|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Support for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
I've been convinced that the Papacy is the seat of the Antichrist because that's what Martin Luther and other leaders of the Protestant Reofrmation concluded from scripture. Yes from scripture. Martin Luther? Oh, you mean the antisemite who wrote, "The Jews and Their Lies?" Here's an adorable excerpt:
quote: Hitler himself couldn't have said it more eloquently or with such venom. Raze their synagogues, schools and homes to the ground... What a wonderful source of inspiration.
The Reformation identification of the Pope is often rejected just because there is a succession of Popes while scripture seems to point to a singular figure who appears at the very end of time before Christ returns, as THE Antichrist. Well, the biblical evidence for the papacy as the Antichrist is very strong. While the RCC got Christianity totally and completely wrong in my estimation, I think its safe to say that nobody plans on following anyone from the Papacy. They're a dying breed. Remember, Faith, there's several billion Muslims, millions of non-Catholic Christians, and billions of Hindus and Budhists. You really think the entirety of the world is just going to suddenly look towards the Pope for guidance? The scriptures are clear to say that the Anti-Christ will be the last person you'd ever expect and that pretty much everyone is gonna be duped by him before he reveals his true colors. This is just your hatred for the RCC manifesting itself and nothing more. You like to force square pegs in to round holes. And in all of that ranting you never actually made the case Scripturally, you just made an empty and hollow assertion. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Yes, Luther had a conniption fit when he discovered the writings of the Jews against Christ. He'd been very friendly to them up until that discovery. If he was wrong about Jews then why is he right about everything else?
Probably not suddenly. He'll probably have to do some "miracles" to get their attention. (This is another reason to think he'll be possessed by Satan.)_ But scripture says that multitudes will be saved to the true Christ so not all people are going to be deceived, just a huge number. One of the signs of the Anti-Christ in Islam is the performing of miracles akin to Jesus. They also believe that Satan is behind all of it. Whether you want to accept it or not, a humongous portion of Judaism and Christianity has been absorbed into Islamic teachings -- including eschatology. Muslims aren't going to suddenly convert to their mortal enemies religion. That makes no sense.
"Pretty much everyone?" You should supply scripture for that, but remember that the RCC completely ruled Europe for a millennium, and the Pope still heads 1.2 billion Catholics. I'm talking about everyone else.... that's billions of people who are not practicing Catholics. So how do they somehow come to worship a pederast in a funny looking hat? Makes no sense.
But consider that even the Protestant churches aren't suspecting the Pope. Lots of them consider the RCC to be just another Christian denomination, and many actually honor the Pope. Some have even gone to the Vatican to be blessed by the Pope. Seems to me he's just about "the last person" many would ever suspect of being the Antichrist. Seems much more logical and in keeping with eschatology that the Anti-Christ would be secular, charismatic, probably is the guy who cures diseases, is very important in tech, and is liked by everyone nearly universally. I think of somebody like Elon Musk, but even more popular and greater contributions to the advancement of civilization. That's how you get a foot in the door -- the last person you'd suspect and for face value has made amazing contributions to everyone that you wouldn't suspect have nefarious intentions.
Where would I get such "hatred" if not from learning about what the RCC teaches? I'm not saying your loathing of Catholic doctrine is unfounded, I'm suggesting that it is clouding your judgment concerning this pet theory of yours. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
He wasn't wrong about the Jews. They do have all kinds of curses and misrepresentations of Jesus in their writings. Why not? They deny that He's the Messiah, they hate Him. Jesus was Jewish. Every single one of his disciples were Jews. Paul was Jewish. Its not about being Jewish, as such, its about belief. I think of the bible verses that distinguish between the physical act of circumcision versus the circumcision of the heart. Devout Jews believe that its obedience to the act that brings favor of God, whereas a splinter group of Jews (early Christians) believe that many were so wrapped up in the acts that they forgot the message. Whatever the case, its indefensible. Vengeance is mine saith the LORD. "The Jews" didn't crucify the Son of Man anymore than the Romans did, let alone modern-day Italians. Forgive them for they know not what they do... Translation, they cannot comprehend the deeper implications of their actions. Maybe if God didn't do a complete 180 on the Jews would this have not been an issue. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Mohammed had a smattering of knowledge of both the Old and New Testaments, and it's only smattering that got incorporated into Islam, much of it absurdly confused. He mixed up Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the sister of Moses, among other confusions. And he copied out some portion of the book of Isaiah. That's about it though. All the things we find odious about Islam -- head coverings, stoning people to death, public executions.... those weren't original pieces I'm afraid. That was all borrowed from the collection of atrocities chronicled in the Torah, Mishna, and Septuagint. Moses, Jesus, etc... all in the Qur'an. A bastardized version, sure, but all inspired by reading the bible. The other portions were borrowed from paganism practiced on the Arabian peninsula long before Christianity.
Francis has a reputation as a reformer of the Church in many ways. He's not identified with the pederasty, and he makes statements about identifying with the downtrodden, doesn't like the trappings of the papacy, likes to hobnob with the common people and so on. But who knows how all this will play out? You think Elon Musk has a better chance of winning them all over? Better than the Pope. And I'm not saying Elon Musk, I'm saying someone like that who will be nearly universally beloved. Granted, I don't believe any of it, but for the sake of the argument I would think somebody like that would have a greater chance of fulfilling the prophecy.
Remember that the Vatican is a political entity, a nation unto itself, so it has "secular" standing from that. I don't know anything about Elon Musk and you haven't given me any reason to consider him a contender for the role of Antichrist, whereas I have the Protestant Reformers on my side, who arrived at their identification of the Pope from scripture, and maybe I can find the scriptures they used if you require it of me. And again, the Pope is not suspected by most people of having nefarious intentions. Pope John Paul was just about universally liked, and Francis is popular too. Not amongst a billion Muslims and billions of Hindus and Buddhists.
What I am talking about is based on stuff I've LEARNED over the years, not something that just came over me in some mysterious way so that it now clouds my judgment for emotional reasons. From what "Protestant Reformers" did you learn this? The bible is very clear not to tell you who it is and not to tell you the day or the hour. The books just say look out for these signs and wonders to know the time draws near. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
There is no scriptural support for a gap - it is proposed simply because the events did not occur as predicted - if Jesus was meant. However, the events of the seventieth week do fit well with events that occurred in the 2nd Century BC - supporting the scholarly interpretation. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. So the 69 weeks were literal weeks... that last week though, well, that one drags on for 2,000+ years cuz it never came to fruition. They thought they were living in the End Times back then. In fact, every Christian has thought they were in the End Times. Meanwhile, every single doomsday prophecy has had a 100% rate of failure. You have better odds playing the lottery. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
No wonder you are so wrong on the other thread. You're just wrong, period, about all these things. Were you really ever a Christian? Well if you weren't, then you still have a chance to become one. Go read what I just wrote on the other thread and may it be of some help to you. Malign me all that you would like, Faith. I will use scripture and only scripture to demonstrate that the Early Christians fervently believed that End Times would be in THEIR lifetime.
quote:So..... as you can see from HOLY SCRIPTURE, that you can cross reference for yourself so that you can know it didn't come from a demon, or the anti-christ, or Satan, that the early Christians unmistakably believed that the end of days would be in their generation. .... Meanwhile, 2,000 + years later.... Straight from the horses mouth. So what to make of it? It is possible that the early Christians could have believed this but would have been wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean that it cannot happen at a later time. BUT if you believe that the bible is inerrant, and you seem to be in that camp, in the sense that whatever has been scribed is 100% accurate and incapable of being altered, the scriptures have failed to meet its objective. If they got that wrong then you can't claim inerrancy and, if nothing else, is it unreasonable that it should cast a measure of doubt as to the validity of the bible? "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I already answered from John MacArthur way back there, that "this generation" is clearly to be read IN CONTEXT as referring to the generation that witnesses the things Jesus has been talking about. Even supposing that the word generation was poorly translated or transliterated, you still have other identifiers that use present tense. That's the funny thing about tenses in sentences, it helps establish timelines.
Are you really so arrogant as to think that YOU know more than the many teachers and preachers who have studied these things for years and certgainly know all the verses you posted. Unbelievers are certainly a cheeky lot. Are you so arrogant that you would appeal to authority instead of reading the scriptures themselves? Super ironic of you to say because the RCC said that the commoner cannot read or understand the bible and therefore required priests to do it for them. Martin Luther encouraged the commoner to read the bible for themselves and to stop listening to doctrines invented by the church. You and MacArthur have suspect motives because admitting that the verses don't say what they clearly spell out, your whole narrative falls apart. You have a lot to lose by admitting it. It's no sweat off my back what it says. I have no skin in the game. I'm just relaying what it says and you've now read it for yourself. Don't shoot the messenger."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
A question I have that neither MacArthur nor Missler addresses is how they can procreate since we are told that in heaven there is no marriage, and both mention that angels are direct creations of God, they are not themselves the result of procreation, which raises the question whether they even have genitalia. If they don't need it why would they have it? I'm glad to see that you are thinking critically, and no, that is not sarcasm. I am being sincere. As to the "Sons of Men," the phrase appears in a few places in bible and usually seems to infer angels. We know from scripture that Lot was harboring two angels and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to rape them. Seems like its implying that angels can take on human form; I can only assume with full anatomy -- genitalia and all. As we know from the story, the Nephilim were the progeny of these unholy unions. Their existence seems to play a big factor in the great Flood. The Book of Enoch was discovered in several different places, like Ethiopia and even fragments were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. While it holds no place in the modern cannon, it seems like it was of enough importance to Jews and early Christians to salvage it; presumably because it was revered as legitimate scripture. I'm sure you know who Enoch is in the bible. And the book itself implies that Noah was the author. We can deduce this from Table of Nations:
quote: The contents of the book is basically a really long form version of Genesis 5-6. In it, it discusses the names of supposed fallen angels and what happened as a result:
quote: Of course, 300 cubits is a ridiculous size... For perspective and scale Noah's Ark was 300 cubits. So are we supposed to believe that Ark-sized giants were procreating with normal-sized women? And no physical evidence to support it? But I digress... The other thing is, if the Flood wiped these Nephilim out (as we know who the survivors of the Flood were) then how is it they reappear in scripture elsewhere?
quote: So just so you know, its these kinds of internal inconsistencies and absurdities that erodes one faith... The more you know about the bible, the less you start to believe. That's been my case in any event.
Do angels have DNA? If they begat children they would have wouldn't they? Questions, questions. Usually when I pray for an answer to a question concerning scripture God gives me the answer in a day or so. So I'm praying. Would it matter either way? Everyone likes a good mystery but would knowing the answer or not knowing the answer effect your salvation?"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
how long is not given anywhere as far as I know. 3.5 years of peace before he reveals his true colors followed by 3.5 years of hell on earth.... Or as Daniel would put it, a time, times, and half a time. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024