Pre-, mid- & post-trib?

[Edward63]

I suppose the Holy Spirit just endowed the church with prophetic knowledge in the last 150 years? ROTFL...

Matthew Poole, 17th century Puritan on 2 Thess 2:3 -

"...why then should we take the man of sin to be a single man, as the papists do? viz. a Jew of the tribe of Dan, that shall erect his kingdom and temple in Jerusalem, seduce the Jews, continue three years and a half, make great havoc of the church, to be opposed by Enoch and Elias, and is to come a little before the end of the world. Ridiculous! Neither call this man of sin be Simon Magus and his followers, for he was revealed in the apostle’s time, seeing the mystery of iniquity belonging to this man of sin began to work in the apostle’s days, as 2 Thessalonians 2:7..."
http://www.studylight.org/com/mpc/view.cgi?bk=52&ch=2

Notice this nutty idea of the "man of sin" in Jerusalem, going 3 1/2 years just before the end of the world... this comes out of Roman Catholicism. Poole labels it "Ridiculous!"

Then we have our Baptist forefather, John Gill, 18th century on Matthew 24:34 -

"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass,.... Not the generation of men in general; as if the sense was, that mankind should not cease, until the accomplishment of these things; nor the generation, or people of the Jews, who should continue to be a people, until all were fulfilled; nor the generation of Christians; as if the meaning was, that there should be always a set of Christians, or believers in Christ in the world, until all these events came to pass; but it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; and the sense is, that all the men of that age should not die, but some should live till all these things were fulfilled; see Matthew 16:28 as many did, and as there is reason to believe they might, and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this: and certain it is, that John, one of the disciples of Christ, outlived the time by many years; and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, many of the Jewish doctors now living, when Christ spoke these words, lived until the city was destroyed; as Rabban Simeon, who perished with it, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it, R. Zadoch, R. Ishmael, and others: this is a full and clear proof, that not anything that is said before, relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and end of the world; but that all belong to the coming of the son of man, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state. "

Then we have the Prince of Preachers, 19th century, Charles H. Spurgeon also on Matt. 24:34-36 -

"The King left his followers in no doubt as to when these things should happen: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. ”It was just about the ordinary limit of a generation when the Roman armies compassed Jerusalem, whose measure of iniquity was then full, and overflowed in misery, agony, distress, and bloodshed such as the world never saw before or since. Jesus was a true Prophet; everything that he foretold was literally fulfilled. He confirmed what he had already said, and what he was about to say, by a solemn affirmation: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." “The Word of the Lord endureth for ever,” and though that Lord appeared in fashion as a man, and was shortly to be crucified as a malefactor, his words would endure when heaven and earth would have fulfilled the purpose for which he had created them, and passed away.

Christ’s promises of pardon are as sure of fulfilment as his prophecies of punishment; no word of his shall ever “pass away."

36. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

There is a manifest change in our Lord’s words here, which clearly indicates that they refer to his last great coming to judgment: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man.” Some would be prophets have wrested this verse from its evident meaning by saying, “Though we do not know the day and the hour of Christ’s coming, we may know the year, the month, and even the week.” If this method of “renting the words of Jesus is not blasphemous, it is certainly foolish, and betrays disloyalty to the King. He added that, not only does no man know of that day and hour, but it is hidden from angelic beings also: “No, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

We need not therefore be troubled by idle prophecies of hair-brained fanatics, even if they claim to interpret the Scriptures; for what the angels do not know has not been revealed to them. Even Christ, in his human nature, so voluntarily limited his own capacities that he knew not the time of his Second Advent (Mark 13:32). It is enough for us to know that he will surely come; our great concern should be to be ready for his appearing whenever he shall return."
http://grace-ebooks.com/library/Charles Spurgeon/CHS_Commentary on Matthew.PDF

Underlining & bold added to point out the salient points in contrast to today's hair-brained schemes of prophecy!

 

[Allan]

I suppose the Holy Spirit just endowed the church with prophetic knowledge in the last 150 years? ROTFL...

Matthew Poole, 17th century Puritan on 2 Thess 2:3 -

"...why then should we take the man of sin to be a single man, as the papists do? viz. a Jew of the tribe of Dan, that shall erect his kingdom and temple in Jerusalem, seduce the Jews, continue three years and a half, make great havoc of the church, to be opposed by Enoch and Elias, and is to come a little before the end of the world. Ridiculous! Neither call this man of sin be Simon Magus and his followers, for he was revealed in the apostle’s time, seeing the mystery of iniquity belonging to this man of sin began to work in the apostle’s days, as 2 Thessalonians 2:7..."
http://www.studylight.org/com/mpc/view.cgi?bk=52&ch=2

Notice this nutty idea of the "man of sin" in Jerusalem, going 3 1/2 years just before the end of the world... this comes out of Roman Catholicism. Poole labels it "Ridiculous!"

Then we have our Baptist forefather, John Gill, 18th century on Matthew 24:34 -

"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass,.... Not the generation of men in general; as if the sense was, that mankind should not cease, until the accomplishment of these things; nor the generation, or people of the Jews, who should continue to be a people, until all were fulfilled; nor the generation of Christians; as if the meaning was, that there should be always a set of Christians, or believers in Christ in the world, until all these events came to pass; but it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; and the sense is, that all the men of that age should not die, but some should live till all these things were fulfilled; see Matthew 16:28 as many did, and as there is reason to believe they might, and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this: and certain it is, that John, one of the disciples of Christ, outlived the time by many years; and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, many of the Jewish doctors now living, when Christ spoke these words, lived until the city was destroyed; as Rabban Simeon, who perished with it, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it, R. Zadoch, R. Ishmael, and others: this is a full and clear proof, that not anything that is said before, relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and end of the world; but that all belong to the coming of the son of man, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state. "

Then we have the Prince of Preachers, 19th century, Charles H. Spurgeon also on Matt. 24:34-36 -

"The King left his followers in no doubt as to when these things should happen: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. ”It was just about the ordinary limit of a generation when the Roman armies compassed Jerusalem, whose measure of iniquity was then full, and overflowed in misery, agony, distress, and bloodshed such as the world never saw before or since. Jesus was a true Prophet; everything that he foretold was literally fulfilled. He confirmed what he had already said, and what he was about to say, by a solemn affirmation: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." “The Word of the Lord endureth for ever,” and though that Lord appeared in fashion as a man, and was shortly to be crucified as a malefactor, his words would endure when heaven and earth would have fulfilled the purpose for which he had created them, and passed away.

Christ’s promises of pardon are as sure of fulfilment as his prophecies of punishment; no word of his shall ever “pass away."

36. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

There is a manifest change in our Lord’s words here, which clearly indicates that they refer to his last great coming to judgment: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man.” Some would be prophets have wrested this verse from its evident meaning by saying, “Though we do not know the day and the hour of Christ’s coming, we may know the year, the month, and even the week.” If this method of “renting the words of Jesus is not blasphemous, it is certainly foolish, and betrays disloyalty to the King. He added that, not only does no man know of that day and hour, but it is hidden from angelic beings also: “No, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

We need not therefore be troubled by idle prophecies of hair-brained fanatics, even if they claim to interpret the Scriptures; for what the angels do not know has not been revealed to them. Even Christ, in his human nature, so voluntarily limited his own capacities that he knew not the time of his Second Advent (Mark 13:32). It is enough for us to know that he will surely come; our great concern should be to be ready for his appearing whenever he shall return."
http://grace-ebooks.com/library/Charles Spurgeon/CHS_Commentary on Matthew.PDF

Underlining & bold added to point out the salient points in contrast to today's hair-brained schemes of prophecy!

Let us not forget that Pre-Mil (post Rapture) was the historical position of the early church for nearly 400+ years.. for nearly 300 years it was an uncontested view. If you actually did some study on this you will find THEY held to 'the man of sin' being real. Unfortunately we begin to see the seedling RCC view took hold and distort truth. Sad but true.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let us not forget that Pre-Mil (post Rapture) was the historical position of the early church for nearly 400+ years.. for nearly 300 years it was an uncontested view. Then seedling RCC view took hold. Sad but true.

Amen:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Greektim]

Let us not forget that Pre-Mil (post Rapture) was the historical position of the early church for nearly 400+ years.. for nearly 300 years it was an uncontested view. If you actually did some study on this you will find THEY held to 'the man of sin' being real. Unfortunately we begin to see the seedling RCC view took hold and distort truth. Sad but true.

Premill maybe... but rapture was invented much MUCH later.

 

[The Biblicist]

Premill maybe... but rapture was invented much MUCH later.

There is no "maybe"! The records are as clear as crystal of that fact. In addition your denial about the "rapture" is interpretative rather than fact.

 

[Edward63]

Let us not forget that Pre-Mil (post Rapture) was the historical position of the early church for nearly 400+ years.. for nearly 300 years it was an uncontested view. If you actually did some study on this you will find THEY held to 'the man of sin' being real. Unfortunately we begin to see the seedling RCC view took hold and distort truth. Sad but true.

Allan, I will take your comment as an opportunity to clarify my view of the historic views of premil. John Gill himself is a historic premil and if I were ever to be premil, I could go with his understanding. Yet, he did not turn the Mt. Olivet Discourse into a commentary on some 7-year tribulation period in the distant future. Gill was emphatic that his view of the 1000 year "personal reign of Christ" was not at all Old Covenant, Jewish. It was a New Covenant, Christian reign under King Jesus. I tend to remain focused on what Gill referred to as the "spiritual reign" which I view as basically a post-mil position. If any wish to read his Body of Divinity on these two reigns of Christ as he saw them, they are online included in his Body of Divinity:

The spiritual reign of Christ by John Gill -
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace2/bk5-ch14.html

The personal reign of Christ by John Gill -
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace2/bk7-ch8.html

I will add something that came to mind after I posted this OP. I wonder if those Christian martyrs today in Nigeria, Egypt and other lands are worrying about some future 7-year tribulation period and if the notion of a rapture will be before, in the middle or after that 7-year period? The church is in a mess and I repeat, the doctrines of devils are coming out of too many of the pulpits!

When you post rather bold as I have in these two posts today, by nature sometimes you scrape up against your friends.

 

[agedman]

Since around the 350's the RCC has a history of always setting itself against the Jews. They hunted them down and persecuted them throughout the centuries and even to this day. It is no wonder that they have the label as the true antichrist.

The RCC has for centuries taught that the covenant was broken away from physical Israel and given to the Church. They refuse to acknowledge scriptures that show "all Israel will be saved" to mean the physical Israel, but assign such Scriptures to the redeemed. To support the claim, they state the "church is the Israel" and that God "doesn't have two brides" or some such nonsense.

OF COURSE there are not two. Israel shall be redeemed JUST AS the Gentiles - when GOD decrees it to happen. That is the correct reading of Romans. No other reading is valid and consistent with both the OT and NT prophecy.

The RCC thinking is done because it fits the scheme of eliminating the Jewish people and has been used for centuries to control nations and lay blame for all manor of evil upon the Jews - thus allowing horrible persecution. (spanish inquisition, first crusade, in the 20th century antisemitism of the RCC is directly linked to the holocaust)

Unfortunately, the same thinking is/was held by the vast number of scholars (Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Erasmus, Aquinas ... ), it effected musicians and composers of music (Bach - the whole family, Handel, Stravinsky, Chopin...), and writers (Shaw, Elliot, Hemingway...). The Jewish people have never been held above suspicion, and most ungodly groups still harbor ill will toward them.

The typical covenant holder's view excludes all promises to the nation of Israel as no longer in effect, and reassigns them to the church. That is not only faulty, but disregards clear Scriptures that teach differently in both the OT and NT.

What bothers me the most, is that it is not atypical for a covenant person to proclaim all others are heretical and of satanic influence. They scorn and ridicule any other view. They heap great condemnation and belittlement in mocking those who do not agree - as if only they hold the real truth.

That alone is so unChristlike that it should not be tolerated.

It is one thing to use Scriptures to argue a view, but it is a whole other matter to condemn a person as a heretic who disagrees that the Scriptures support that view and not another.

Is that not EXACTLY what the RCC did?

Is that not what the typical covenant person did/does historically and even to this day?

Did we not witness such thinking just this morning on the BB?

I realize that I am painting with a very wide brush.

There are good folks who can proclaim a view without condemning others.

There are good folks who can acknowledge that perhaps their view has some imperfections and that the view is open for modification as Scriptures oblige.

John clearly states the point in which a person crosses the line into heresy.

I suggest that the BB folks use that as a standard of judgment and not their own puffed up view.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

​

As applicable to the return of Christ?

Anyone teaching that Christ will not return IN THE FLESH as the two in white clothing told the apostles He would, has the "spirit of antichrist."

9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”
​

It matters very little concerning the view; what does matter is that Christ will come - in the flesh.

 

[agedman]

I wonder if those Christian martyrs today in Nigeria, Egypt and other lands are worrying about some future 7-year tribulation period and if the notion of a rapture will be before, in the middle or after that 7-year period? The church is in a mess and I repeat, the doctrines of devils are coming out of too many of the pulpits!

Certainly, the last on a long list of things NOT to think about when being martyred is what view is correct as concerning your topic.

I doubt that anyone in that position is going to wonder if they have all the facts concerning the covenant and what might be true or not.

That you align someone who holds a different view as preaching and teaching "doctrines of devils" is wrong.

There is NO "doctrine of devils" if one holds a view of the nation of Israel that is variant of yours.

Christ was not concerned about this matter when addressing the churches in Rev. He didn't state the covenant view is the one and only, and all others were "doctrines of the devils."

What He was concerned with was the modern church that exists in THIS day. A church that considers health and wealth as hallmarks that they are in fellowship with Christ, yet they do not even know that He stands outside, knocking at the door, desiring entrance. The "name it, claim it" mentality that has led many astray into false teaching of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

THAT is what you should be concerned.

Does the assembly KNOW the Scriptures, rely upon the Scriptures and look to the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

Or, are they puffed up by the multimedia, sensuous, feel good modernist replacement for truth and true worship to the point that they accept any statement as from God's mouth, when it possibly could be from the devil.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Cut the title to be less eye-poking (don't want that spirit here) and allow for discussion.

For one, I am thankful that during the past 2000 years there was not a monopoly on truth in AD 33 and nothing more needed understanding and development.

Doctrines were "discovered"; they were always there. They were "uncovered" as layers of error or misunderstanding peeled away.

The error of man-centric salvation was finally replaced by Calvinistic soteriology, but not until 1500+ years of history. Does this mean that a sovereign God who actually elects some of fallen men to be saved was "false" until Calvin? No. There were bits and pieces and ideas, but thank God for men who codified and clarified theology.

The error of the papists work-centric salvation was finally replaced by Luther. Does this mean no one was saved before him? Of course not. He "uncovered" truth that had been clouded by centuries of false teaching.

Same with the blessed hope of a pre-trib rapture of the church. It took 350 MORE years but finally this truth was codified and Uncovered. Hey, I Thes 4 has always been in the Bible, and I scratch my head wondering how they could have missed it. But cloudy eschatology FINALLY has been replaced with truth.

:saint:

 

[Benjamin]

Premill maybe... but rapture was invented much MUCH later.

Yep, Mary Magdalene --> Darby --> Scofield --> "Rightly dividing" --> Any Moment Fly Away Escapist Doctrine - aka - "The Rapture".

Hey, I Thes 4 has always been in the Bible, and I scratch my head wondering how they could have missed it.

It took a dreamer and then her friends to properly interpret it and form a system out of it...never heard huh?

:laugh:



:smilewinkgrin: Relax guys, I couldn't resist...:tonofbricks:

 

[Greektim]

There is no "maybe"! The records are as clear as crystal of that fact. In addition your denial about the "rapture" is interpretative rather than fact.

There is a maybe... in what the fathers understood about the kingdom reign (i.e. the church) and even the thousand year notion (figurative for a long time). But I don't mind granting that the early church documents that have survived seem to be mostly premill in some form.

However, as Dr. Bob acknowledged, the rapture theory was not an early church doctrine. I would argue that it is a post-reformation invention. So to put them together is anachronistic as early church dogma.

 

[Allan]

Premill maybe... but rapture was invented much MUCH later.

Incorrect.. Historic Premil holds to a post Trib rapture.. always has.

 

[Allan]

never mind

 

[Greektim]

Incorrect.. Historic Premil holds to a post Trib rapture.. always has.

Maybe when the doctrine called "historic premill" was developed into a system post-reformation, then yes. But the very concept of "rapture" is a very late development. There are early church fathers who give statements that accords well w/ premillennialism. I don't deny that. But there is virtual silence on the concept of rapture amongst the fathers.

 

[Allan]

Maybe when the doctrine called "historic premill" was developed into a system post-reformation, then yes. But the very concept of "rapture" is a very late development. There are early church fathers who give statements that accords well w/ premillennialism. I don't deny that. But there is virtual silence on the concept of rapture amongst the fathers.

'Historic Premil' simply is the identifier for 'historic' view that Premil of the early church held to.

For example:

Irenaeus of Lyons (120-202 A.D.) in Book V of his treatise Against Heresies:

..."Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons 'as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance--in fact, as nothing;') so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.' For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption...

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that 'many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'

You can see here the 7 year tribulation, the catching away or rapture.. the man of sin - Antichrist, and the coming physical return of Christ to set up His Mil-reign. Justin Martyr is another and others as well

 

[Benjamin]

Should be an obvious difference noted between Darby’s New Dispensationalism with “The Rapture” and that of Ancient Dispensationalism and the “general resurrection”.

Not buying this ancient time "support system" as it relates to these new "rapture doctrines". It just isn't there.

Just sayin…

 

[kyredneck]

Since around the 350's the RCC has a history of always setting itself against the Jews. They hunted them down and persecuted them throughout the centuries and even to this day. It is no wonder that they have the label as the true antichrist.....

This was foretold. This is nothing less than prophecy fulfilled. The Holy Roman Empire made war with the Lamb (the Church) and hated the Harlot (apostate Judaism under the judgment/curses/plagues of Lev 26/Dt 28), and ate her flesh, and burnt her with fire.

12 And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour.
13 These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast.
14 These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with him, called and chosen and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire. Rev 17

From Dr Overby's 'A Brief Commentary on Daniel':

"Rome is first ruled by the Caesars and then the Germanic tribes.........The ten horns represent kings and their kingdoms which will take over the kingdom of Rome. Ten Germanic tribes did this. They were the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Alamanni, and the Lombards.”

 

[saturneptune]

Should be an obvious difference noted between Darby’s New Dispensationalism with “The Rapture” and that of Ancient Dispensationalism and the “general resurrection”.

Not buying this ancient time "support system" as it relates to these new "rapture doctrines". It just isn't there.

Just sayin…

So are Arminians the ones "left behind?"

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

This was foretold. This is nothing less than prophecy fulfilled. The Holy Roman Empire made war with the Lamb (the Church) and hated the Harlot (apostate Judaism under the judgment/curses/plagues of Lev 26/Dt 28), and ate her flesh, and burnt her with fire.

12 And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour.
13 These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast.
14 These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with him, called and chosen and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire. Rev 17

From Dr Overby's 'A Brief Commentary on Daniel':

"Rome is first ruled by the Caesars and then the Germanic tribes.........The ten horns represent kings and their kingdoms which will take over the kingdom of Rome. Ten Germanic tribes did this. They were the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Alamanni, and the Lombards.”

Anybody with common sense knows that Revelation 17 is about ROME exclusively from start to finish. But lets deal with your buffoonery about Revelation 17. I don't know what Bible you are reading but Jesus is NOT the church. 2 Thess 2 clearly shows that the man of sin is consumed by the word of Christ's mouth, and that it is CHRIST HIMSELF that defeats Satan.

*The 10 "nations" you listed although Gentile were not exclusively Germanic. They were racially LATIN. Some of the nations that Satan makes a league with (Daniel 11, Rev 9) are from the EAST and are not caucasion at all. This is also key to understanding Matthew 24 because Jesus said that ARMIES (plural) would attack Israel (Zech 14:1-3), not ONE ARMY (Rome) in AD 70, and since these armies included armies from the east, and Rome is WEST of Jerusalem, none of the prophecies of Revelation or Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 were fulfilled in AD 70 except the ONLY MENTION of the destrucgtion of Jerusalem mentioned in the very beginning of Matthew 24. The kingdoms of Revelation 17 is about NATIONS NOT RACES OR TRIBES. You left out about 50 more than the 10 you listed not to mention ignoring one of the biggest ones of all -The Hapsburgs.

*In Revelation 17, these nations are DESTROYED BY CHRIST HIMSELF, and they fight against THE LAMB not THE CHURCH. "These shall make war AGAINST THE LAMB" which as anyone can read, began by them being gathered together in Revelation 16:16.

*In Revelation 12 a remnant of Israel is miraculously protected by God from Satan (v 6, 14) After Satan's unsuccessful attack he turns to hunt down the rest of her SEED. (Rev 12:15-17).

*The harlot is MYSTERY BABYLON. The origins of this begin with Nimrod in Genesis 11 and has never referred to Israel. The abominations of the earth with organized paganism begin in EGYPT, not Israel. Therefore the harlot of ROME is not Israel or any "Jews". The statue of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 shows the line of mystery Babylon from Assyria to Rome, NEVER Israel.

*Revelation says of the harlot that she commits FORNICATION (Rev 18:1-4) with all the kings of the earth. If the harlot were Israel, the term would have been ADULTERY. Fornication is the sin of binding with someone BEFORE MARRIAGE, thus the harlot WAS NEVER MARRIED TO GOD which can not be said of Israel. Israel by law can not cast off her husband UNLESS HE'S DEAD. Romans 7:1-4. So unless you are a Nietzsche follower ("God is dead") Israel is not the harlot of Revelation 17-18.

*Revelation 18:12-14 gives further details about products produced by this harlot that were EXCLUSIVE to Rome (Purple, silk, scarlet and particularly thyine wood-Rev 18:12). Israel has not been a major center of commerce or even a major contender for almost 2000 years.

*Israel has not been guilty of killing millions throughout the earth. They have hardly been in such a position to do so. Besides, all of your conspiracy theories about Israel's atrocities occurred within the last 100 years, that hardly fits with your assertion that Revelation 17-18 was fulfilled in the early centuries of the church when Israel was SCATTERED.

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth" Rev 18:24

Rome murdered over 50 million Christians from it's AD 40-the 1500s of ALL THAT DWELL ON EARTH. That can hardly be said of Israel.

*Revelation 18:20 states "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her."

The harlot is someone that was directly responsible for killing the prophets AND THE APOSTLES. Israel killed prophets BUT NOT BOTH. ROME KILLED THE APOSTLES AND THE PROPHETS because ROME is the beast that includes Babylon, Medo Persia, and Greece (Rev 13:2).

The beast and harlot are from ROME, and Revelation 17-18 have absolutely NOTHING to do with any Jews/Israel.

 

[Greektim]

'Historic Premil' simply is the identifier for 'historic' view that Premil of the early church held to.

Thanks for the lesson, but I've already acknowledged that.

You can see here the 7 year tribulation, the catching away or rapture.. the man of sin - Antichrist, and the coming physical return of Christ to set up His Mil-reign. Justin Martyr is another and others as well

First of all, Irenaeus alludes to 1 Thess. 4. He doesn't say anything about a rapture along the lines rapture theologians do. He leaves it very general. Likely, he use the word "catching away" as the royal meeting outside the city only to return w/ the king as Paul used it there. I'd have to see the text though and I don't have the time or desire to dig it up right now.

Second of all, I don't see 7 years. I see 3 1/2 as alluding to Daniel and Rev. Common interpretation foisted on the text when it is never there.

Lastly, it is arguable that the millennial reign here is what you want it to be. It could very well be eternity in that it is the 7th day of rest bringing to fruiting salvation history begun in Abraham. It matches well Rev. 21-22 referring to the gathering of the nations.

So I wouldn't press this too much.