Pre-, mid- & post-trib?

[percho]

Historically what was the pre a reference to relative to a millennial kingdom?

 

[quantumfaith]

So are Arminians the ones "left behind?"

Not a chance.:wavey:

 

[kyredneck]

....Israel has not been guilty of killing millions throughout the earth......

"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.....

…… it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. Lu 13:33

35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Mt 23

 

[DrJamesAch]

…… it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. Lu 13:33

35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Mt 23

And I stated that in my response, but notice that Revelation 18:20 says of the harlot the she killed the prophets AND the APOSTLES. Israel did not kill the apostles, ROME DID under Nero, Titus, and Domitian. The fact that prophets AND apostles were told to rejoice is because the harlot was responsible for killing BOTH, Israel was not.

 

[kyredneck]

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

…… it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. Lu 13:33

...that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth...Mt 23:35

 

[saturneptune]

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

…… it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. Lu 13:33

...that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth...Mt 23:35

Actually we do not know if they killed the apostles or not, as only one apostle, James is recorded in Scripture. We do know that they killed the prophets. We do know that Israel in the OT went through who knows how many cycles of this:

1. Things going very well
2. Faith and dependence on God decreases
3. As things get better, Israel goes from a decrease in dependence to practiced sin
4. God brings judgment
5. Israel cries out for mercy
6. Israel repents
7. God hears their cries for mercy and restores them
8. Israel depends on the Lord as things improve
9. Things are going very well.

How many times was that cycle repeated in Joshua and Judges alone, not to speak of Kings and Chronicles?

Aside from that, as Christ walked the earth, two things made Him visibly angry. One was the moneychangers trying to make a buck off the house of God. The other group were the very center of authority in the Jewish community, the Pharisees. You remember them, the ones that condemned Jesus Christ to death for no reason. Jesus did not get angry at the prostitutes or tax collectors, but the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. I will bet "brood of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs" were strong words at the time.

The adoption of Gentiles does not make their salvation a second class event. Our salvation is just as good, as in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and Greek.

They can claim they did not kill the apostles, but it sure seems odd that in several passages in Acts, the Jews of the day had Peter and John run out of towns, chased, and thrown in jail. There is no proof that they did not kill apostles directly or indirectly. After all, without the Pharisees, the Romans had no desire to crucify Jesus.

 

[DrJamesAch]

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

…… it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. Lu 13:33

...that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth...Mt 23:35

Two things here you are missing.

1. RIGHTEOUS blood. Now considering that you can't possibly think everyone on earth is righteous, the context shows that this particular audience has a limited application. Revelation 18 DOES NOT. Luke 13 is about the RIGHTEOUS blood, Rev 18 is about ALL BLOOD.

2. PROPHETS BLOOD. Luke 13 is SPECIFICALLY about the killing of prophets where the audience goes from ABEL TO ZECHARIAH, whereas Rev 18:24 is about prophets, saints, AND ALL THAT DWELL UPON THE EARTH. Obviously since there is a distinction made between saints, prophets, and all that dwell upon the earth, prophets can not be the same as the "ALL" that dwell upon the earth.

And as I showed from Rev 18:20, you have not shown how Israel was responsible for killing the APOSTLES. You can't show it because Scripture as well as irrefutable facts of history shows that ROME KILLED THEM.

Give it up.

 

[righteousdude2]

I'm Mid-Trib....

....if I go earlier than that, I will be just as grateful! And if the Lord tarries until the end of the seven years, I will be ready, because I am expecting to experience at least three, and a half years! I do not want to surprised, except for going earlier than expected! :laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

Two things here you are missing.

1. RIGHTEOUS blood. Now considering that you can't possibly think everyone on earth is righteous, the context shows that this particular audience has a limited application. Revelation 18 DOES NOT. Luke 13 is about the RIGHTEOUS blood, Rev 18 is about ALL BLOOD.

2. PROPHETS BLOOD. Luke 13 is SPECIFICALLY about the killing of prophets where the audience goes from ABEL TO ZECHARIAH, whereas Rev 18:24 is about prophets, saints, AND ALL THAT DWELL UPON THE EARTH. Obviously since there is a distinction made between saints, prophets, and all that dwell upon the earth, prophets can not be the same as the "ALL" that dwell upon the earth.

And as I showed from Rev 18:20, you have not shown how Israel was responsible for killing the APOSTLES. You can't show it because Scripture as well as irrefutable facts of history shows that ROME KILLED THEM.

Give it up.

And you cannot prove the Jewish hierarchy of the day did not kill the Apostles. Since they had no nation-state at the time, they had to beg Rome to do their dirty work.

The government of Rome had much more integrity than the Pharisees and Sadducees. Rome was not a religious order, nor a keeper of the Law. They were a purely secular government. The actions of Rome vs the Pharisees at the crucifixion of Christ show a huge gap in integrity. Three times Pilate said he found no fault in Him. The Pharisees on the other hand, were keepers of the Law, what was, at the time, holy, Inspired Scripture. They lied, cheated, and did everything else they could to accomplish the murder of Christ. Really, it all boils down to the fact that the Pharisees were pure evil, and Pilate had no backbone. Christ could see right through their heart, brood of vipers. Never once did He slam dunk Pilate.

So for you to sit there, and vouch for the integrity of the High Priest and his merry men at the time, is the height of the ridiculous.

 

[DrJamesAch]

And you cannot prove the Jewish hierarchy of the day did not kill the Apostles. Since they had no nation-state at the time, they had to beg Rome to do their dirty work.

The government of Rome had much more integrity than the Pharisees and Sadducees. Rome was not a religious order, nor a keeper of the Law. They were a purely secular government. The actions of Rome vs the Pharisees at the crucifixion of Christ show a huge gap in integrity. Three times Pilate said he found no fault in Him. The Pharisees on the other hand, were keepers of the Law, what was, at the time, holy, Inspired Scripture. They lied, cheated, and did everything else they could to accomplish the murder of Christ. Really, it all boils down to the fact that the Pharisees were pure evil, and Pilate had no backbone. Christ could see right through their heart, brood of vipers. Never once did He slam dunk Pilate.

So for you to sit there, and vouch for the integrity of the High Priest and his merry men at the time, is the height of the ridiculous.

In Acts 12:1-2, HEROD killed James. Herod was ROMAN. Any study of history (Foxxe's Book of Martrys) shows how the rest were killed. Peter crucified upside by Rome. Paul beheaded by Nero. etc.

And if you think Rome was purely secular you have an extremely poor view of the history of Rome. Your own user name is based off of Roman mythology from Roman gods.

In Acts 19:24, Paul is confronting the Ephesians about worshiping the "goddess", Diana. Diana was a ROMAN "goddess". Not only does Paul confront their worship of a pagan god, but Acts 19:24 shows that there was profit made in the making of relics dedicated to these gods of which profits were then taxed by Rome. Christianity was a threat to Rome's economy in more ways than one.

The Jews themselves understood that Jesus was a threat to Roman invasion and persecution because they stated:

"If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation" John 11:48

So even the Jews understood that Rome had an interest in preventing the spread of the gospel, contrary to your assumption that Rome had no desire or reason to kill Christ. And apparently you forget that one of the Herods had all of the children under 2 years old murdered because the Wise Men failed to report back to him about the location of the birth of Christ. Matthew ch 2. Thus Rome had an interest in killing Christ from the very moment He was born.

And to think that the Romans were innocent merely because the Jews requested Christ's death is ignorant. Rome crucified someone they KNEW had not violated any laws. Pilate's admission of this only serves to further condemn him, makes no difference whether he "had a backbone" or not. What were the Jews going to do, take Jerusalem back from Rome?? I just showed you from John 11:48 that the Jews were terrified of Rome so Pilate didn't base his decision on any fear that some Jew was going to ridicule him.

Not to mention that Jesus specifically expressed His desire to not hold those responsible for crucifying Him accountable (Luke 23:34). Oh I know I know "Let His blood be on us and our children". One of Hitler's favorite verses as well as those who butcher the meaning of the verse to hold the Jews exclusively accountable for the death of Christ.

[juvenile taunting snipped; poster warned to grow up]

 

[preacher4truth]

And you cannot prove the Jewish hierarchy of the day did not kill the Apostles. Since they had no nation-state at the time, they had to beg Rome to do their dirty work.

The government of Rome had much more integrity than the Pharisees and Sadducees. Rome was not a religious order, nor a keeper of the Law. They were a purely secular government. The actions of Rome vs the Pharisees at the crucifixion of Christ show a huge gap in integrity. Three times Pilate said he found no fault in Him. The Pharisees on the other hand, were keepers of the Law, what was, at the time, holy, Inspired Scripture. They lied, cheated, and did everything else they could to accomplish the murder of Christ. Really, it all boils down to the fact that the Pharisees were pure evil, and Pilate had no backbone. Christ could see right through their heart, brood of vipers. Never once did He slam dunk Pilate.

So for you to sit there, and vouch for the integrity of the High Priest and his merry men at the time, is the height of the ridiculous.

Great response, you are exactly correct.

 

[saturneptune]

In Acts 12:1-2, HEROD killed James. Herod was ROMAN. Any study of history (Foxxe's Book of Martrys) shows how the rest were killed. Peter crucified upside by Rome. Paul beheaded by Nero. etc.

And if you think Rome was purely secular you have an extremely poor view of the history of Rome. Your own user name is based off of Roman mythology from Roman gods.

In Acts 19:24, Paul is confronting the Ephesians about worshiping the "goddess", Diana. Diana was a ROMAN "goddess". Not only does Paul confront their worship of a pagan god, but Acts 19:24 shows that there was profit made in the making of relics dedicated to these gods of which profits were then taxed by Rome. Christianity was a threat to Rome's economy in more ways than one.

The Jews themselves understood that Jesus was a threat to Roman invasion and persecution because they stated:

"If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation" John 11:48

So even the Jews understood that Rome had an interest in preventing the spread of the gospel, contrary to your assumption that Rome had no desire or reason to kill Christ. And apparently you forget that one of the Herods had all of the children under 2 years old murdered because the Wise Men failed to report back to him about the location of the birth of Christ. Matthew ch 2. Thus Rome had an interest in killing Christ from the very moment He was born.

And to think that the Romans were innocent merely because the Jews requested Christ's death is ignorant. Rome crucified someone they KNEW had not violated any laws. Pilate's admission of this only serves to further condemn him, makes no difference whether he "had a backbone" or not. What were the Jews going to do, take Jerusalem back from Rome?? I just showed you from John 11:48 that the Jews were terrified of Rome so Pilate didn't base his decision on any fear that some Jew was going to ridicule him.

Not to mention that Jesus specifically expressed His desire to not hold those responsible for crucifying Him accountable (Luke 23:34). Oh I know I know "Let His blood be on us and our children". One of Hitler's favorite verses as well as those who butcher the meaning of the verse to hold the Jews exclusively accountable for the death of Christ.

Stick to what you do best, chasing threads and insulting folks (Post #8 recently from another thread) because theology and history are definitely not your strong suit.

Whatever you say. My name, Saturneptune, is from a hobby of mine called astronomy. It has nothing to do with Roman gods. On top of that, I do not use fictitious titles in mine.

You mentioned Hitler. Hitler was no where in my post. It was in your post. Now, to the point of who was responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, in a spiritual manner (look up the word spiritual), it was God's plan of salvation, and His Son's willingness to go to the cross that we might be saved. On a physical level, you cannot make a debate out of this. Pilate was spineless and the Pharisees were more evil and manipulative than Pilate.

Stop with the woe is me about your ethnic background. One branch of my family comes from the same stock. Whoop tee do.

Frankly, I do not care what you think of my knowledge of the Bible or history. My posts come from Scripture. The only one known is James. Your references come from extra Biblical sources that may or may not be true. Some of those were written by the RCC. What does that tell you about the validity of your posts.

Do not chide me for insults. Look at the last sentence of the one you just posted. As I have said before, and stand by it, there is nothing genuine about you.

 

[preacher4truth]

The Jews are the ones who killed the Christ. They've been murderous from the beginning and killed prophets along the way as well.

Here Peter tells the truth about this:

'Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:' Acts 2:22-23

 

[kyredneck]

And I stated that in my response, but notice that Revelation 18:20 says of the harlot the she killed the prophets AND the APOSTLES. Israel did not kill the apostles, ROME DID under Nero, Titus, and Domitian. The fact that prophets AND apostles were told to rejoice is because the harlot was responsible for killing BOTH, Israel was not.

Israel never killed Abel but his blood was required of 'that generation':

that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Mt 23:35

 

[Allan]

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.

Sorry GT, not only are you wrong but you are absolutely wrong. It isn't 'arguable' what he speaks to regarding the Mil-reign but specific.. and only those who wish to try to 're-interpret' his statements (not only here but in his other works which also speak to the Mil-reign) are the ones wresting a new meaning from the content he sets forth. The literal and physical reign of Christ, from Jerusalem, was the de facto view of the early church. This is historically documented and agreed upon

For me, it is strange when people say the apostles held to something else. Personally, I always wonder why 'their' disciples never taught anything else (which we would see in their disciples teaching as well), and those churches they set up all over didn't hold to any other views that can be noted historically. It wasn't until a couple hundred years later 'other' views began to be noted to stand in opposition to said view.

As for see the 7 years of tribulation.. funny how you state you don't see it BUT, acknowledge the 3 1/2 years (going back to Danial) which refers to the 7 year paradigm Funny how even the early church saw it there too
And yes, the Historic Pre-Mil view held to a 7 year Great Tribulation.

Here is Chafer also:

AS TO PREMILLENNIALISM BEING A NEW THEORY:

It is a common practice with some theologians to brand chiliasm (premillennialism) as a modern theory, not remembering that, in its restored form, even justification by faith is comparatively a modern truth. Both justification by faith and chiliasm are taught in the New Testament and were therefore the belief of the early church. These doctrines, like all other essential truths, went into obscurity during the dark Ages. The Reformers did not restore all features of doctrine and along with justification by faith they retained the Romish notion that the church is the kingdom, fulfilling the Davidic covenant, and appointed to conquer the world by bringing it under the authority of the church. (Chafer, Vol. 4, Eschatology, Introduction. pg. 257)
Historically, the doctrine of Pre-mil was cast aside when Christianity became a world power.

If what Chafer wrote is correct, then it would appear to indicate that this was the apostles own teaching since it was so prevellent a view since the inception of the Church and disappeared as the RCC began to take form and emerge.

 

[convicted1]

The OP left us "amills" out......

 

[DrJamesAch]

Sorry GT, not only are you wrong but you are absolutely wrong. It isn't 'arguable' what he speaks to regarding the Mil-reign but specific.. and only those who wish to try to 're-interpret' his statements (not only here but in his other works which also speak to the Mil-reign) are the ones wresting a new meaning from the content he sets forth. The literal and physical reign of Christ, from Jerusalem, was the de facto view of the early church, and for nearly 300 years, uncontested. This is historically documented and agreed upon

Strange how from the apostles till the affirmed changing of the Church's stance, it cannot be illustrated there was any other possible understanding of the Church at large. So when people say the apostles held to something else, I always wonder why 'their' disciples never taught anything else (which we would see in their disciples teaching as well), and those churches they set up all over didn't hold to any other views that can be noted historically. It wasn't until a couple hundred years later 'other' views began to be noted to stand in opposition to said view.

As for see the 7 years of tribulation.. funny how you state you don't see it BUT, acknowledge the 3 1/2 years (going back to Danial) which refers to the 7 year paradigm Funny how even the early church saw it there too
And yes, the Historic Pre-Mil view held to a 7 year Great Tribulation.

The 7 years are listed in Revelation as well just not many have caught on to it. If you notice, in Rev 11:3-4, the 2 witnesses preach for 3 1/2 years. They are killed by the beast in 11:7. This begins the 3rd woe described in Rev 8:13 and Revelation 12:12. The beast is then given 3 1/2 years and it is during this 3 1/2 years that the remnant of Israel (Rev 7:4-8, Romans 9:27, Matthew 24:22) and those who are proselytized to Israel (as in the OT but this time the Jews (corporate Israel) are carrying the gospel because the church will be gone-Rev 14:6) are miraculously protected by God (Rev 12:6, 14).

 

[kyredneck]

Originally Posted by 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.....

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.”

This is the text of part of the Mass in Rome on March 12, 2000 in which Pope John Paul II offered a Universal Confession of Sins and Request for Forgiveness

http://www.lafond.us/pagans/Papal_Apology/apology.htm

MEMORY AND RECONCILIATION: THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST
December 1999

http://www.lafond.us/pagans/Papal_Apology/MemAndRec.htm

...in other words, the RCC has at least acknowledged and attempted to apologize and ask forgiveness for it's past sins.

Search long and hard for any such apology from the Jews.

 

[quantumfaith]

The Jews are the ones who killed the Christ. They've been murderous from the beginning and killed prophets along the way as well.

Here Peter tells the truth about this:

'Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:' Acts 2:22-23

They, the Jews, have been no more murderous than any other ethnic,racial or national group of people.

 

[kyredneck]

They, the Jews, have been no more murderous than any other ethnic,racial or national group of people.

They, the Jews ('that generation'), were pronounced guilty of all the righteous blood shed on the earth by Christ Himself.