***
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.
***
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Mel said: “Hi. My name is Mel and I’m a Catholic. We’re been pretty much assured that all Catholics – en masse – will be left behind. We also have precedent on taking care of animals – look up the stories about St. Francis. So, just make sure you leave a list of your animals with a Catholic neighbor. We’ll take ‘em in”.
Bless you, & thank you for your kind offer, my friend, but this little old Methodist lady is, as I previously indicated, not going anywhere that my cats aren’t welcome.
I have family precedent to guide me: The winter before I was born, my father walked home 20+ miles in an upstate NY snowstorm with an abandoned kitten zipped into his jacket. His ride had refused to have the poor thing in his new car. Dad said, “Well, if your car is too good for a cat, I KNOW its too good for me”, & he walked…..That was my first cat. It was also a heckuva lesson in standing your ground against people who think they’re too good for the rest of us.
So, when you take in those strays, you can send any extra kitties over here. We’ve been saving wee lost ones since the 1940’s.
LikeLike
TIA,
Lastly, the Promised Land is Two-Fold.
1. Spiritual, in which you discuss. But it also is 2. Carnal, as I discuss.
It goes both ways here. The Jews who are cut get the carnal promise.
Those who are IN Christ get the spiritual promise.
If you want references, I can provide.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Ed wrote, “Well, I do not see what I said that pissed her off.”
Exactly, Ed. This is what a major part of this blog is all about. You don’t see it. That’s the problem.
Let me help you. Her entire upbringing was dominated by a belief system where dispensational eschatology was el doctrino numero uno. It was pounded into her brain with a sledge hammer and the slightest doubt, question or failure to toe the line meant she was looked at like some commie hippie living in Berkeley on shrooms. And it was done by peope who wouldn’t tolerate a differing viewpoint, or even a lack of interest in the topic.
And today, both the views expressed and the manner in which they are expressed by you are the same as by the people who made her life miserable for several decades. Do you see why she might want to avoid extending the conversation? She knows she can’t make any real progress in discussing it with you, so she quits while she’s ahead.
And, Ed, it’s not that it’s dispensationalism per se that people have a problem with. I have the same issues with other groups of Christians in my history. The conspiracy theorists, the 5-point only Calvinists, the Campingites, MacArthurites and Rushdoonyites. Me? I have a tendency to talk about baseball. So I have to watch what I say to whom. And with theology, I have to reel in my zeal for ecclesiology. Numerous times I have been tempted to post 85 comments on Julie Anne’s blog about simple questions she asks. I almost did this week on this post with regards to the opposing views to dispensationalism. But thank God I had to get up at 4am and I needed to erase my e-book before I hit “Post Comment.”
And it doesn’t matter how right you are. Sometimes that’s the problem. We have such a zeal to be right that we’re willing to be wrong in how we assert our rightness. “What I did is to lay out scripture, and definitions.” It just may not work with her.
LikeLike
Steve – Excellent comment. Ed, Steve articulated far better than me. That zeal – no matter what the issue is – can be triggering for some. And so how do we balance that with allowing debating as well? I think it means that we have to be more sensitive knowing that people here can get triggered by that kind of zeal.
I’m really glad this came up. I know there have been some who don’t feel comfortable here because of Calvinism debates (which is party why I like to redirect them to the Calvin debate thread).
But now, Steve, I’m probably going to stay up half the night wondering about this:
I am dying to know what questions you are referring to. It’s ok. I’ll get over it. I think.
LikeLike
Steve Scott,
That’s still not my problem.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Ed – – Are you saying it’s not your problem that she is triggered?
.
LikeLike
JA,
I hope that you can see that she had just as much zeal in this conversation that I did. We both came at each other with the same amount of dishing out.
The way I see it, is how I said it before, that she brought her anger to the table, and that anger I am not responsible for.
She began her conversation by NOT revealing any abuse at all. Her part of the debate was that the KJV Bible convinced her that dispensationalism is not true.
And that is where I took her on. She never revealed abuse until much later. She never revealed “trigger” until much later.
And, based on what she said about God, she is judging God, when she said, “It’s bad enough that the God of the Old Test…”
Red Flag, Red Flag…It’s bad enough? Really? Is that something that she is angry with me about, or is she really angry at God about, for being the God of the Old Test?
No, I will not take responsibility for her anger.
With much respect,
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Yes, I am saying that, JA. I really am. She never revealed abuse. Why do you think that you had to ask me this morning if I had read her posts before I replied. Had I known, I would have indeed had sympathy. She has a responsibility in this just as much as me.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Here: “…it’s not a primary doctrine issue, but how do you see that believing it leads people astray? What do you mean by astray? Lose their salvation? A distraction?”
Seriously, I coud write volumes. But I won’t. I almost did. 😉
LikeLike
Ed
You abuse the scripture by choice. People who pray, ask for guidance by the Holy Spirit, and read the Bible thoroughly can come to different conclusions than you do about eschatology. And I have heard famous preachers with Ph.D.s from solidly conservative seminaries say that people who believe as you do are denying the truth of other portions of scripture to support their understanding and are also denying the statements of Jesus about the end times.
It is the constant pounding of people with other views and telling them they are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, for disagreeing with you. Quite frankly, I have begun to skip over every post you make, because I have heard it all before, spent years (over 40) reading and learning the scripture, and I do not agree with YOUR interpretation, having studied it diligently.
And please stop telling people that they are denying scripture when they disagree with YOUR interpretation. They are not. And it drives people away, defeating the very thing you are trying to accomplish.
LikeLike
Anon by Choice,
I disagree with your assessment of me, but hey, that’s ok. As you do see, I do back up what I say.
However, I am seeing a trend, in that people hate “fundies”, because it is the fundies that produced abuse. I can assure you that I am no fundie. Now, if the fundies believe in the same that I believe, that isn’t because I am a fundie…it’s just a coincidence.
Why do I say that? Because I don’t believe everything that a fundie believes in the first place, and I do back up what I say to them as well.
In no way, shape, or form am I saying anything for the purpose of hurting anyone, or to cause “triggers”.
All I am asking for is that people read their bibles “on their own”, and make up their own mind. But don’t just stop there. Compare with others, because Iron sharpens Iron.
My issue with Sheila is that she claimed to have read the same book as I, and she proved from the KJV that dispensationalism is false. So, I retorted. Does that make me the big bad wolf here? Apparently so, by a few. I don’t understand, when I back up what I say, and challenge people to rethink what they have been taught.
Jesus asked time and time again, “Have you not read…?” Well…I read.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Ed,
Sometimes this moderating thing just plain sucks – because essentially I am in a position of authority in what I allow and don’t allow on the blog. I’m always trying to assess what is happening here – not just the words, but the emotions – – assessing harm or good – – – trying to understand what drives a person’s zeal and their heart and take that into consideration as I’m looking at the big picture. What helps me in this situation is that I’ve known you for a while and I know your heart.
That said, group dynamics give us a good barometer of how people come across. There have been some who have tried to explain to you that it’s not necessarily the words, but the way the words come across (and I get that you said Sheila used the same kind of zeal).
Our mutual friend, Brad, just e-mailed out snippets of the big project he’s working on and as I was reading through it, I saw the title, “Do Good Plus Do No Harm.” I love that.
This excerpt I found exceptionally valuable and I hope we all will consider this in our dealings with each other (and I’m so glad this preview is already online here):
LikeLike
Ed,
In Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 (why did you leave that one out?), Jesus says to His disciples who were with Him, “When *ye* shall see the abomination of desolation…”. He wasn’t talking to us, He was talking to them. They were the ones who would see it, back in the first century.
Your quotation of Daniel assumes what you need to prove. It mentions “the end times”, but “the end times” of what? Matthew 24 makes clear that “the end” (in that context) refers to the temple standing in the first century A.D. and the end of the OT sacrificial system which was fulfilled by Christ (see Hebrews).
Compare Dan. 12 with Rev. 22:6-21. When Daniel wrote, the end was not yet near. When John wrote Revelation, the end was near. “The last days” were in the first century (Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 2:16-18).
I understand where you’re coming from. I was there for most of my life. I know it sounds crazy to think otherwise. When I first heard that Jesus “came back” in the first century, I thought it was ludicrous. But about a decade later I heard more about it and it answered the questions/contradictions that I had seen in dispensationalism from a Biblical perspective instead of a man-made system.
LikeLike
TIA,
When Jesus said “as spoken by Daniel…” that told me to seek out Daniel. That tells me that it was not discussing 70 AD.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
JA,
And Brad,
I do understand, and I will “try” to heed to the advice.
But, on the other side of the coin, the Pharisees and Saducees did know the scriptures, extremely well. After all, the Apostle Paul was a Pharisee, and he was an expert at the scriptures, so was Nicodemus, but this is what Jesus said to some of those people:
1. Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 2. Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 3. Mark 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. 4. John 3:10 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”Those experts didn’t like to be corrected by the “Word of God”. They were “offended”.
Maybe I could say the word “err” instead of “hogwash”?
I get what you are saying, and I will try to tone it down. I just need to figure out how to do that without “offending” anyone.
Ed
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
I know, Ed, it’s a balancing act – – and especially here where many people want to run away from anything that looks/smells Christianese.
And I get this, too, because last week at church I heard the expression “word of prayer” and I had a thought of how odd that expression might sound to someone not familiar with Christianese talk.
I wish there were a way that commenters could color-code their comments to indicate they are in debate mode so those who don’t want to read it can skim on by.
Thanks for saying you’ll try harder, Ed.
LikeLike
Oh, Ed, btw, Brad’s not part of this – – I just happened to see his e-mail this morning and it reminded me of what’s been going on here.
LikeLike
Ed,
I live in a town with both a seminary and a graduate (Ph.D.) program in religion, the latter of long standing. I know many of the faculty in each of those entities. Many (? most, especially of the older ones) once believed in dispensationalism, and, as a result of their own studies, have come to believe otherwise. It is NOT a reformed or Calvinist seminary, and the religion department is rather broad, but not generally reformed or Calvinist either.
Hear what I am saying. There are many who were where you are on this issue who now are not, based on their own studies of the scriptures. And that includes me.
On top of that, your insistence on the KJV, which is the poorest English translation because of the biases of the translators, also tells me that your studies are limited by differences in meaning between the British English of the 1600s and American English of the 20th and 21st century. Your arguments have holes in them as a result.
And I will not debate with you on the scripture. I have read it, I read it, and I will continue to read it, and I will supplement that reading with what I can gain from the great theological minds of the 20th and 21st century, while using the available resources to parse out exactly what the scripture means, as it comes from the earliest available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts.
LikeLike
Anon by Choice,
I respectfully disagree. Please note what I have been saying in my quotes of scriptures, especially with my discussion with TIA.
Daniel Chapter 8. I go to that chapter because Jesus said “…as spoken by Daniel…”
That is prophecy of the time of the end, and it is at the time of the end that sacrifices are taken away. It can’t be taken away unless it is restarted.
Daniel 8:17
“…Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.”
What is the “vision”?
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Ed,
You continue. I will not debate. You are wrong, but unwilling to consider what anyone else says. OK. You can go to your grave believing in dispensationalism. But I will not debate you. It is a waste of time, and I have many things to do that will have some success in helping people who are seeking justice, who need Jesus, and who are willing to learn.
LikeLike
Ed,
I agree with referencing Daniel. My point is that you are assuming that Daniel is referring to an “end” different than the end of the OT sacrificial system which culminated with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. You have not shown that from Scripture. You have simply assumed it. Quoting Scripture is great, but you have to quote it in context. And based on the context in Matthew 24, your assumption is clearly wrong.
Matthew 24:1-3
1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
The discussion Jesus had with His disciples was about the temple, the sign of His coming, and the end of the age. I think we agree that He was talking about the temple then standing. But I presume you think “His Coming” and “the end of the age” refer to something else. First of all, why would you assume that His disciples are bringing up completely unrelated topics?
Even more instructive, though, is that fact that His disciples were most definitely not referring to what we call “the Second Coming.” How do I know this? Because they didn’t even know/understand that yet! Consider their dialogue at the Last Supper which took place after the dialogue in Matthew 24. Up until John 13 and 14, they didn’t even know/understand that Jesus was going away, so they certainly weren’t asking about Him “coming back” in that sense in Matthew 24.
Then, you may ask, In what sense were they asking about His coming? In the sense referred to in Daniel 7.
Daniel 7:13
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
This verse refers to “one like a son of man” “coming with the clouds of heaven.” But He is coming, not down to earth, but up to “the Ancient of Days” in power and glory. Read the whole chapter and you’ll see how it is related to the context of Daniel 8 which you quoted. The “coming” the disciples were asking about was the Lord’s coming into His kingdom, which occurred in the events of His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and was verified/confirmed/demonstrated by the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.
In this regard, consider also the Jesus’ words to the Sanhedrin:
Matthew 26:61-64
Finally two came forward 61and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’ ”
62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Note that they are talking about the destruction of the temple and Jesus quotes Daniel 7:13 about His “coming” in that regard.
As far as the “end of the age” goes, again you are assuming that refers to the end of time/end of the universe as we know it, but you have not shown that from Scripture, and the context clearly indicates a different view–the end of the OT system. Again, see the book of Hebrews in that regard.
I hope this helps. Again, I understand where you’re coming from and don’t expect that you will change your views instantaneously, but I would encourage you to continue to search the Scriptures and not simply accept some man-made system/framework which is based on unproven assumptions.
LikeLike
Ed, at bottom, I think it’s a matter of practical priority.
As I see it from my reading, the issue for Jesus wasn’t that the Pharisees haunting him could/couldn’t recite the whole of their scriptures, or that they did/didn’t know how to make the parts tie together in beautiful harmony, but that they didn’t understand that scriptures were written for humans. When dignity and compassion for the humans around them were left out of their reckonings, the fundamental reason for “all the law and the prophets” were missed. Thus Jesus said they were ignorant of scripture because they did not understand its purpose.
You are not at all a Pharisee but many in the theological groups surrounding you are, and I think that attitude sometimes spills over. Sometimes I’ve had to scour to find your genuinely kind heart because you become so wrapped up in correct understandings of scripture that it trumps compassion for those to whom you write. I am always so relieved to find your real heart, and I’d love to see it shine out in unity with your words.
LikeLike
Anon by Choice,
You are accusing me of what you are now doing, i.e., “You are wrong”.
It is your choice not to debate with me. Yes, I do stand by what I quoted from scripture. I cannot budge. It’s my core belief that Daniel 8 spells it out, very plainly.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
TIA,
With respect, please quote Daniel as you understand it. Jesus pointed to Daniel, and Daniel is where I went. If there is another Daniel that I don’t know, please tell me.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Patrice,
I respect your opinion of me. I know that we got off on a bad start, but I understand where you are coming from, and I caved with you.
What I am finding in this debate is that people refuse to believe in dispensationalism because someone “shoved it down their throat”.
That was the bad approach. The right approach is to do it in a way that the Apostle Paul and Jesus did. Sometimes the Apostle Paul was not so nice about it. I am sure that we can agree on that.
Jesus said that whosoever states, “Thou Fool” shall be in danger of hell fire, and in 1 Cor 15, Paul said, “Thou Fool”. How pissed was he?
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
TIA,
After re-reading your comment to me, you accuse me of “assuming” that the end is the end of days, rather than the end of the OT sacrificial system.
I have no idea where you come up with end of OT sacrificial system.
There are other words throughout the Bible, in the OT scriptures, pertaining to the Jewish people, not discussing Gentiles, that discuss Last Days, latter days, etc.
You can do a connect the dots with these, it’s that simple.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
I respect you too. But see, by your very words under cover of verse, “danger of hell fire” and “fool”, you choose the “correct” view over the human. And this is not over the fundamental of Christianity, that we accept the God of Creation and His/Her work through Christ, which all commenters here have done and do. Rather, it is over ways to view the Bible, of which there are many, and which you, with your experiences/abilities, have chosen a particular one.
It is healthy to evaluate people in the church on the fundamentals of salvation and relationship with God. Otherwise, it is healthy to debate so that we can increase our clarity of this God we worship. But debate has nothing to do with hell fire. And scripturally, we are also encouraged never to call each other a “fool”. Debate not done in love and with respect are not what God’s looking for between His/Her children.
As for those who don’t know God or refuse Him/Her, God alone carries that job of judging. We are too small for it; we do not know enough.
All in all, we are asked to accept Christ, learn to love/walk with God, and love each other, self, and the world God made.
And yes we humans sometimes get angry because we’ve been hurt by other people’s views. That is because people’s views, every single one of them, are harmful unless they are centered in and presented with love.
I mean, Jesus did the most profoundly amazing act—he became one of his creatures and endured death because he loved us so much. How much more, then, will we be willing to lay down our own correctness for those whom God did such a incredible act.
LikeLike
Julie Anne, I had no idea I would be so triggered. And, to specifically go back and describe which comments upset me will likely be a waste of time, b/c only those who endured what I did in my childhood–indeed, even today–could “get it”. I’m really sorry for my reaction. I apologize for my verbal attacks. I didn’t realize how angry I still am underneath when I thought I was over it. You can delete my posts if you wish. I’m usually very civil when dispensationalism comes up. Now that I realize how much anger is still inside of me, I will bring that up with my therapist, who I have been seeing for four years. I suppose it will be a longer recovery than I thought.
LikeLike
TO ED & ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT I SNAPPED AT:
I apologize for my angry comments. I had no idea just how po’d I am at the way I was raised. I still have issues with some family members, who do not accept the ways in which I changed my views. My father in particular, is sarcastic, mocks me in front of others, and laughs out loud at me. My mother starts crying because she is afraid for my soul. I become the brunt of attempts to proselytize me “back into the fold”. I had to stay away from them for six months because it got so bad. They are both in declining health, so seeing them was something that I missed and fretted about. What if they had died before I started talking to them again?
Now we have an uneasy truce, and there are some conversations that I have to say “no” to very clearly. If they didn’t have bad attitudes towards those they see as unbelievers, and thus, inferior to them, then those attitudes wouldn’t spill all over me.
But they will never change.
I love my parents and don’t want conflict all the time. Certain types of comments trigger angry replies from me, which I now realize come from built up anger and grief over the constant badgering I get from my folks. Once again, I apologize.
LikeLike
Sheila – – That’s why this place exists. The interactions between you and Ed are now here for people to understand how this whole triggering thing works. Ed certainly didn’t mean to trigger and he’s been a big defender of those abused, men who mistreat women, etc. But he is also passionate about what he believes and sometimes that can cross a line, at least in this forum where we try to make it a safe place AND allow debates (yikes!).
Please don’t feel bad about your comments – it is what it is. As far as recovery – I think we can and do get over a lot of the muck. But also we can be triggered with something that might take us right back to that intense feeling of what it was like. That’s what might have happened here.
I wouldn’t think of it as a setback, but a new discovery – -all part of piecing together what you went through, wrestling with it, coming to a better and more clear understanding, and eventually moving on. This is good and thanks for being vulnerable to share that here so others can understand the process.
LikeLike
Sheila0405,
Now I can properly apologize to you, Sheila. I am sorry that my words hurt you. That was not my intent. Please believe me in that.
I love to debate, and I am the kind of person the thrives on heated debates, due to my dad and his brothers who used to do the same thing in regards to such topics as the death penalty, and such. It got heated, voices raised, but they were the closest brothers ever, and never held anything against each other after the debate subsided, not being solved.
But in this case, I am sorry that my words hurt you.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Thanks for your apology, Sheila. I think this has been great discussion and can help serve as a reminder for those who might get triggered that it’s okay to ignore certain people, certain topics, etc.
I have to do this at church, too. There are certain things at my church where I’m afraid if my pastor saw me, he’d see me rolling my eyes. Thankfully, my pastor gets that no church is perfect, including his, and I have no doubt that he would respect my right to roll my eyes. Rolling eyes = @@
LikeLike
Sheila,
Wow…after your in-depth explanation, I totally agree why you snapped. To me, this is definitely not a salvation issue at all. Therefore, rest assured you are in the flock, no matter what anyone states. You do not deserve to be mocked or mistreated for your beliefs. We disagree on the subject, but that’s ok, and allowed, but mocking you for your differing beliefs is not ok. You are loved by God, and you are HIS. NOW, I understand. People who claim that this is a salvation issue is way off base. You are justified in your anger, as far as I am concerned.
Thank you for your heart felt explanation. That really got to me in my heart.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Wow – the talk between Ed and Sheila. Very cool stuff going on here today. Love it.
LikeLike
Ed,
“I have no idea where you come up with end of OT sacrificial system.”
That’s what Jesus and His disciples were talking about in Matthew 24–the destruction of the temple. That’s what the book of Hebrews is about–Jesus fulfilled everything of which the OT sacrificial system was merely a shadow.
Your reading of Daniel is biased by your underlying assumptions. Daniel doesn’t mention “the Antichrist.” That’s something you are reading into the text. Actually, “the Antichrist” as you are talking about doesn’t exist anywhere in the Bible. Look it up for yourself. Do a word search on “antichrist.” The only place “antichrist” appears in the whole Bible is in John’s epistles (not even Revelation), and he writes that there are multiple “antichrists” and that they were in existence at the time he wrote.
Again, I would encourage you to search the Scriptures for yourself and see what they actually say. I feel for you, because I was there once myself.
LikeLike
TIA,
Again, I have to respectfully disagree. Matthew 24, is discussing end times only.
Verse 3 of Matthew 24 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
WHEN (KEY WORD)shall “THESE THINGS”(KEY PHRASE), which was just right after Jesus had said about the temple’s destruction, and THEREFORE, he was not discussing 70 AD.
Notice the word “end” in “end of the world? The whole topic was the “SIGNS” of the end.
Daniel Chapter 8 is referenced by Jesus words, and Daniel Chapter 8 is where I stand with the word “end”.
Daniel Chapter 9 discusses Jesus, but Daniel 8 discusses the Anti-Christ. The False Messiah that the Jews are awaiting.
If you define the Anti-Christ as anything but the False Messiah that the JEws are awaiting, then you miss the whole point of the Anti-Christ in the End of Days. That is who he is. Satan pretending to be Jesus, telling the Jews, “Hey guys, Here I am to save you! I am the guy you have been waiting for all these years”. And they will believe him. That is what this is all about, not 70 AD.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
“They are both in declining health, so seeing them was something that I missed and fretted about. What if they had died before I started talking to them again?”
Oh Sheila! I am so sorry. But what a precious daughter you are to think that way and put it aside because of their failing health.. Believe it—Even if they don’t realize it because your views are different and that makes them angry.
Put on your armor, dear precious one.. It is NOT a salvic issue. I do find the different views interesting but have not signed on to one. I just do not believe that the church replaced Israel. I have a totally different view of what being “Israel” really means.
And Ed is a debater. I tend to be like that too. We can spar and then joke around. Just the way it is.
LikeLike
I believe the word is parousia in Greek. I don’t dispute this teaching, but when I refer to the Rapture, I am referring to the dispensationalists’ view that it is a secret event that takes place before a great tribulation. We will be caught up to meet God, at the time when Jesus returns for the second time to judge the living and the dead. There is no third coming, as in Incarnation, Rapture, then “Second Coming”. In my church we were told that Jesus’ feet won’t physically touch the earth, therefore, the Rapture isn’t a real “coming”. I found that to be a stretch, the twisting of a text to support the presupposition of the secret & invisible Rapture. After all, it will be quite a noisy event, what with the shout of an angel and the trumpet blast. I don’t see any Bible passages to support the idea that only believers will hear those sounds.
We will never agree. Let’s agree on that.
LikeLike
Okay, I will chime in on the whole slaughter thing. The dispensationalists that I was raised with were actually looking forward to “Armageddon”. The God of the OT ordered the slaughter of many people, including women and children. The NT presents a picture of a totally different God, one who no longer supports even the death penalty, as evidence by Jesus’ handling of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus is the face of God, he is God (for Christians, anyway, see the first verse in St John’s gospel). The notion of an Armageddon is in contradiction to the loving God we see in Christ. I see the book of Revelation as apocalyptic in its genre, and do not take it literally. The bowls, horns, seals, etc. are all symbolic, as are the visions of destruction. I believe Revelation is referring to what already took place. Ed, you see it as a description of future events. That is where we differ. What pissed me off was what I perceived to be an authoritarian tone, which is how my father treats me. Of course, that was never your intent, and you are not at all responsible for my anger. My father is. Which is why I apologized. I perceived your constant stating of how you used only the Bible to come to your conclusions as putting me down for relying on other books to help me understand it all, as if somehow I am to be pitied because I don’t understand the Bible at all. Again, sorry for that.
LikeLike
David, you hit the nail on the head. And, it is part of my anger towards the dispensationalist system of theology. If you’re not “right” on that score, then it’s probable–not just possible–that you are not “right” about Jesus, and may be headed to hell. I find this judging of individual’s relationship to the Bible & to God as insulting and arrogant.
LikeLike
“Let me help you. Her entire upbringing was dominated by a belief system where dispensational eschatology was el doctrino numero uno. It was pounded into her brain with a sledge hammer and the slightest doubt, question or failure to toe the line meant she was looked at like some commie hippie living in Berkeley on shrooms. And it was done by people who wouldn’t tolerate a differing viewpoint, or even a lack of interest in the topic.”
Bingo!
LikeLike
For you Sheila, I will agree to disagree!!
Noisy it will be, I agree.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
I would point out that such responses, “you are wrong, wrong, wrong” reveal a problem in communication. The person who receives these types of messages do not necessarily have to be triggered by something else in order to take offense. The topic could be anything, not just religion. And, I don’t think a person has to reveal that s/he is triggered by such arrogance, either, to make such an approach just plain rude. Sorry, that’s not how I approach topics. I didn’t refer to Ed as “wrong”. At least, I don’t believe I used that word. I merely put into words the way I see things.
To say that I am angry at God because I lack understanding of why he ordered the Israelites to kill every single person, young or old, along with women and children, is to deny that most people don’t believe in genocide. Which is essentially what took place. When Israel conquered the “Promised Land”, they wiped out its inhabitants. I find that hard to reconcile with the loving God that Jesus portrayed.
LikeLike
In regards to authoritarian within me, I am barely in charge of myself, let alone anyone else. No, I am not that way at all. In relationships, I am about equality for both sexes, not to dominate anyone. I was in the navy for many years, and it’s about being a TEAM player, more than the officers above you dominating what you do, and how you do it. But I’ve always enjoyed debates, and very competative in that. Competition as in being fun, not hurtful
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
” I feel for you, because I was there once myself.”
Well said. whenever someone asks me about dispensaltionalism, I share my story. I teach both children and adults in my church, and I always let them know what dispensationalism is all about. Why? Because I don’t want anyone to be tricked by well respected theologians that have, for 150 years, been teaching the doctrine. I believe that context is everything in reading the Bible, which book I cherish, by the way. I see dispensationalism as a cut and paste system of viewing the Bible. Since I love the Bible so much, I want others to see things in context, too. There is enormous pressure within hard core dispensationalistic churches to adhere to what the pastor teaches, without questioning.
LikeLike
Ed,
“Notice the word “end” in “end of the world? The whole topic was the “SIGNS” of the end.”
Exactly. Signs of the end. But the end of what? You’re assuming it means the “end of the world” as we think of it today. But is that what was meant? Get out a Greek lexicon and look up the word used there for “world.” The Jews of the first century were looking for a Messiah who would deliver them from the Roman oppression. They wanted a political savior. They appealed to the Scriptures which supported their view. But they were wrong. They failed to consider *all* the Scriptures. Dispensationalists do the same thing. Sure you can squeeze passages into the dispensational system by contorting them to say things other than what they clearly say. But that doesn’t mean dispensationalism is correct. We must let the Scriptures speak for themselves, not force them into a man-made system that would be completely foreign to the original writers and readers of the Bible.
Are you saying that you think, “Tell us, when shall these things be?” is NOT referring to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70? If that’s the case, I’m not sure how I can help you any more, since the grammatical construction of that question refers to what Jesus just said, the destruction of the temple.
I’ll give it a try, though. Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are parallel passages. Even many dispensationalists acknowledge that Luke 21 is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century. But then they say Matthew 24 is referring to something completely different. How crazy is that?!? Okay, I know they’ve got (ir)rationalizations for that too, but really, take some time to think about it.
Dispensationalism is like an intellectual cult. No outside views are allowed. Dispensationalists have to misrepresent their opponents views in order to make their case. Instead of revering a leader, what is revered is the system. The system must be maintained above all. No amount of reasoning can break through it. Coming out of dispensationalism is like coming out of a cult. You look back and wonder how in the world you could have been so deceived.
Again, I understand where you’re at, because I was once there too. I pray that the Lord would shine the light of His truth to you. Perfect love casts out fear.
LikeLike
Just to clarify part of my last comment, I’m not saying that the disciples were asking about the end of the Roman oppression. As I said before, they were asking about the end of the age under the OT sacrificial system.
LikeLike
TIA,
You had said: “…”end of what?”
My response: Exactly. Our “end of what’s” are different. The only end to me is the end period.
Otherwise, it would have said “mid point”.
End of the world is the topic, and none other than, as far as I am concerned.
There is no such thing as another “end”. There is only one “end”…the end of the age, world, whatever you want to call it, and that is what Jesus was discussing when he said Daniel.
Everyone in my sphere knows that Daniel is the end times prophet, not the mid time prophet.
Desolation is the word to look at. We have two times that animal sacrifices stop, not one. Daniel 9=Christ, Daniel 8=ANTI-Christ.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Ed,
You’re on the wrong “end” of this argument (sorry, I couldn’t help myself). You really think that “end” in the Bible can only refer to the end of the world as we know it? Here are a few verses for you to look up:
Lam. 4:18
Jer. 5:31
Eze. 7 (this one repeatedly refers to the “end” in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians)
Amos 8:2
Gen. 6:13 (the “end” was also back in Noah’s day)
1 Pet. 4:17 (the “end” was near when Peter was still alive)
(feel free to look up some more yourself)
“End of the world is the topic, and none other than, as far as I am concerned. ”
Exactly. That’s your view not because of what the Bible itself says, but in spite of what the Bible actually says. You are unwilling to change your view even though the Bible says otherwise.
Okay, one more try. Do you believe “coming”/”come” in prophesy always refers to what is commonly called “the Second Coming”? Choose your answer and then check out Rev. 2:5.
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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.
________________________________
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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!)
LikeLike
Smiling because isn’t that how all debaters think? I sure do 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
Sheila,
God bless ya girl! I’m glad we made peace.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
JA,
You know…I’ve thought of that often, too. That both sides always wishes that God would unblind their opponent. Ironic, huh?
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
I’m sure it doesn’t come close. The largest thread has over 1,000 comments.
LikeLike
Wow. I’d guess it’s hard to moderate that many comments. God bless you!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“Exactly. That’s my point. “Your sphere” is an “eschatalogical cult.”
Yikes.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
TIA – I had the opportunity to meet Ed for lunch during one of my daughter’s volleyball tournaments. He’s the real deal.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
________________________________
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
What I want to know is who is taking care of the dang pets while you are bantering this stuff 😉
LikeLike
JA,
My ex-wife used to be an animal control officer!! I’m sure that she will be available!! Oh, did I just say that?
Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
I did not know that. Of course my mind immediately went to this:
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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!
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Well, I don’t believe in the Rapture, so I guess I could take on a couple of dogs. My own dog Daisy loves other dogs! ha ha
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
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.
________________________________
LikeLike
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
________________________________
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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”.
LikeLike