will reveal himself to them…but not now.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  13. JA,

    You know…I’ve thought of that often, too.  That both sides always wishes that God would unblind their opponent.  Ironic, huh?

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  14. Yea, that’s where I can mess up if I miss something. Thankfully, this group self-moderates well. If someone goes out of line, others will usually call them on it. There is an underlying level of respect and compassion that is rare here. It is respectful to call out someone who crosses the line. And it is also respectful to consider what others say and make course correction. That happens here. I love that.

    Like

  15. “I’m done for now, Ed. I pray that the Lord will bring these things to your mind sometime when you are open to hear them.
    Smiling because isn’t that how all debaters think? I sure do :)”

    I understand that Ed doesn’t agree with me. I’m fine with that. The thing that really bothers me is that he’s not even listening or paying attention to my arguments. I’m very familiar with Ed’s arguments because I used to make the same ones myself. But since he doesn’t seem willing to even consider anything outside his “sphere”, there really isn’t much point in me continuing. And I understand that, too. I was the same way.

    Ed, I’m with you about Joseph being a type of Jesus. I don’t doubt that Jesus will reveal Himself to the Jews. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the Antichrist or the rest of the dispensational system!!! I do believe Jesus will “come again”, but that doesn’t negate the fact that He “came again” in the events leading up to and including the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, just as He and others prophesied.

    Lydia, I did put “eschatological cult” in quotes and clarified that I don’t think dispensationalism is actually a cult. But can you not see that Ed’s responses, particularly the one @ 8:42am that I was responding to demonstrate cult-like behavior? It’s like he’s plugging his ears and saying, “I’m not listening to you. *We* all believe this. *We* have the truth. I won’t consider any other viewpoints. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the Bible says.” I don’t claim to have eschatology all figured out, but I do know that dispensationalism is not biblical. Ed’s refusal to discuss what the Bible says is evidence of that.

    Like

  16. TIA,

    I need to explain myself in regards to your accusation of my cult like ways.

    When I debate something like this, it isn’t off the cuff, and it certainly isn’t due to anyone teaching me these things, either.

    I began studying this topic when I was doing research (independent research) on the 7th Day Adventists.  I wanted to know why the 7th Day Adventists believe that THE Anti-Christ is none other than the Pope, or, as they like to say, the system of Catholicism, because they are afraid to actually offend Catholics themselves.  So they just say, “It’s the SYSTEM”. 

    Just out of “S**t’s and giggles”, I attended a so-called “FREE…FREE (LAUGH OUT LOUD) Prophecy Conference put on the by 7th Day Adventist in my local town.  It was funny to say the least.  But it was sad.

    IT was about Christians vs. The Pope.  A very light mention of Islam, and not much talk at all about Jews.

    Now, I know you have said some things about the Jews that I take as being derogatory from you, i.e. that I should take what the Jews say with a grain of salt.  I disagree.  The Jews are the KEY to this whole conversation.

    Now, before I even studied this topic in regards to the 7th Day Adventists, I studied this topic in regards to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    So I have experience at studying this topic.  Why would I ever be persuaded to believe your side?  I can’t. 

    My study is on my own.  Independent.  And because MY beliefs CONCUR with many others, I stand by it, and will not be moved from it.  Yes, I do have a closed mind about it.  If YOU believe that 1 + 1 equals 2, nothing will ever change your mind.  So why do you want me to believe your story when you do not include the Jews, but rather the Koreans, and the Poles?  They have nothing to do with the subject of JERUSALEM, or the Temple of God, or the Abomination of Desolation.

    There are various reasons that people don’t, and I guess that mostly has to do with why Sheila wont.  They make it a salvation issue, and their behaviour is reflective of that.

    But I do take issue with anyone and everyone that disparages the Jews.  I am not discussing Poles or Koreans, or Japanese, or the Australians.  Just the Jews.  It began with them with Abraham, and it will end with them.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  17. Well, I’m going to stick up for Ed a minute, here. His beliefs are sincerely held, and he obtained those by searching out the Bible for himself. Ed believes that the texts he read make sense. I wonder if he was using a Bible with commentary & footnotes, with cross references in the margins. The Scofield Study Bible is set up that way. So, it could be that the man-made comments & footnotes could have been an unknown bias built in. I always say that one’s own interpretation is only as good as the one who is interpreting it for you. That’s why I seek out Bible scholars online & in print. I want to be certain I am not following one person’s idea.

    So, if it seems as if Ed is plugging his ears and saying “I can’t hear you”, continue to remember what it felt like to be Ed. I was just like him, too. When you are ensnared by a false interpretation, it’s difficult to come to realize that fact. You think the Bible is backing up what you believe, and that ‘sola Scriptura’ POV is a powerful vaccination against outside sources.

    I have loved all of your comments by the way!

    Like

  18. I’d love to have coffee with you, face to face, and we could exchange our sources and have a good discussion. Now that we’ve made peace, I went back and re-read much of what we both said when I was angry. I think you have a good heart coupled with extreme intelligence. I could learn some things from you.

    Like

  19. Hi Sheila,

    I try ever so hard to not listen to or consult commentary.  That is one reason that I use a KJV.  No Commentary written.  The other reason, is that in the KJV, words and phrases match words and phrases.  Some people have a deep hatred for the KJV.  I find that to be odd, because I don’t have a problem with other English translations.  I love the NIVr, for example.  But in regards to “word” study, I choose the KJV.  Some people say that the KJV is a bad translation.  Well, I have a Strong’s concordance, so I don’t buy into that at all.

    For example, The word “Easter” is in the KJV, but the Strong’s concordance shows that the word “Passover” is supposed to be the word.  For me, there is no problem, because I can figure out that there was a valid reason that the translators used the word “Easter” instead of Passover.  My conclusion is that Easter is a one day thing, whereas Passover is a 7 day thing.  Easter is “within” passover.  I think that the translators wanted to make a distinction, because the Disciples (Apostles) were preaching Christ Risen in the same generation that Christ died, and no one could find the body.  So, people wanted to kill the Apostles for preaching Christ risen, and they wanted to make a mockery out of it on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, Easter, a day “within” Passover.  But then the word “after” is used, but when you look at the Strong’s concordance, that word defined is not discussing after the completion of Passover, but in the midst of Passover (AMID).  Me, being a sailor, knows what “amid-ships” mean.  In the middle.  After Passover begins, but before it ends.

    If you have ever been in a conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness in regards to their belief that Jesus is not God, how do you retort that? Some wish to use commentary to back up their point.  I, on the other hand, must go to the source document instead. 

    My studies are meticulous.  My supervisor in the navy would steer away from answering my questions.  He would always say, “What does the book say?”  That is where I got the notion that if you want to learn something, go to the source.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  20. Sheila,

    My very first encounter with the “commentary” issue was with a Catholic on another blog site.  It was on a blog of a Filipino church, Iglesia Ni Cristo, which does not believe that Jesus is God.  Me, being protestant (Not Reform), and the Catholic was debating one of the members of that church.

    I kept referencing scripture, time and time again, but the Catholic, he kept referencing “church fathers”. 

    Since then, I have a disdain for a.) Church Fathers, and b.)  Commentary.

    Move ahead a few years, I debate the reform folks, and they have a high regard for church fathers, just like the Catholics.

    No wonder I am non-denomination.  Thank God I don’t listen to Church Fathers.

    There is much debate within those church fathers in regards to the word baptize.  Which church father are we to listen to?  Me, I say “none of them”.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  21. Sheila,

    The simplicity of Christ.  Christianity is easy, but some make you jump thru hoops.

    I do have a good heart in this.  That is why I am on this blog.  I try to defend people like you here that have been abused spiritually, not to perpetuate it.  Had I known of the fundy ways in this topic, I would not have come across the way that I did with you.

    I had no idea that this was a topic that was held as an extreme salvation issue.  It never crossed my mind.  I knew it was divisive, but not that divisive.

    Up until about 6 months ago, I began learning of a few politicians that are in this fundy mind set.  And, when I learned that some of the things that they were saying came directly from the religious belief system of the reform folks, I had to back off.  There were some weird things being said by people in the reform mind set that were running for office. 

    By the way, I love coffee!!

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  22. Ed,

    Thanks for the discussion. I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other at this point. We both believe what we believe based on our understanding of the Bible, so at least we’re going to the right source.

    I’ve mentioned earlier that I was a dispensationalist for most of my life. It is only within the past half dozen or so years that I have changed my views on eschatology. The reason for that change was because of contradictions, unanswered questions, and obvious “fudging” of Bible passages that kept nagging me. I knew something was wrong with the dispensational system, but I didn’t know what was correct.

    It turns out that this is in many ways similar to the creation/evolution debate. In some sense, it doesn’t matter what evidence is presented, because both sides come to that evidence with preconceived assumptions and ideas that ultimately dictate their conclusions regardless of what the evidence “says”. Of course, evidence doesn’t really talk. And that’s the point. Evidence is always interpreted within a framework. That is exactly what we see in our discussion here. Even Biblical evidence can’t convince the other person, because their framework always interprets evidence to fit their existing system.

    Regarding the Jews, I believe God has a wonderful plan for them, just as He has for all peoples. Yes, God has chosen and used the nation of Israel in a special way in history. It was through Israel that the Scriptures and the Messiah came. God undoubtedly has special plans for the Jews in the future. But here’s one of those funny things that troubled me in the dispensational system. Dispensationalists believe and teach (feel free to correct me if you don’t believe this particular teaching) that in the future, at the time of the Great Tribulation, two thirds of the Jews then living will be killed. According to them, it must happen, because it is part of God’s plan. It has been prophesied and will be fulfilled. Now please explain how that view of the Jews is better than what I believe (which does not include two thirds of them dying in the future according to the Word of God).

    Here’s another one for you. Dispensationalists believe and teach that Christ’s return is imminent, that is, that He could return at any moment and that nothing needs to precede His coming back for “the Rapture”. They also teach that the formation of the nation of modern Israel in 1948 (and many other things, such as the degradation of morals and false teaching in the church) is a fulfillment of prophecy and a “sign” that “the end” is near (of course, as you have repeatedly stated, you don’t believe that should be referred to as “the end”, because “the end” only refers to the final judgment, right?). But those views contradict one another. If Israel becoming a nation is a “sign” preceding the end times, then Christ’s return couldn’t have been imminent before that occurred (even though dispensationalists were teaching the imminence of Christ’s return long before 1948). Similarly with all the “signs” they see around us in the world today. The “signs” are always wrong (Mussonlini, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.), so they just keep coming up with new ones. Do you have any idea how much embarrassment and damage has been done to the kingdom of God because of such teachings? Maybe you don’t speculate as much as some, but if you have ever told anyone, “The end is near,” or, “We see signs…”, you are just as guilty.

    “It began with them with Abraham, and it will end with them.”

    Ed, I am not a Jew (according to the flesh). I am not physically related to Abraham in any way (as far as I know). But I am a child of Abraham (Gal. 3:7-9, 29), and the promises made to him belong to me (see also John 1:11-13). God did not promise Abraham, “Only the Jews will be blessed through you”, but, “All nations will be blessed through you” (see also Gal. 3:16).

    Sorry, I’m not a coffee drinker, but I’m sure I would enjoy sitting down and chatting with you. Even though we disagree, the fact that we even care about these things shows a common bond. May the Lord bless you and encourage your heart.

    Like

  23. TIA,

    You raise some excellent points, some of which I never heard of before, and have no idea who started teaching such, either, i.e. 2/3 of the Jews killed, etc.

    But, no matter, the condition of the body seems to be many people focus, i.e., dead, death, killed, murder, slaughter, etc.

    Why isn’t people more concerned with the location of the spirit after being dead, killed, murdered, slaughtered, etc. 

    In any case, I would love to discuss the points that you bring up. 

    It seems to me, that my take on dispensationalism is completely different than your take on dispensationalism.  Maybe that is why you hate it so much.

    I will be busy today, so I can get back to you later tonight, or tomorrow….

    But…in the mean time, if you would allow this:  Beginning with Revelation 7:9, to people like me, represents the much disputed Rapture of the church.

    But…Revelation chapters 14-15 is a highly neglected reading/teaching.  That is PRIOR to Armageddon.

    How do you see chapters 14-15?  Chapter 16 is Armageddon.  To me, it represents:__________________. (Not gonna say now)

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  24. Sorry, I’m not a coffee drinker, but I’m sure I would enjoy sitting down and chatting with you. Even though we disagree, the fact that we even care about these things shows a common bond.

    TIA – I had the opportunity to meet Ed for lunch during one of my daughter’s volleyball tournaments. He’s the real deal.

    Like

  25. Ed,

    The “two thirds of the Jews” will die comes from Zech. 13:8, which most dispensationalists see as referring to the Great Tribulation. They see the bulk of Zech. 12-14 as still referring to the future “end times”, although they have to admit that 13:7 has been fulfilled and 12:10 (at least the part about “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced”) has at least been partially fulfilled. I would suggest that the whole lot has been fulfilled, including the Lord standing upon the Mount of Olives, etc. in chapter 14.

    I’m not sure how you see the Rapture in Rev. 7:9 and following. Revelation makes sense if you take it as it was written…to believers written in the first century about events that were soon to take place (Rev. 1:1-3, 22:6,7,10,12,20). It has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the unfaithful Jews who rejected Jesus, and the preservation of those who follow the Lamb.

    “But…Revelation chapters 14-15 is a highly neglected reading/teaching. That is PRIOR to Armageddon.”

    Even though Armageddon is mentioned in chapter 16, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it comes chronologically after the events described in chapters 14 and 15. Do you believe Rev. 12 is still in the future? Rev. 14-15 come after that in the book, but as I believe someone (Sheila, maybe) pointed out before, the book of Revelation is not written in a strict chronological sequence. There are flashbacks and concurrent events retold from multiple perspectives. Do you believe everything written before chapter 12 happened before chapter 12 was fulfilled?

    I see Rev. 14-15 as describing the faithful (from the first century) who trusted in Jesus being preserved, while the unfaithful are judged. “Babylon the great” is Jerusalem (see Rev. 11:8, 16:19, 17:1,5,18, 18:2-4,16-21,24). Also, notice that the temple in Rev. 15 is in heaven, not on earth.

    Like

  26. TIA,

    Like I said, I will get back to you on these issues.  But there are three “woes”, and each woe is followed by another in chrono order, not out of order.

    And, I really could care less as to how people in the first century thought about the book of Revelation.  2 thess. states that THE Anti-Christ will stand in the Temple of God proclaiming that he is God.

    And you are trying to convince me that happened in 70AD?  Not even conceivable in my mind.

    I do not see how you cannot see rapture in Rev 7:9, because I also see Rapture of the Jews in Rev 14-15, as well as New Converts.

    No one can convince me that the events are out of order in the book of revelation.

    Each Seal has a purpose.  Each event within each seal has a purpose, and the last event is in the last seal.  Remember, THREE WOES.

    Woe #1: Woe #2: Woe #3:

    Ed

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  27. Ed,

    “And, I really could care less as to how people in the first century thought about the book of Revelation.”

    Well, that about does it. I mean, the book was written to them, not us. We can certainly learn from it and apply it to our lives, but it was not written to us (Rev. 1:4). This is especially ironic in light of your earlier comments about consulting Jews. Now you don’t care how first century Jews understood Revelation?!?

    2 Thes. doesn’t mention “the Antichrist”. It does speak of “the man of sin/lawlessness” who will sit in the temple of God (2 Thes. 2:3-4). If you want to use “the Antichrist” to describe him, much like we use the word “Trinity” even though it is not found in the Bible, I suppose you can do so, but you have to be very careful. Not every bad character mentioned in Bible prophecy is “the Antichrist.”

    “And you are trying to convince me that happened in 70AD? Not even conceivable in my mind.”

    Right, it isn’t conceivable to you. No evidence I give you could possibly change your mind, even including the Bible itself.

    Ed, I’m sorry, but I was a dispensationalist for decades, and I still can’t understand how you see the Rapture in Rev. 7:9. There is a great multitude standing before the throne and the Lamb, worshipping and praising God, but it doesn’t say anything about how or when they got there.

    “No one can convince me that the events are out of order in the book of revelation.”

    Let me ask again. Do you believe the events of Rev. 12 are yet to be fulfilled? If not, how do you reconcile that with the fact that you believe the Rapture (which is still future) is in Rev. 7? On that same note, the Marriage Supper of Lamb doesn’t come until the first half of Rev. 19, after Armageddon (Rev. 16) and the fall of Babylon the Great (Rev. 18). But then in the second half of Rev. 19, Jesus comes riding on a white horse, “v.19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.” Whoa! Or should I say, “Woe!” How does that fit into your chronological sequence?!?

    The simple answer is that Revelation is not to be taken in chronological order. Some of the events are flashbacks and some happen concurrently with events described in earlier chapters. And they were going to happen “soon” way back in the first century when it was written (Rev. 1:1-3), but obviously you don’t take that literally.

    Like

  28. TIA,

    When I say that I don’t care what they thought, it is because it is a mute point.  We are to live our lives as if the Master will come at any time.  And that is what they all did.

    The man of sin/lawlessness IS the Anti-Christ!!  Hello?  Why do I say that?  Because Jesus is God, and Jesus is Christ.  The Anti-Christ WILL proclaim to be God.  I don’t understand how you cannot put two and two together here.  It is mind boggling. 

    I live now.  I didn’t live then.  You say that the Book of Revelation was NOT written for us, but for them?  You’ve got to be kidding?  The book was written for anyone who reads it.  Oh, I see…you only see the 7 churches as just for them.  Wow.  We see it for ALL CHURCHES as a warning, then, and now, and future.

    So, who was this man of lawlessness that was proclaiming to be God in 70 AD?  Funny how we didn’t hear this from any Jew?

    In any case, as you will NOTE the first verse in chapter 2…CONCERNING THE COMING OF OUR LORD…(I’m sure that you think that the Lord already came, and somehow we lost out?  My, my, my, WHO taught you these weird things?

    In the same topic is that he will stand in the Temple of God, proclaiming to be God.

    Again, if you are trying to convince me that this took place in 70 AD, it ain’t happening.

    If I had a dime for every time that someone said to me, “I used to believe what you believe…but…”  If you did, WHO changed your mind?  Give me a name.  I want to research this person.  I want to find out the person’s background, religious affiliation.

    2 Thessalonians 2 New International Version (NIV) The Man of Lawlessness 2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

    ________________________________

    Like

  29. Revelation Chapter 12 is a synopsis.  You say that you can’t see rapture in Rev 7 due to the fact that it does not say HOW they got there? 

    Question number 1:  Who cares HOW?   Just know that they are there. Question number 2:  How is it that you can’t find HOW in the remaining parts of the Bible?  Caught up is Rapture.  It’s in the Bible.

    Do you connect dots at all?  You almost sound like a Jehovah’s Witness.  They want CLEAR words that Jesus said the following:  “I am God”.

    Jesus NEVER said “I am God”.  Case closed, as far as the JW’s are concerned. 

    I will go back to THREE WOE’S.  Woe number 1 begins in Revelation 8.

    Revelation 9:12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.

    Woe number 2 begins in Revelation

    Revelation 11:14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

    What is the third woe?  ARMAGEDDON (Chapter 16).  Before the third woe begins RAPTURE OF 144,000 JEWS AND NEW CONVERTS.

    Chapter 12-13 is a time out period for EXPLANATIONS. Chapter 14-15 is RAPTURE of the 144,000 and new converts

    Chapter 16 is Armageddon. 

    God is a God of order, so no event is out of order.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  30. “You say that the Book of Revelation was NOT written for us, but for them?”

    No, I said that it was written TO them, not us. It was written FOR us, but not TO us. We can learn from it, but it says that is about events that will “soon” come to pass. That was 2000 years ago!!! We can see and understand that God is faithful to keep His promises. He destroyed the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70 in fulfillment of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:1-3, 34.

    He told His disciples, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet…” “Ye” is the plural second person pronoun. He was talking to “you”, the disciples standing with him and listening to him back in the first century, not “you”, Ed, many centuries distant. Words have meaning. If He wanted to address you (Ed), He could have easily done so by telling His disciples back in the first century, “When *they* therefore shall see…” But He didn’t. He told them that “you”/they would see the abomination of desolation. Now we can and should learn from what He said to them, back He was talking to them, not us.

    “So, who was this man of lawlessness that was proclaiming to be God in 70 AD? Funny how we didn’t hear this from any Jew?”

    I thought the same thing. I’m not completely settled on this one myself, but here are a few possibilities for your consideration: Nero, Titus, the Roman Empire, apostate Jewish leaders, the Roman Catholic papacy
    http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-2-thessalonians-2-1-12.htm
    http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt550.htm
    http://planetpreterist.com/content/man-lawlessness-part-two
    The prevailing view for about a thousand years was that the Roman Catholic papacy was the “man of sin.” I don’t believe that’s correct, but my point is that there are many possibilities out there besides some future “Antichrist.” Also, the “temple of God” mentioned in v.4 was destroyed in A.D. 70, so obviously it occurred before then.

    And BTW, I noticed that you didn’t respond to my comments about the chronological sequence of Revelation. Do you really still maintain that the events recorded in Revelation occur in a strict chronological sequence (ie. events in later chapters always take place after events in earlier chapters)? If so, I would really be interested to hear your interpretation of Rev. 12 and 19.

    Like

  31. “Revelation Chapter 12 is a synopsis.”

    I’m not sure exactly what you mean. “Synopsis” means “summary” or “outline”. Are you admitting now that Rev. 12 is not in chronological order with the rest of Revelation?

    “You say that you can’t see rapture in Rev 7 due to the fact that it does not say HOW they got there?”

    Ed, you’re the one assuming it refers to a future Rapture despite any evidence of that in the text. No, the text does not specifically have to say that for it to be true, but my point is that that’s an assumption on your part. And that assumption conflicts with the context of the book, which says that it is written about events that were “soon” back in the first century. I don’t deny that one day all believers will be with the Lord. What I am saying is that Rev. 9 describes believers from the first century who were with the Lord in the first century.

    If Rev. 7 is about a future Rapture, then do you think believers will go through the seal judgments in Rev. 6? And what about Rev. 19? If Armageddon is in Rev. 16, and Rev. 17-18 describe the destruction of Babylon the Great, how are the beast and the kings of the earth still gathering an army to wage war against the rider of the white horse?

    I’m still not sure what your point is about the woes. Are you trying to say that they establish a chronological sequence for the book?

    Sorry, you also asked who I got these ideas from. As I said before, it was the contradictions of dispensationalism that led me to seek other explanations. The first time I remember hearing the idea that Jesus “came back” in the first century was when my mother told me that she had heard it from a friend of hers. My mother is still a dispensationalist. Also, I still fellowship at a dispensational assembly (where some people even use Darby’s translation!!!). Anyway, some of the authors whose works have been helpful to me in coming out of dispensationalism (and yes, it is like coming out of a cult in many ways) include Sam Waldron (The End Times Made Simple), Hank Hanegraaff (The Apocalypse Code), Gary DeMar (Last Days Madness), David Chilton (Days of Vengeance). I’m sure there are others who I can’t think of right now. All they really did, though, was break me free from the dispensational system mindset and opened my eyes to see that there are other biblical views of prophecy. On that note, another thing I have observed is that dispensational authors routinely misrepresent opposing views. I still read dispensational magazines and books on occasion, and invariably the position they attack to “prove” dispensationalism is not even a position their opponents hold.

    Okay, I said a while ago that I would stop, and I really need to need. Thanks for the discussion, though. It’s been a blast!

    Like

  32. TIA,

    Which one of those so-called Anti-Christ was a Jew?

    Even the Jews KNOW that the valid Christ is a descendent of King David, thru Solomon.  The Jews MUST BELIEVE that or it isn’t a valid claim.

    Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David

    Matthew 22:41-42(KJV) 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

    In 2 Thes 2, this anti-Christ will be REVEALED.  You are making guesses, not even REVEALING him.

    From a website about your belief, it states: “History records that the Jewish rebellion against Rome and apostasy from the faith was already underway in the early 60s, and reached its climax in the Jewish-Roman War of A.D. 66 – 70.  We propose that Paul’s “man of sin” was, most likely, a specific person who set himself up in the Temple that was standing when Paul was writing. He could have been (take your pick) Nero, Titus, a Zealot leader; the corrupt chief high priest, or a Christian Zealot. All except Nero physically entered the Temple. Though Paul never calls him “antichrist;’ the Apostle John tells us that there were many “antichrists” at work at that time (1 Jn. 2:18; 4:3). No doubt this “man of sin” was one of them. But he was also a special person who had to come on the scene prior to the Lord’s return in A.D. 70 and before the Temple was destroyed.”

    Take your pick?  This is a guy that the WHOLE WORLD will be deceived by, and you don’t know WHO it was? 

    I found a great site that discusses BOTH of our positions:

    http://www.bibleprophecywatchmen.com/index.php/prophecies/79-the-great-debate-futurists-vs-preterists-did-the-abomination-of-desolation-in-matthew-24-15-already-fulfill

    I think that I will just leave it at that.  You believe in preterism, I believe in dispensationalism.

    I won’t change my position, and you won’t change yours.  My passion of this is certainly not based on the teachings of dispensationalism…it’s a conclusion that I made that we are all still here, and the Anti-Christ isn’t, and Jesus never whisked anyone away yet, and no one is in a resurrected body yet, and all that happened in the last 20 years is 2 big buildings have been knocked down, and I was in the Navy in the 80’s and not much happened there either, except some GREAT MUSIC, and a time that I want to go back to…the 80’s.

    I can’t understand for the life of me, how you can conclude that it all took place in 70 AD.  Wow.

    In 2 Thes 2, Paul PRETTY MUCH SAID…DON’T BELIEVE IT.  You believe it.  I don’t get it.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  33. TIA,

    You had said: “And BTW, I noticed that you didn’t respond to my comments about the chronological sequence of Revelation.”

    Not true.  I did. 

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  34. TIA,

    You had said: “Are you admitting now that Rev. 12 is not in chronological order with the rest of Revelation?”

    My response: It has nothing to do with chrono at all.  I showed you the woes, and how each woe is one after another.

    There are chapters in Revelation that have nothing to do with the events at all, but explanations of visions.

    When I say that chapter 12 is a synopsis, that is exactly what I mean.  There is no Revelation “events” taking place…just explanations. 

    Do I beleive that the believers will go thru seals 1-6?  YES.  Because the Man of Sin must be REVEALED FIRST.  Woe number 1 begins the opening of Seal 7.

    Woe is Judgment. 

    Woe number 1, the opening of Seal 7 is the Great Tribulation….the word GREAT is the key word.  Seals 1-6 is not the Great Tribulation.

    Ed

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  35. Sorry for the lack of understanding. You use Strong’s, which is not a commentary at all. You might find this interesting. The Catholic Liturgy, at the Easter Vigil (the night before Easter Sunday) declares that “this is our Passover”. In the Roman Catholic Church, Easter is not just one day. It is called “The Octave of Easter”. We have Easter Sunday, Easter Monday, Easter Tuesday, etc, through Easter Saturday. The Easter season lasts until Pentecost. Thus, the Sunday after Easter is the second Sunday of Easter (also the Feast of Divine Mercy), then we have the third Sunday after Easter, and so on.

    Like

  36. What the Church Fathers said is not necessarily what is included in Catholic doctrine. There was wide disagreement among the Church Fathers on several issues. Their writings do include things on which Christians today agree on. There is merit in reading them. And, there is merit in consulting commentaries. You can compare what is said with your KJV, & ditch what you don’t like. Outside opinions can sometimes be helpful. And that’s all I have to say on the Church Fathers.

    Like

  37. It wasn’t me that brought up the chronological point, but the dispensationalism you learned surely mirrors mine. The whole “nothing is left to be fulfilled” was also contradicted by the “1948 statehood of Israel” and the seeming increase in natural disasters. The fact is that there were times throughout history when natural disasters occurred on a regular basis, with greater loss of life than we see today.

    Like

  38. I can give you a name and a book he wrote. He was raised within an evangelical, dispensational home, and some of the leaders of that movement came to supper at his house. He grew up to teach the doctrine. He is David Currie. The book he penned is “The Rapture, the End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind”. That book uses a lot of the book of Daniel in his exegesis. He also wrote “Will Catholics Be Left Behind?” That book is the one that goes into detail about his religious background. He believed as you do now. Just a suggestion, of course, because you asked.

    Like

  39. Sheila,

    My hot topic, with the Catholics generally, is that I would rather consult the living on earth, than the dead in the grave.  That’s why I really don’t care what dead people think.  My question would be “What do you think?”  I would consult you, not a dead guy.  And, all in all, Jesus lives, so I would rather consult Jesus (The WORD) of God.  Catholics don’t think that is sufficient, tho.  To some Catholics, some think that the New Test is continually being written…to this day. 

    I was confused with Catholicism before even knowing what it was, back in grade school, trying to figure out why we had fish on Friday for our school lunch.  I wasn’t religious, or Catholic.  Then I learned that it was mandatory for Catholics, then out of nowhere, the Catholics did away with it?  First, God requires it, then God changes his mind?  That’s how my grade school mind worked in questioning religion, and…to this day, I hate religion, but I love Christianity.  Christianity without religion!!

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  40. Sheila,

    Ya, the 1948 date is a very important aspect.  Prior to that, I know that most of Christianity wrote off the logic that Israel would ever get back home.  But they did, and still are. 

    The 2004 tsunami I think was the worst natural disaster that I have seen.  I was in Phuket Thailand in 1984.  Little did I know that 20 years later, major destruction.  I couldn’t believe what I was seeing on TV. 

    But, another thing to look at is spiritual things in regards to the Jews.  What I mean by that is “a day is as a thousand years…” type of things.  We are probably wrong, but some of us say that the closer we get to the Hebrew year of 6000, the more signs that we will see.  From year 6000 to year 7000 would be a “Day of Rest”, AKA The 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth.  This is a plausible concept, until proven wrong.

    My point is:  We have many spiritual things in the Hebrew scriptures that many have not bothered to check out, or choose to ignore, AKA Noah’s Ark is really not a story about Noah’s Ark.  Yes, Noah’s Ark really did happen, so I am not saying that it didn’t.  But, spiritually, it has nothing to do with Noah’s Ark.  It has been suggested that Noah’s Ark is not only a carnal story, but a spiritual story that Jesus is the Ark, and Christians are “IN” the Ark, protected by Jesus, ABOVE the earth, while destruction is happening below on the earth.  Summary:  Noah’s Ark is another way to describe the rapture of the righteous.  After all, Noah was indeed righteous. 

    My whole point:  Get rid of all of our carnal thinking, and let’s get down to digging up spiritual things, hidden by God, for us to find. 

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  41. I think that where I really want to do, Sheila, is to explore the deep seeded anger that people have for dispensationalism.  I have been noticing that a lot lately, even before I noticed your anger.  I’ve been ignoring that anger for a while, but it really seems to be something that interests me as to the origin of that anger.  Is the origin based on the teaching of it being a salvation issue?  Or does it have something to do with some feeling oh so sorry for them poor, poor Palestinians, who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails at the Israeli’s?  Or does it have to do with the attitude of the American soldiers of the Vietnam War where attitudes of “Make Love, Not War” began?  My point:  God promised that land to the Jews, not the Gentiles.  The children of Israel, not the child of Isaac.  Remember, carnal vs. spiritual.  They are two fold, not just one fold.  Cut Jews, get the land, uncut Jews are cut off from the land.  But there seems to be people wanting to sublet God’s land to others, i.e. to them oh so poor poor Palestinians.  I am for the Jews, not the Palestinians.  Palestinians are Gentiles.

    ________________________________

    Like

  42. Sheila,

    What does “Caught Up” mean to you from the Bible?

    That is rapture.  Rapture and Caught up are both defined as “to seize”.

    To seize where?  UP.  Up where?  In the air. 

    I find it hard to believe that rapture isn’t believed.  My simple mind can’t get that part.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  43. “think that where I really want to do, Sheila, is to explore the deep seeded anger that people have for dispensationalism.”

    Yeah, I have noticed that, too. And not only anger but from some pastors on blogs total disdain for dispensationalism. To some on spiritual abuse blogs they even blame it for spiritual abuse!. I find it strange but it usually comes from the Reformed wing. And I guess that makes sense because of the long time so called “orthodox” position of “replacement theology” where it was taught that the church “replaced” Israel. (Makes sense coming from the “state church” theocracy type leaders) Which I think misses the larger narrative that most of “Israel” was not even saved for crying out loud. It misses the point of there being a chosen people at all for God to work with, through and around juxtaposed against the pagan backdrop of the OT. I guess it is the idea of individual election vs corporate election and forgetting that all salvation comes from a belief in and obedience to— Yahweh.

    I am not dipsy but I am also not replacement theology. RP could have made some sense up until 1948. I think a case can be made that Revelation was written before the Temple was sacked and the sacral system totally dismantled at that point. But I also do not read Rev as literal but apocryphal.

    I just don’t think eschatology is all wrapped up neatly into any specific camp. But I do believe God keeps his promises. ALL of them no matter who they were made to or when.

    Ed, As to the Palestinians, their wake up call should have been when Arafat died a billionaire. That should have been a clue they have been used by other Muslims/Arabs for decades.

    Like

  44. Part of the issue re church v Israel “replacement” comes from the idea that God “elected” Israel and the church consists of the “unconditionally elected” according to Calvinists, thus the church has replaced Israel as the “people of God”.

    Like

  45. Disciplines can change, such as the whole fish on Friday thing. Did you know that if one chooses to eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent, that they are supposed to substitute something else in its place? This can range from time reading the Bible, or extra time in prayer, or volunteering one’s time in service to the needy. It’s easier just to avoid meat, isn’t it? But the Church wants us to engage God and engage the world in which we live. Also, celibacy is also a discipline in the Latin Rite, but not the Eastern Rites in union with Rome. Priests can marry in the Byzantine & other such Eastern churches, although I believe Bishops are not free to marry in those churches.

    Anyway, I am astounded that you never consult the dead. Does that mean you don’t ever read documents from former U.S. Presidents now dead, or other nonfiction works by those who have passed on? Ideas live on long after we die, and those ideas are often written down. I just don’t get your refusal to read anything outside of the Bible. What about Christian writers who are still alive? Do you read their works until they pass away?

    What in the world do you read? I’ve never met anyone like you. You are fascinating.

    Like

  46. Well, Ed, you’re replying to my comment to Tia. Not sure if you followed that thread. We were commenting on “what has to happen” prior to the Rapture. Some believe that the Temple will be rebuilt.

    Also, I believe that Adam & Eve, Job, Noah’s Ark, and Jonah are allegories, and didn’t really take place. I don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. But I really don’t want to further the clutter in the comments section, which was a lighthearted look at the animals who will be “left behind”.

    Like

  47. My anger stems from feeling betrayed that I was taught dispensationalism as the absolute and only teaching of the Word of God that is correct. As I said before, I never shared that initial shock for many years. I merely started to pay attention to what others were saying about those cut and paste texts.

    Like

  48. I don’t believe in The Rapture/Left Behind. I believe the parousia in I Thessalonians is the real Second Coming, in which we all will be caught up to Jesus to face our judgment. I believe in a particular judgment when we die, and a final judgment at the end of time as we know it. You’ll say that St Paul doesn’t mention nonbelievers in I Thessalonians. That’s because the believers are the ones who were worried about what happened to their loved ones who died already, since Jesus hadn’t come back, yet. He was speaking only to that issue.

    Like

  49. I keep trying to end the convo with Ed, but then he asks me a question and, well, I feel obliged to answer. Sorry. I dearly want to stop talking about the whole thing, myself, but I don’t want to be rude to Ed. He’s pretty interesting.

    Like

  50. “My anger stems from feeling betrayed that I was taught dispensationalism as the absolute and only teaching of the Word of God that is correct”

    Were you taught that belief in dispensationalism was a salvic issue? I hope not! when I was growing up, most of the pastors I knew presented all the differing views and encouraged people to study on their own.

    In any event, what you are saying makes a good argument for teaching our children to be Bereans and seek the Holy Spirit for guidance. What that does is help these issues not to be so black and white so we might miss there are some truths in other positions instead of turning totally against one position and going totally in the opposite direction thinking it is completely right. I see so many young people doing this with YRR teaching…becoming atheists after having it shoved down their throats growing up as the correct picture of God. .

    Like

  51. Not salvific in and of itself, but to not believe was considered “not rightly dividing the Word of truth”, and being susceptible to being deceived by the devil. Great pressure was put on us to follow what the pastor preached, lest we fall into heresy and leave the church. We were actively discouraged from listening to any other viewpoint. I’m still a Christian. It’s Jesus that is my focus, and not some all consuming adherence to the Bible, which is almost worshiped in my old church. I think the physical Bible was almost an idol to some.

    Like

  52. “It’s Jesus that is my focus, and not some all consuming adherence to the Bible, which is almost worshiped in my old church. I think the physical Bible was almost an idol to some.”

    It is strange, Isn’t it Sheila? Think of believers for centuries up until the scriptures were allowed to be read by the laity (there is no such thing as laity in the NT but you know what I mean) . How on earth were they to view the scriptures? After all, there were only “special people” vetted by the political leaders to tell them what it said. To interpret it for them.

    It is much more dangerous today where most people can read them for themselves. That is why we have so many interpretation wars, denominations and translations.

    Then we have this ridiculous notion of inerrancy as if all translators over time were inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit for all their word choices. Of course we know this cannot be true because so many movements have their favorite translation that is “inerrant”. The Reformed YRR say it is the ESV. The Fundy IFB types say it is the KJV. So, which is it? (wink)

    (Most translations have a political historical reason for existing)

    Scripture can be a history book or a club to beat folks with. Or, it can be an Inspired grand narrative of how God works with, through and around people over time culminating in coming to earth as a mere lowly nobody —- our Savior.

    Yep, we do not worship a book. We worship a LIVING Savior.

    Like

  53. Actually, the term “laity” derives from a word that means “people of God”. In truth, all Christians in the NT time were laity. There was no “clergy” per se, if that is the “professional” Christian leader-type. That was a later development. Elders were elders because they had survived longer than others in the faith, and supposedly would have more wisdom than the newbies. And a bishop was really an elder elected to provide guidance and leadership to the churches of his city as long as he lived, which usually wasn’t very.

    Like

  54. Anon by choice, I have understand it to be totally opposite. Clergy as in the “priesthood” of which all true believers are a part of.

    Laity— you will find in words like Nicolaitans which refers to conquerors of the people.

    There is no clergy/laity divide in the NT priesthood. All true followers of Christ are “priests” now. Which is another reason the whole comp/pat doctrinal stance is so ridiculous.

    So, all believers are actually “clergy” as understood being a part of the Holy Priesthood of believer. Of course there are various functions within the Priesthood such as Deacon, elder, pastor, etc. All serving functions. The body is full of priests! Or clergy if you will.

    Like

  55. So all of us are laity (the people of God) and all of us are priests by virtue of the priesthood of each and every believer. Which, I believe makes all of us directly able to access God through the Holy Spirit, without the intervention of another human, and makes each and every one of us “ordained” by God to serve others as a fellow priest. I see nothing in the Bible about that priesthood that suggests that any are second class priests due to gender, race, or whatever.

    Like

  56. “So all of us are laity (the people of God) and all of us are priests by virtue of the priesthood of each and every believer. Which, I believe makes all of us directly able to access God through the Holy Spirit, without the intervention of another human, and makes each and every one of us “ordained” by God to serve others as a fellow priest. I see nothing in the Bible about that priesthood that suggests that any are second class priests due to gender, race, or whatever.”

    I don’t either. Guess I am confused with your response.. My original point was that laity was not a term describing the Body of Christ. But Priesthood is. Laity has become a word typically used to describe a laity/clergy divide that is not there. Historically used by those who want a divide,

    Like

  57. I’ve held to maybe six different views on eschatology. Each of the ones taught by a church or circle of theology I’ve determined was a teaching of man, then I moved on to the next only to discover the same thing. First was a year in high school youth group with dispensational pre-mil. Rapture, anti-christ, the movie where the housewife wakes up to find her husband’s razor buzzing in the sink, all that. People were rabid in their rapture facts, watching the evening news for clues on end times starting, playing pin-the-tail-on-the-antichrist. Many were sure the clues meant the rapture would happen in 1981. Dispensationalists ans dispsensationalists.

    Years later, I converted to Christianity through the radio ministry of Harold Camping. He had his own twisted version of Reformed a-millennialism. His end of the world predictions failed miserably. Next, I stumbled across traditional Reformed a-millennialism. Then a progressive dispy church that held to historic pre-millennialism (thousand year reign of Christ on earth but without all the rapture/antichrist stuff). I also read some stuff on partial preterism. Then I stumbled across post-millennialism from some reconstructionist writings. Then I attended a MacArthur clone church that went back to my beginnings of pre-mil rapture stuff. I successfully engaged the pastor on his views (he didn’t know I was successful but reverted to the master plan with inconsistencies, not answering some of my questions).

    Each of these systems I believed at the time because they were what I was taught at the time. They each had believable refutations of each of my previous systems (they all do). One thing most of these systems had in common was an extreme adherance with untold hours of time people put into working the systems out. Many people were end times junkies with no time left over for things like loving people and stuff like that.

    Like

  58. Hi Sheila, and others.

    I took today to sort of take a step back, and I was surprised to see the conversation still happening…without me.

    Sheila, I am glad you find me interesting. I do love to talk about God, to anyone, anytime. I’ve had roommates that were Wiccans, and atheists, and we get along really good. One thing that I have learned from them, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to offend them, because they are comfortable in their non-belief positions. It seems that the ones that I piss off are the believers. Kinda strange, but true. My beliefs are in line with the two (Count them, two) different churches that I attend on Sundays. And what I mean by that, is that I’ve heard each pastor say that he doesn’t care what eschatology belief that we have…they present each, unbiased, and leaves it up to us to decide. We even had a study on each. Why? Because by the time that we find out who is right, or who is wrong, we will be long dead and gone, so it doesn’t really matter. The only ones it’s gonna matter to are those who will be going thru it. It’s not a salvation issue.

    I find it difficult to grasp the concept of you believing that the stories in the OT are allegory. To me, that makes it a fiction book (Not a true document). If that were my view, I would not be a Christian. What I believe is that the stories are real, and factual, but have a spiritual interpretation to them…i.e. the Promised Land. I cannot deny that the promise to the land are for only Jews, which means that no Gentile inherits the land at all. But, there is a spiritual interpretation that the promised land is heaven itself. I also believe that ALL stories in the law and the prophets are factual, but ALSO have a spiritual interpretation. Case in point, Jonah. He was a prophet about Jesus. But his story is real and factual.

    I plan on addressing your questions and comments in regards to me not wanting to consult dead people, etc….and the fish on Friday thing, but, in short, Christian conduct has nothing to do with food. Rituals isn’t what pleases God. What pleases God is a contrite heart, a humble heart, and faith.

    Ed

    Like

  59. Steve Scott: “Many people were end times junkies with no time left over for things like loving people and stuff like that.”

    Steve S.,

    I love the way you chronicled your story, and yet it hurts, only because I ran through the mill of many system.

    I searched to serve with all of my heart, to love & serve Jesus.

    Now I am back in the saddle of loving people & stuff like that. Kinda boring &

    mundane.

    Some-days I wonder if I am missing the mark, others I trust that that I am called to

    the ordinary, the least, the lost. The likes of me.

    Like

  60. You have heard of Google.com, no?  That is about as far as I will help you. 

    My only source document is the Bible alone, which I wish that you would consult as your only source document.  Why do you want to know what others believe, anyway?  Why not form your own opinion based on what YOU and you alone find ON YOUR OWN from the pages of the Rock of Ages?  That is what I do.  It just so happens that Darby believed what I believe…not the other way around.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  61. Here is my take, based on Scripture alone, on matters of eschatology. I am certain of only three things:

    Jesus will return.

    There will be a bodily resurrection of the dead.

    We will come to a full understanding of end time events only after they have occurred.

    Like

  62. Well, sheila0405,

    I can say with absolute confidence that your interpretation is off base.  And I’ve read the Bible several times.  I know what happened to the temple.  And I know that the temple will be rebuilt. 

    So, we have an impasse.  Care to take this conversation privately?

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  63. I agree with the three things Gary W said a couple of comments above. I would add something else. The Great Commission (Matt 28). Jesus told us to disciple all the nations. Will the Great Commission be a success or a failure? If it will be a success, then all the nations of the earth will be completely Christianized by the time of Christ’s return. If it is a failure, then we all might be raptured next Tuesday. Or in 1981. Why would the Great Commission ever be a failure?

    It is interesting in the great judgement passage in Matthew 25 that there are no heathen mentioned on earth when Christ returns. All the goats are professing Christians who did not provide for the least of Christ’s people.

    Like

  64. JA,

    No, I’ve been going thru one by one from the oldest first.  I still haven’t read them all.  I get these comments via my email, so I don’t look at the latest comment first, and I respond to comments from my email, mostly, without actually going to your blog website.  Just out of curiosity I read yours.  I will read the remaining before making another comment.  Thanks.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  65. This is a general announcement. I am no longer following this thread. It got too far away from its humerous intent, and I’m contributing to the clutter anymore, which means that I no longer will reply to any comments here. One less voice in the crowd. The whole dispensational conversation is one that is going nowhere. If you wish to message me privately, I’m on facebook and my name on there is daisyvondoodle.

    Like

  66. I’ve “left behind” the discussion on eschatology here (no, really), but I do feel the following comment needs a response.

    Ed wrote:
    “My only source document is the Bible alone, which I wish that you would consult as your only source document. Why do you want to know what others believe, anyway? Why not form your own opinion based on what YOU and you alone find ON YOUR OWN from the pages of the Rock of Ages? That is what I do.”

    Ed, that is not what you do. You are here at SSB interacting with other people. You’ve said you go to two churches every Sunday and talked with the pastors. Do you plug your ears when they are preaching? Obviously you do take input from other people, not simply forming “your own opinion based on what YOU and you alone find ON YOUR OWN from the pages of the Rock of Ages.” You may come to your own conclusions, but the idea that you come to them completely independently is patently false. You wouldn’t even have the Bible apart from other people. And you mentioned earlier that you use Strong’s concordance. But that contradicts what you’re now saying about the Bible as “your only source document.” Don’t get me wrong. You should consult other people and references. My point is that you don’t believe or live up to the standards you are putting forth in your comment quoted above. No man is an island. We are a body. See Eph. 4:11-16 and 1 Cor. 12.

    Like

  67. Catholics know that the bestselling “Left Behind” books and movies have grossly perverted Catholicism’s biblical “rapture” doctrine – the only “rapture” view before 1830.
    The 2000-year-old Catholic “rapture” occurs AFTER the final “tribulation” (post-tribulation) while the 185-year-old evangelical Protestant “rapture” supposedly occurs BEFORE it (pre-tribulation) and is said to be “imminent.”
    All Catholics should read journalist Dave MacPherson’s “The Rapture Plot” (available by calling 800.643.4645) – the most accurate documentation on the history of the pretrib rapture which began in British cultic circles in 1830. By twisting Scripture, this new doctrine gave folks the (false) hope of being evacuated from earth before the chaos found in the book of Revelation.
    “The Rapture Plot” reveals, for the first time, how a Plymouth Brethren historian, after John Darby’s death, secretly and dishonestly changed the earliest “rapture” writings of the Irvingites (the first group publicly teaching a pretrib rapture) so that he could wrongfully credit P.B. leader Darby with “dispensationalism” as well as with that rapture view! (Some still view Darby as the “father of dispensationalism” even though MacPherson’s book amply proves that Darby wasn’t first or original with any crucial aspect of that system but subtly plagiarized others!)
    The leading pretrib rapture merchandisers (Scofield, Lindsey, LaHaye etc.) are openly anti-Catholic and believe that the Antichrist during the coming tribulation will be headquartered in Rome (and you can guess where!).
    For more shocks Google “Catholics Did NOT Invent the Rapture,” “The Real Manuel Lacunza,” “Pseudo-Ephraem Taught Pretrib – NOT!,” “John Darby Did NOT Invent the Rapture,” “Margaret Macdonald’s Rapture Chart” (she originated the pretrib rapture!), “Edward Irving is Unnerving,” “Famous Rapture Watchers,” “Evangelicals Use Occult Deception,” “Pretrib Hypocrisy,” and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty.”

    / I spotted the above on the net. Any reaction to it? /

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s