Theology Club: Tribulation Doctrine

[Danoh]

I said "more or less" because, one; there are different Mid-Acts camps, and two; there is also how I personally study one thing out or another, that at times somewhat differs to how others within Mid-Acts appear to.

Not good, not bad, just differs as a result of my own, personal experiences with studying one thing or another out..

 

[whitestone]

I said "more or less" because, one; there are different Mid-Acts camps, and two; there is also how I personally study one thing out or another, that at times somewhat differs to how others within Mid-Acts appear to.

Not good, not bad, just differs as a result of my own, personal experiences with studying one thing or another out..

okay I'll see that,I know that we see the treble should be on 4 and the base on 5,,,,what then we should do then is to seek the exact order of events as Paul set forth in the fulfillment of these matters. these are the same scriptures I gave before in my former post. I think they are in their correct order given by Paul and whether we agree with their order or not it is wise if we leave them in that order whether at first they seem correct or not,,,

 

[Danoh]

okay I'll see that,I know that we see the treble should be on 4 and the base on 5,,,,what then we should do then is to seek the exact order of events as Paul set forth in the fulfillment of these matters. these are the same scriptures I gave before in my former post. I think they are in their correct order given by Paul and whether we agree with their order or not it is wise if we leave them in that order whether at first they seem correct or not,,,

At the same time, where one looks at things from, will impact what they see, or think that they see.

Is one's lens sound, itself?

By what standard - by the ever at the mercy of confirmation bias that is "well, it says so; right here in this (or that) verse?"

Hopefully we both know that is fool's gold - in fact, "wood, hay, and stubble" 1 Cor. 3:12

Merely saying "well, I see things this way," in a way says nothing at all beyond what its author thinks he is saying by that.

I suspect will see eye to eye or differ, to the extent that we each seek for a bit more awareness of just where exactly we are each actually looking at a thing from, in contrast to what often turns out we were merely asserting as having been our lens.

I'm game if you are. And please, there is no winning in any of this - that battle was fought at and won - hands down - at the Cross., 1 Cor. 1:20, 23-24.

So long as He is the issue, our differences simply won't be, Eph. 5:25.

 

[Danoh]

STP,

Would you mind posting, here or on a new thread, a similiar run on who exactly you think Paul is speaking to in his letters? Dispersed Jews? Proseltyes? "Near" Gentiles? A mix of the three? "Far" Gentiles?

And for my part, STP, I promise not
to point out all the obvious holes in
this this one bullet theory of yours
:chuckle:

 

[whitestone]

At the same time, where one looks at things from, will impact what they see, or think that they see.

Is one's lens sound, itself?

By what standard - by the ever at the mercy of confirmation bias that is "well, it says so; right here in this (or that) verse?"

Hopefully we both know that is fool's gold - in fact, "wood, hay, and stubble" 1 Cor. 3:12

Merely saying "well, I see things this way," in a way says nothing at all beyond what its author thinks he is saying by that.

I suspect will see eye to eye or differ, to the extent that we each seek for a bit more awareness of just where exactly we are each actually looking at a thing from, in contrast to what often turns out we were merely asserting as having been our lens.

I'm game if you are. And please, there is no winning in any of this - that battle was fought at and won - hands down - at the Cross., 1 Cor. 1:20, 23-24.

So long as He is the issue, our differences simply won't be, Eph. 5:25.

yes I agree, I took some time to re-read the different post from the o.p. back to here and some of the issues you and stp and also the others who posted discussed. I also see these issues about the tribulation as similar to some of the post I have read.

If I said anything to you or STP and it seemed offensive I did not mean it that way. We as you say might differ a little in one issue or another,but thats okay if there is an scriptural truth that might bring light to an area that has me scratching my head I am willing to listen.

The certain things that have been discussed in the thread so far is what caught my eye. By that I mean it seems that the Jerusalem that comes from Heaven is (hindered) by something at that time.

I'll be blunt for the sake of a shorter post,and risk being known as an heretic (lol) but the friction/hindering I think is in the way is "an extra Israel". By this I mean that Christian/mankind from back then and through the ages has awaited a "new Israel/Jerusalem". Since they knew this and considered themselves "Christians,on Gods side ect." they at first opportunity (1948) created another Israel in place of the Israel/Jerusalem God has in his intention.

Not that I mean this as an anti-Semitic remark,I men it as,, "a new Jerusalem/Israel that men/mankind sets up on earth and one set up by God are not the same". So if in that day when the Jerusalem of God descends from Heaven if there is another in it's place then there will be friction/hindering.

As we know there also in scripture an Kingdom that is said to come that is of satin. It is described as an "Image",it is an attempt to deceive mankind into believing that it is of God,and eventually a leader will stand in it's temple and say/confess that he is God.

So we as dispies see this event(Jerusalem coming down) as earmarked by certain events that take place at that time(1st Resurrection,rapture ect.) Prior to the formation(1948) these things did not take place,(unless we are/were "left behind").

Again the kingdom of the beast will call itself what? It would not make sense to call it by any other name than "Israel" and it's capital and temple "Jerusalem". No one would believe it was the Kingdom of Israel if it was not in the correct place,with the same name,temple,people ect....,,,

Now so then the Jew is awaiting the Messiah so to them when this one comes "in his own name",they will believe he is their long awaited Messiah and receive him as such. On the other hand the majority of the Christian's are awaiting the return of Jesus,they will see him as Jesus in his return. The Islam's await the 12 Iaam and "Isa" who is Jesus in their faith to come,and "Isa/Jesus" will come before hand to announce him similar to JTB coming and announcing the birth of Jesus.

Now in that day when the earth is of the mind that he is either the Jews Messiah,the Islam 12th/Isa,or Jesus in his return all the earth will be compelled to worship him and who ever will not will be killed(seen as their judgment). So imagine the position of mind of those who do not recognize his as the beast,that is a mother and father will see to point out both friends and family members to this one saying "if I don't show them to them then they will not be saved!" and so then will betray their own.

Many times it is found in scripture it is said "for my names sake" so "Jesus name sake". In the same we could look back and say that many did die back then and throughout history "for Jesus names sake" but would we consider those as "the tribulation" that is the subject of the op? If not and we consider the "tribulation" to be future (still withholding) then it would be reasonable to consider it to be an event that coincides with the beast as I explained.

Now maybe many of you will shake your heads and come to "straighten me all out.lol" that is if this is so then the tribulation precedes both the first ress. and the rapture(we would much rather believe we are raptured first). But if the trib. is still withholding then many of the Christians who then will not bow down to this beast will be killed for Jesus names sake.

I will check back in a few hours,tonight and see your thoughts. It might be good if we consider this across a length of time and see different scriptures concerning this matter,,,but I hope I have offended none in my post.

 

[achduke]

yes I agree, I took some time to re-read the different post from the o.p. back to here and some of the issues you and stp and also the others who posted discussed. I also see these issues about the tribulation as similar to some of the post I have read.

If I said anything to you or STP and it seemed offensive I did not mean it that way. We as you say might differ a little in one issue or another,but thats okay if there is an scriptural truth that might bring light to an area that has me scratching my head I am willing to listen.

The certain things that have been discussed in the thread so far is what caught my eye. By that I mean it seems that the Jerusalem that comes from Heaven is (hindered) by something at that time.

I'll be blunt for the sake of a shorter post,and risk being known as an heretic (lol) but the friction/hindering I think is in the way is "an extra Israel". By this I mean that Christian/mankind from back then and through the ages has awaited a "new Israel/Jerusalem". Since they knew this and considered themselves "Christians,on Gods side ect." they at first opportunity (1948) created another Israel in place of the Israel/Jerusalem God has in his intention.

Not that I mean this as an anti-Semitic remark,I men it as,, "a new Jerusalem/Israel that men/mankind sets up on earth and one set up by God are not the same". So if in that day when the Jerusalem of God descends from Heaven if there is another in it's place then there will be friction/hindering.

As we know there also in scripture an Kingdom that is said to come that is of satin. It is described as an "Image",it is an attempt to deceive mankind into believing that it is of God,and eventually a leader will stand in it's temple and say/confess that he is God.

So we as dispies see this event(Jerusalem coming down) as earmarked by certain events that take place at that time(1st Resurrection,rapture ect.) Prior to the formation(1948) these things did not take place,(unless we are/were "left behind").

Again the kingdom of the beast will call itself what? It would not make sense to call it by any other name than "Israel" and it's capital and temple "Jerusalem". No one would believe it was the Kingdom of Israel if it was not in the correct place,with the same name,temple,people ect....,,,

Now so then the Jew is awaiting the Messiah so to them when this one comes "in his own name",they will believe he is their long awaited Messiah and receive him as such. On the other hand the majority of the Christian's are awaiting the return of Jesus,they will see him as Jesus in his return. The Islam's await the 12 Iaam and "Isa" who is Jesus in their faith to come,and "Isa/Jesus" will come before hand to announce him similar to JTB coming and announcing the birth of Jesus.

Now in that day when the earth is of the mind that he is either the Jews Messiah,the Islam 12th/Isa,or Jesus in his return all the earth will be compelled to worship him and who ever will not will be killed(seen as their judgment). So imagine the position of mind of those who do not recognize his as the beast,that is a mother and father will see to point out both friends and family members to this one saying "if I don't show them to them then they will not be saved!" and so then will betray their own.

Many times it is found in scripture it is said "for my names sake" so "Jesus name sake". In the same we could look back and say that many did die back then and throughout history "for Jesus names sake" but would we consider those as "the tribulation" that is the subject of the op? If not and we consider the "tribulation" to be future (still withholding) then it would be reasonable to consider it to be an event that coincides with the beast as I explained.

Now maybe many of you will shake your heads and come to "straighten me all out.lol" that is if this is so then the tribulation precedes both the first ress. and the rapture(we would much rather believe we are raptured first). But if the trib. is still withholding then many of the Christians who then will not bow down to this beast will be killed for Jesus names sake.

I will check back in a few hours,tonight and see your thoughts. It might be good if we consider this across a length of time and see different scriptures concerning this matter,,,but I hope I have offended none in my post.

This happens first.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 14:13 Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, "Write: 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' " "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them."





Then this.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the DEAD in Christ will rise FIRST.

 

[Danoh]

You have yet to offend me in any way.

The Dispensationalism I more or less hold to is Acts 9:6 (began when Paul was saved), and is Cessasionist.

Meaning, I view 1948 as having been the result of misguided Acts 2 Dispy influence and the Zionist movement.

Keep in mind also that there are differing Mid-Acts camps, and that some within Mid-Acts will have a far better grasp on various issues than others within Mid-Acts might. Just par for the course in any discipline in life.

It depends on each individual's study approach, as well as on how exhaustive each will have been in its application, and other factors.

I know of one Mid-Acts Pastor, for example, who, the last time I heard him speak, did believe in 1948 as having been God's doing.

These kinds of conclusions end up one's own when one does not pause and turn the Hermeneutic on what one has concluded.

 

[Danoh]

This happens first.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 14:13 Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, "Write: 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' " "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them."

Then this.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the DEAD in Christ will rise FIRST.

Hah, you're on the wrong forum.

 

[patrick jane]

And for my part, STP, I promise not
to point out all the obvious holes in
this this one bullet theory of yours
:chuckle:

he's a manly man, a fearsome law officer. Fife for mayor -

 

[whitestone]

You have yet to offend me in any way.

The Dispensationalism I more or less hold to is Acts 9:6 (began when Paul was saved), and is Cessasionist.

Meaning, I view 1948 as having been the result of misguided Acts 2 Dispy influence and the Zionist movement.

Keep in mind also that there are differing Mid-Acts camps, and that some within Mid-Acts will have a far better grasp on various issues than others within Mid-Acts might. Just par for the course in any discipline in life.

It depends on each individual's study approach, as well as on how exhaustive each will have been in its application, and other factors.

I know of one Mid-Acts Pastor, for example, who, the last time I heard him speak, did believe in 1948 as having been God's doing.

These kinds of conclusions end up one's own when one does not pause and turn the Hermeneutic on what one has concluded.

not that I am suggesting you change from the position you hold(mine is quite similar),,,but the gifts you mention do you see them resuming when the parentheses is ending?

 

[Danoh]

not that I am suggesting you change from the position you hold(mine is quite similar),,,but the gifts you mention do you see them resuming when the parentheses is ending?

I hold to an Acts 9 Dispensationalism much like the one held by the C.R. Stam's Berean Bible Society (BBS) or, say, R. C. Jordan's Grace School of the Bible (GSB).

Where those two differ in understanding in some areas, my own is more along GSB's.

Anyway, combine the 1st half of Matthew 10 with its 2nd half and you'll have an idea as to what I understand will resume, at some point after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, when Rom. 11:22's "cut off" will have taken place, Rom. 11:25.

While I'm at it, do us both a favor and share your view when you ask about my own; save us both some of the back and forth. Thanks

 

[whitestone]

I do but the same as then when it was present 12 teaching KOG/Paul GOG as they overlapped. The same as the times of the gentiles was confusing to those then and even today,it will the be misunderstood as to why one is ending and the other beginning.

I say this baring in mind it being written that if any other teach another Gospel "let them be accursed",,,so in that day mankind will reject the Gospel of the kingdom because they misunderstand why one ended(was paused) providing the path for the other.


I think those two witnesses who witness are both these,that is as in a9d there is unfinished promises that Israel will continue to receive this will be explained by both. By both I mean the same as in acts the same being stated by Paul and the other by the 12 that was rejected,so the same in reverse.

I say this because the beast kingdom will also be present and the hurt they(the two trees) will do is explain the two Gospels in a manner undeniable. The beast will be reveled,the body will receive their promise,and the kingdom will resume from the point of the pause,,,

 

[Danoh]

I do but the same as then when it was present 12 teaching KOG/Paul GOG as they overlapped. The same as the times of the gentiles was confusing to those then and even today,it will the be misunderstood as to why one is ending and the other beginning.

I say this baring in mind it being written that if any other teach another Gospel "let them be accursed",,,so in that day mankind will reject the Gospel of the kingdom because they misunderstand why one ended(was paused) providing the path for the other.


I think those two witnesses who witness are both these,that is as in a9d there is unfinished promises that Israel will continue to receive this will be explained by both. By both I mean the same as in acts the same being stated by Paul and the other by the 12 that was rejected,so the same in reverse.

I say this because the beast kingdom will also be present and the hurt they(the two trees) will do is explain the two Gospels in a manner undeniable. The beast will be reveled,the body will receive their promise,and the kingdom will resume from the point of the pause,,,

To make sure we are talking similar understanding...

1) what do you mean, or understand when by "12 teaching KOG/Paul GOG" also...

2) by "as they overlapped."

Also, why be concerned about what they will believe then, or am I misunderstanding this part of your question?

 

[whitestone]

In your former post you stated that some may be in different states of understanding this so it does seem fair to test this point, I do agree with it. I have so far not given much of mine own stance,and so should,,,

Kingdom of God,the Gospel preached by the 12 that is on pause,in the parentheses,the one because of disbelief a spirit of slumber is given,the blinding in part. And because of this an mystery then was revealed and,,,then in that day Paul was separated out an chosen vessel and we now are in the dispensation of the Gospel of Grace until the times of the gentiles are full.

why the concern,if something is paused,then in that day it will be un-paused,so in that day the very thing that is in those details about the Kingdom of God(in their books), will begin again where they left off.

As well as we see that the Kingdom of God's Gospel was preached by the 12,and so many years into it Paul began to deliver the Gospel of Grace but they were both together in the world(overlapping) many hearing one said "I am of Paul,other,Appolos,others Peter,others Christ"

The same as then,in that day when the fullness of times come and the body is ready to be taken away,the other will be ready to come. So one will argue that one is potent,and another the other. As if we could see the future we can see the past,what did this do then,some said no you must, and others said no, no such thing. So in the days surrounding the tribulation the same things that took place then concerning these two Gospels will be the issues that will be faced then.

 

[Danoh]

In your former post you stated that some may be in different states of understanding this so it does seem fair to test this point, I do agree with it. I have so far not given much of mine own stance,and so should,,,

Kingdom of God,the Gospel preached by the 12 that is on pause,in the parentheses,the one because of disbelief a spirit of slumber is given,the blinding in part. And because of this an mystery then was revealed and,,,then in that day Paul was separated out an chosen vessel and we now are in the dispensation of the Gospel of Grace until the times of the gentiles are full.

why the concern,if something is paused,then in that day it will be un-paused,so in that day the very thing that is in those details about the Kingdom of God(in their books), will begin again where they left off.

As well as we see that the Kingdom of God's Gospel was preached by the 12,and so many years into it Paul began to deliver the Gospel of Grace but they were both together in the world(overlapping) many hearing one said "I am of Paul,other,Appolos,others Peter,others Christ"

The same as then,in that day when the fullness of times come and the body is ready to be taken away,the other will be ready to come. So one will argue that one is potent,and another the other. As if we could see the future we can see the past,what did this do then,some said no you must, and others said no, no such thing. So in the days surrounding the tribulation the same things that took place then concerning these two Gospels will be the issues that will be faced then.

Don't take this wrong, your English is very similar to that of 1611.

Not the KJV's English, but how it was normally written back then.

The KJV's being an English actually rendered for that particular Bible's reading.

Sort of how Shakespeare's writings had been an English meant to capture a certain rhythm within his plays, so with the KJV's English.

There was that kind of a thing, and then there was how words were normally spoken and or written.

Yours comes across much like how it was written back then.

Reminds me of one of my favorite stories as a child "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." Loved that story I kind of went there with that guy myself

Anyway, I understood what you wrote and have no doubt that will be the case.

I'm curious about what's behind your writing style. Thanks.

 

[whitestone]

Don't take this wrong, your English is very similar to that of 1611.

Not the KJV's English, but how it was normally written back then.

The KJV's being an English actually rendered for that particular Bible's reading.

Sort of how Shakespeare's writings had been an English meant to capture a certain rhythm within his plays, so with the KJV's English.

There was that kind of a thing, and then there was how words were normally spoken and or written.

Yours comes across much like how it was written back then.

Reminds me of one of my favorite stories as a child "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." Loved that story I kind of went there with that guy myself

Anyway, I understood what you wrote and have no doubt that will be the case.

I'm curious about what's behind your writing style. Thanks.

lol,it's just a "quirk",,like picking up sayings from people at work or school. I catch myself doing it without thinking even when I'm praying. Sometimes in forums I notice others do it too,lol...when people point it out I try to stop but then it just sneaks back in.

I,when walking in the morning pray and talk to God about the things I was studying in scripture. Since the kjv is the old style English,and I'm tossing those words around in my head it just becomes natural,,,,,,,okay now I'm embarrassed,you got me,lol

 

[patrick jane]

Ten thousand would be 10,000. Ten thousands is more then 10,000 but the less then millions which is described in other scripture as 10,000 times 10,0000. That is why I think Ten Thousands could be 144,000.


This appears to be over 100+ million.


More than 10,000+


More than 20,000+






Why can not the saints and the angels both come back with the Lord?

We know for certain the angels are used for harvest.

Matthew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

plural thousands CAN BE millions, even trillions. after all, a thousand thousand is a million. and a thousand 10,000 or ten thousands can pretty much be any number God chooses. i'm not speaking of the scriptures which give exact totals -

 

[patrick jane]

PJ the Great :wave2:

Here is what I see. The little flock of early Acts and the rest that form the 144,000 inherit the New Jerusalem and reign with Christ from that City. The old testament saints are raised up to rule the earth, with David as their King. The Body of Christ is in heavenly places, we are the Lord's glory and trophies of his grace.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 KJV -

it seems we will ever be with the Lord, unless it is specific to those who are alive and remain AT THAT TIME -

 

[patrick jane]

:chuckle:

That's what I believe, I know it cannot be proven.

sure it will be !