PreTrib Rapture Affeccianados -- Good Sermon

[Ed Edwards]

Dispensation in the NT, KJV1769 family of editions (bolding by Ed):

1 Corinthians 9:17 (KJV1769):
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward:
but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel
is committed unto me.

Ephesians 1:10 (KJV1769):
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might
gather together in one all things in Christ, both
which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:2 (KJV1769):
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25 (KJV1769):
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation
of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;

The Holy Spirit hasn't shown me a lot more than is here. I do know the Greek word being translated here as 'dispensation' is the Greek word from which we get 'economy'.

I do know (IN SUMMARY OF THE BIBLE off the top of my head) that this is what the economy of God is
like:

Bible Prophetic times:
'hour' = the appropriate time
'day' = the appropriate time
or '1 day' = 1,000 years
'½-week' = 3½-years
'1 day' = 'week' = 7 years
'month' = the appropriate time
year = the appropriate time

Other 'economy of God facts':

the blind see
the dead live
the deaf hear
the lame leap like deer
the first is last
the last is first
Jesus Saves (totally!)
God Rules!!

Frequently the Bible discusses what is to be is discussed in either present tense (is done) or past tense (done already done).

So a study of Greek tenses is generally frustrating. Us human type people can only do one day at a time.

God can do everyday at a time - I think God may have invented all the days at the same time?

 

[skypair]

I guess...

...it's about time to come back and correct the presentation we saw.

I believe he has his events misaligned. He suggests that the "blood moon" and "sackcloth sun" will be the sign of Christ coming again. I don't think so.

I believe the sign of Christ's return is the same sign as His original coming -- "the bright and morning star" or "His star in the east."

I believe the blood moon and sackcloth sun as he uses them are the signs of the midtrib, Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20, Rev 6:12-17. So if you remember, instead of backing off 7 years from the Jewish New Year 2015, back off 3 1/2 or 2 1/2 for the beginning of the trib (probably the latter).

IOW, more hearsay and likely the guy was grasping at straws he didn't fully understand (same as with the Bible Codes and Millennial advent some "saw" coming on 1-1-2000).

Sorry

Skypair

 

[skypair]

grasshopper,

Here would be my understanding of the questions you ask:

1) Paul believed that the rapture and trib were coming quickly and that is when we would crush him.

2) Christ's work in the cross and resurrection potentially destroyed the work of the devil in the hearts and lives of believers.

3) Satan is bound during the coming MK but sin and death abide because Satan is not the only source of sin (a fact you demonstrat well with your "lust, sin, death" citation). In fact, he is bound to show that men sin and are sinners in spite of Satan -- a point not made since creation even in Adam and Eve's fall.

4) There is sin and death in the "Jewish version" of new heavens and new earth, Isa 66:22 - the 1000 year reign of Messiah. There will not be in the "church version" of New Heavens and New Earth, Rev 21-22.

5) The resurrection spoken of in 1Cor 15:42 is of new covenant believers when they are saved and reborn in Christ while they live. The resurrection in 15:54-55 is the rapture that all believers at 2 different times -- yet future -- will experience when they are glorified in Christ to perfect bodies.



skypair

 

[Marcia]

That describes the time right after Christ's death even at Pentecost, but Paul wrote Romans long after that and he said it would happen shortly. So when did it begin?

Interesting view. So the promise in Romans and Genesis for that matter was only a metaphoric type of crushing and only to believers. Not a literal/physical action taken upon a literal/physical Satan.

But doesn't "destroy" have a more permanent and thorough meaning than a mere gradual effect?

I still say the crushing is taking away the power of Satan that he had on all men before the cross. Men did not have the indwelling of the HS permanently (Saul had the HS but the HS was taken away; God would put the Spirit on people for certain purposes). Satan even acted in David's life:
Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel. I Chron. 1.21

Christ's victory on the cross does not mean Satan is ineffective in the world, which is still unredeemed, or in unbelievers, who are unredeemed, of course. See these:

We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 1 Jn 5.19

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Cor 4.3,4


I maintain that destroying Satan is for the redeemed for now, then permanent destruction (although Satan will still be conscious - I am not an annihilationist!) when Satan is cast into the lake of fire.

But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil one. 2 Thess. 3.3

Didn't Jesus call Peter "satan"?

I don't think in that instance he was calling Peter Satan, but addressing Satan who was influencing Peter to dissuade Jesus from the cross. Jesus also said that Satan was seeking to "sift" Peter:
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; Lk 22.31

Pre-Cross,pre-resurrection,pre-AD70.

There are passages that show Satan's influence on believers post-cross which, just because they are pre-70 AD, do not mean they do not apply today. It would be strange to think that since 70 AD, we do not have to heed these passages. Only if you think that Satan was bound in 70 AD and these passages are not supposed to be believed by Christians today, would it makes sense to say we can toss them out.


so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes. 1 Cor 2.11

No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 2 Cor. 11.14

For we wanted to come to you--I, Paul, more than once--and yet Satan hindered us. 1 Thess 2.18

for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.
1 Tim 5.15


And of course, we have the Eph 6 passage about how our battle is against evil spiritual forces (demons):
11Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
...in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
Eph 6.11-12, 16

I think Eph 6 is for believers today - not just for believers then. There is no indication in these passages that we are not to heed these warnings or that they don't apply to us today.

Then what exactly does he do?

See above! Satan hinders believers, appears as an angel of light, deceives, schemes, and is in spiritual warfare against believers. Satan is always on the attack against the church, God's word, the gospel, and believers. He never lets up.

Again James:

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Temptation comes from mans own lust, right? Isn't that what James says?

As I said before, we sin on our own. The passage above also does not negate these clear warnings:
Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 1 Cor 7.5

For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor would be in vain. 1 Thess 3.5


The "tempter," of course, is Satan.

It does not make sense to me that since 70 AD, all of this is meaningless. God does not seem to indicate by the above passages that Christians do not need to worry about Satan. Surely God knew that Christians after 70 AD were going to read these passages and believe they apply today.

Just so you know, I am a preterist, I just don't know yet if I'm a partial or full. I'm riding the fence in the gray area between until I can sort through it. I defend and debate both views trying to see the strengths and weaknesses of both.

Okay, that's fine. This is interesting as it caused me to clarify my views and search the scriptures.

 

[Grasshopper]

Here would be my understanding of the questions you ask:

1) Paul believed that the rapture and trib were coming quickly and that is when we would crush him.

Why did Paul believe the rapture and the trib were coming quickly?

Secondly, why did the Holy Spirit allow the inspired Paul to teach something you believe was obviously false.(The soon coming trib.)

2) Christ's work in the cross and resurrection potentially destroyed the work of the devil in the hearts and lives of believers.

I would remove the word potentially. But this falls into the Calvinist debate. Wy don't you start a thread on that, we need more C/A debates.

4) There is sin and death in the "Jewish version" of new heavens and new earth, Isa 66:22 - the 1000 year reign of Messiah. There will not be in the "church version" of New Heavens and New Earth, Rev 21-22.

I don't think even Jack VanImpe on a bad LSD trip could come up with anything as bizzare as this. Who teaches this? Any links?

You say there will be no sin in the New H&E of Rev 21-22. Yet notice,

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. And the sea no longer is.
Rev 21:2 And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her Husband.
The New Jerusalem in found in the New Heavens and Earth.

A pure river of the Water of Life flows from it:

Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb

There are those who may enter:

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.

Yet look who are outside the city:

Rev 22:15 But outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and makes a lie.

Are thse not sinners? Are these sinners not in the New Heaven and Earth?

These sinners are invited to enter the city:

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely.

These sinners are invited to enter the New Jerusalem found in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Isn't the bride of Rev 22:17 the church? Isn't the New Jerusalem the Church according to Revelation:

Rev 21:9 And one of the seven angels who had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife.
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God,

When did the angel tell John these events were to happen:

Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he who keeps the Words of the prophecy of this Book.

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, Do not seal the Words of the prophecy of this Book; for the time is at hand.


Not sure what is so unclear about these passages.

 

[Grasshopper]

I still say the crushing is taking away the power of Satan that he had on all men before the cross.

But Paul said it was something that would happen in his future. It would happen shortly. What was Paul talking about?

Christ's victory on the cross does not mean Satan is ineffective in the world, which is still unredeemed, or in unbelievers, who are unredeemed, of course. See these:

We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 1 Jn 5.19

What version are you using?

Young's Literal

1Jo 5:19 we have known that of God we are, and the whole world in the evil doth lie;

KJV
1Jo 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Cor 4.3,4

Young's Literal

2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this age did blind the minds of the unbelieving, that there doth not shine forth to them the enlightening of the good news of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God;

I maintain that destroying Satan is for the redeemed for now, then permanent destruction (although Satan will still be conscious - I am not an annihilationist!) when Satan is cast into the lake of fire.

Annihilationism would be another fun thread!

But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil one. 2 Thess. 3.3

Young's Literal

2Th 3:2 and that we may be delivered from the unreasonable and evil men, for the faith is not of all;
2Th 3:3 and stedfast is the Lord, who shall establish you, and shall guard you from the evil;
Judaizers!

I don't think in that instance he was calling Peter Satan, but addressing Satan who was influencing Peter to dissuade Jesus from the cross. Jesus also said that Satan was seeking to "sift" Peter:
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; Lk 22.31

Young's Literal

Mar 8:33 and he, having turned, and having looked on his disciples, rebuked Peter, saying, `Get behind me, Adversary, because thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.'

There are passages that show Satan's influence on believers post-cross which, just because they are pre-70 AD, do not mean they do not apply today. It would be strange to think that since 70 AD, we do not have to heed these passages. Only if you think that Satan was bound in 70 AD and these passages are not supposed to be believed by Christians today, would it makes sense to say we can toss them out.

Do we toss out the Old Testament?

so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes. 1 Cor 2.11

No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 2 Cor. 11.14

For we wanted to come to you--I, Paul, more than once--and yet Satan hindered us. 1 Thess 2.18

for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.
1 Tim 5.15

And of course, we have the Eph 6 passage about how our battle is against evil spiritual forces (demons):
11Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
...in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
Eph 6.11-12, 16

Just remember the word used is adversary.

I think Eph 6 is for believers today - not just for believers then. There is no indication in these passages that we are not to heed these warnings or that they don't apply to us today.

Who is our adversary:

Jam 1:14 and each one is tempted, by his own desires being led away and enticed,

See above! Satan hinders believers, appears as an angel of light, deceives, schemes, and is in spiritual warfare against believers. Satan is always on the attack against the church, God's word, the gospel, and believers. He never lets up.

You seem to give satan the attributes of God, omnipresent, and all knowing. No matter what view is correct, I believe the Church has attributed much more to satan than is possible making him an almost equal to GOD. http://www.preteristviewpoint.com/id39.html

As I said before, we sin on our own. The passage above also does not negate these clear warnings:
Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 1 Cor 7.5

1Co 7:5 Defraud not one another, except by consent for a time, that ye may be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence;

Again, who tempts?

Jam 1:14 and each one is tempted, by his own desires being led away and enticed,

For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor would be in vain. 1 Thess 3.5


The "tempter," of course, is Satan.

Context says it's the Jews.

It does not make sense to me that since 70 AD, all of this is meaningless. God does not seem to indicate by the above passages that Christians do not need to worry about Satan. Surely God knew that Christians after 70 AD were going to read these passages and believe they apply today.

It does not make sense to me that Christ destroyed the devil and his works yet they both still exist today.

It does not make sense to me that Paul said satan would be crushed shortly yet nothing has changes since Paul uttered those inspired words.

Okay, that's fine. This is interesting as it caused me to clarify my views and search the scriptures.

That's what its all about.:thumbs:

 

[skypair]

Why did Paul believe the rapture and the trib were coming quickly?

John 21:23 -- the "saying" went out among the brethren that John should not die before Christ's coming.

Secondly, why did the Holy Spirit allow the inspired Paul to teach something you believe was obviously false.(The soon coming trib.)

The Holy Spirit was pointing to an event AFTER Paul's death that happened to John in Rev 4:1 where he was "raptured" by the coming of Christ in the clouds just as the church will be pretrib. It "sets up" the whole book of The Revelation.

I would remove the word potentially. But this falls into the Calvinist debate. Wy don't you start a thread on that, we need more C/A debates.

It's really not something C&A's disagree on. Though we are forgiven and indwelt, we don't completely quit sinning. For one, it is a growing process. For two, there is still temptations from the flesh and from Satan.

I don't think even Jack VanImpe on a bad LSD trip could come up with anything as bizzare as this. Who teaches this? Any links?

The Bible.

You say there will be no sin in the New H&E of Rev 21-22. Yet notice,

Rev 22:15 But outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and makes a lie.

Your point is well taken IF you consider "outside" to be outside the city. I believe "outside" means "outside the kingdom." It matches to Mt 8:12.

These sinners are invited to enter the city:

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely.

No. The context has changed from a discussion of NJ to an invitation to believe on Christ.

When did the angel tell John these events were to happen:

Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he who keeps the Words of the prophecy of this Book.

When He comes it will be "quickly" -- to make a quick work of His enemies - "and My reward is with Me."

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

John 21:23 -- the "saying" went out among the brethren that John should not die before Christ's coming.

So Paul was passing on a false saying?

The Holy Spirit was pointing to an event AFTER Paul's death that happened to John in Rev 4:1 where he was "raptured" by the coming of Christ in the clouds just as the church will be pretrib. It "sets up" the whole book of The Revelation.

Pure speculation, and John was not raptured.

You say there will be no sin in the New H&E of Rev 21-22. Yet notice,

Your point is well taken IF you consider "outside" to be outside the city. I believe "outside" means "outside the kingdom." It matches to Mt 8:12.

The context is clear, it's outside the city:

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 But outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and makes a lie.

No. The context has changed from a discussion of NJ to an invitation to believe on Christ.

Where did the context change? They are invited to drink of the Water of Life:

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely.

Where is the Water of Life found? In the New Jerusalem:

Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

When He comes it will be "quickly" -- to make a quick work of His enemies - "and My reward is with Me."

If I told you I was coming to see you quickly, would you think it would be soon, or whenever I did come to see you, say a year from now, I would be runnng?

Interestingly you chose not to address this verse:

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, Do not seal the Words of the prophecy of this Book; for the time is at hand.

How do the literalists who don't spiritulize the Bible interpret this?

 

[skypair]

So Paul was passing on a false saying?

No, it was a saying believed among the "inner circle" of disicples. They, like you, just didn't know what it meant.

Pure speculation, and John was not raptured.

Don't be borish, Gh. When Jesus said, "Some of you shall not die until you see the Son of man coming in glory" and then took 3 of them to the mount of transfiguration, it was the same thing. An event happened that PREFIGURED a future event. John was "raptured" as we will be pretrib to see the events of the trib unfold from the CHRISTIAN perspective.

The context is clear, it's outside the city:

I've read the text. What you cite is before. There is not reason to believe that God puts Himself face-to-face with sin!

Where did the context change? They are invited to drink of the Water of Life:

Gh, are the next words in your Bible written in RED?? It's not John talking -- it's not the angel talking. The context changes.

[skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

No, it was a saying believed among the "inner circle" of disicples. They, like you, just didn't know what it meant.

Paul said it would happen shortly. You say he said that because he believed it would. According to you it did not happen shortly. Therefore Paul was passing on false information when he said it would happen shortly.

Don't be borish, Gh. When Jesus said, "Some of you shall not die until you see the Son of man coming in glory" and then took 3 of them to the mount of transfiguration, it was the same thing. An event happened that PREFIGURED a future event. John was "raptured" as we will be pretrib to see the events of the trib unfold from the CHRISTIAN perspective.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward each one according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

You have a problem.

1. Verse 28 says "some". If this speaks of the Transfiguration it only happened 6 days later. "Some" wouldn't be the word used for an event 6 days later. I realize life expectancy was much shorter then, but not that short.

2. The events of verse 27 did not occur at the Transfiguration. Is this another "gap theory" where we separate these verses by 2000+ years?

3. You have verse 28 being fulfilled before verse 27!

Finally the Transfiguration was a picture of His coming in His Kingdom(which by the way doesn't resemble Acts 1:11). But what does it also picture? The passing of the Old Covenant. It was when the Old Covenant passed(AD70) that the son of man would come.

I've read the text. What you cite is before. There is not reason to believe that God puts Himself face-to-face with sin!

Who believes that? Strawman perhaps?

Gh, are the next words in your Bible written in RED?? It's not John talking -- it's not the angel talking. The context changes.

The Water of Life found in verse 17 is the same Water of Life found in verse 1. So where is the Water of Life in verse 1???

Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of its street, and of the river, from here and from there, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each yielding its fruit according to one month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Your view has people entering the city to recieve the Water of Life in eternity. What is that? Some kind of JW theology?

However when one understands that the Church is the City (Rev 21:9-10) and the Water of Life is he same water Jesus offered the woman at the well:

Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said to her, Whoever drinks of this water shall thirst again, Joh 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.


As well as John 7:38:


Joh 7:37 And in the last day of the great feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.
Joh 7:38 He who believes on Me, as the Scripture has said, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."


It now makes perfect sense. In the New Covenant the Water of Life is found in the Church. Salvation is in Christ.

No need to JW the scriptures.

Interestingly you still have had no comment on your literal interpretation of this verse:

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, Do not seal the Words of the prophecy of this Book; for the time is at hand.

Perhaps your "literalists" friends who insist upon literal interpretation of prophetic texts can help you out.

 

[Marcia]

But Paul said it was something that would happen in his future. It would happen shortly. What was Paul talking about?

I can't answer this yet, but it's not enough to convince me of the preterist view. Also, I would want to do a study of this word and look at its use throughout the NT, and maybe the OT, in order to get a better idea of this.


What version are you using?

Young's Literal

1Jo 5:19 we have known that of God we are, and the whole world in the evil doth lie;

KJV
1Jo 5:19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

I was quoting the NASB. But I just looked at 4 other versions, and they say "the evil one" or the "wicked one." I am not sure Young's Literal is the most accurate.

Do we toss out the Old Testament?

Why are asking me this???

Just remember the word used is adversary.

And it refers to Satan. Satan means adversary.

You seem to give satan the attributes of God, omnipresent, and all knowing. No matter what view is correct, I believe the Church has attributed much more to satan than is possible making him an almost equal to GOD.

This is totally untrue and a false statement. I specifically stated previously that Satan is not omnipresent and I certainly never implied he's omniscient. Not only that, but I talk about Satan in the context of my ministry and one of the major points I make is that Satan is a creature, he's limited in space and knowledge, and does not know everything. However, it is true he has an army of demons who are out there. So when one says Satan, one usually is referring to Satan as head of this "army."

You are entirely wrong in making this statement.

Do you think all those scriptures I posted from the NT are not about Satan?

So we are to disregard them?

 

[Grasshopper]

I can't answer this yet, but it's not enough to convince me of the preterist view. Also, I would want to do a study of this word and look at its use throughout the NT, and maybe the OT, in order to get a better idea of this.

Well I think it is a very important question that has to be answered. It is clearly an event in Paul's near future yet you claimed earlier it was accomplished long before Paul wrote these words.

Why are asking me this???

You said this:

There are passages that show Satan's influence on believers post-cross which, just because they are pre-70 AD, do not mean they do not apply today. It would be strange to think that since 70 AD, we do not have to heed these passages. Only if you think that Satan was bound in 70 AD and these passages are not supposed to be believed by Christians today, would it makes sense to say we can toss them out.

You seem to be saying if passages in the Bible don't apply to us today then they should be tossed out. So since much of the OT has no modern application to us today using your logic it should be tossed out.

This is totally untrue and a false statement. I specifically stated previously that Satan is not omnipresent and I certainly never implied he's omniscient. Not only that, but I talk about Satan in the context of my ministry and one of the major points I make is that Satan is a creature, he's limited in space and knowledge, and does not know everything. However, it is true he has an army of demons who are out there. So when one says Satan, one usually is referring to Satan as head of this "army."

You are entirely wrong in making this statement.

Fair enough, but you must admit modern teaching about Satan does seem to make him almost an equal to God. How does satan know our weakness in any given situation unless he reads our minds? Yet this is the message thats seems to be prevelant in the modern church.

Do you think all those scriptures I posted from the NT are not about Satan?

I have no problem with how you used them. I was asking questions of you to satisfy my own curiosity about about demonology.

So we are to disregard them?

No but I lean towards the view that those were unique to that time period and that Romans 16:20 has been fulfilled accomplished. I still go back to James:

Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Sorry you felt the need to take this to another thread.

 

[skypair]

Therefore Paul was passing on false information when he said it would happen shortly.

Yeah, in 20/20 hindsight, we can say that. What do you think of the information Job and his "friends" related in scripture? All good?

Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward each one according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

You have a problem.

1. Verse 28 says "some". If this speaks of the Transfiguration it only happened 6 days later. "Some" wouldn't be the word used for an event 6 days later. I realize life expectancy was much shorter then, but not that short.

"Some" WOULD be used for the fact that only THREE of the disciples witnessed it. Are you deliberately trying to misread that passage or what?

3. You have verse 28 being fulfilled before verse 27!

Yup. What? You don't?

Finally the Transfiguration was a picture of His coming in His Kingdom(which by the way doesn't resemble Acts 1:11). But what does it also picture? The passing of the Old Covenant. It was when the Old Covenant passed(AD70) that the son of man would come.

Well, I don't know where you got that last bit of info but when Christ returns, the OT saints will be coming as "angels"/spirits to be reunited with their bodies, Mt 24:31, etal.

Your view has people entering the city to recieve the Water of Life in eternity. What is that?

Israel lives around NJ. They come in.

It now makes perfect sense. In the New Covenant the Water of Life is found in the Church. Salvation is in Christ.

I see you're having fun with type SIZE and COLORS even if your posts don't make any sense :laugh: !! But as to the rest of that statement -- Huh?? The Water of Life is the Church?? And here I thought it was the Holy Spirit. Silly me!

Interestingly you still have had no comment on your literal interpretation of this verse:
[/SIZE]

Verse?? I'm practically drowning in [COLORS] and [SIZES]! And you expect me to find a verse? :laugh:

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, Do not seal the Words of the prophecy of this Book; for the time is at hand.

I believe the next verse explains it. The time to choose Christ -- to "worship God" -- is at hand. Death is near -- His coming is far. The warning is to those living then. And yet His spiritual kingdom is near so that any who heed the warning may enter!

skypair

 

[Ed Edwards]

// Paul said it would happen shortly. You say he said that because he believed it would. According to you it did not happen shortly. Therefore Paul was passing on false information when he said it would happen shortly. //

This author has an incorrect observation here leading to a wrong conclusion:

1. TRUE observation:
// Paul said it would happen shortly. //

2. TRUE observation:
// You (Skypair) say he said that because he believed it would. //

3. FALSE observation:
// According to you (Skypair) it did not happen shortly. //
I've been posting alongside Skypair for what seems like a dozen years.
He has NEVER anything that would appear to be anything like this FALSE observation. In fact, he preaches against the idea that the Second Coming of the Lord is going to happen shortly, both for Paul, Peter, John, and for us.

4. FALSE Conclusion:
//Therefore Paul was passing on false information when he said it would happen shortly.//

The only people who think Jesus won't come back shortly are those who believe by error that the Second Coming is an individual spiritual event, OR that Jesus came back when He let 1,000,000 Jews get killed, 1,000,000 Jews be sold into slavery, and the rest of the Jews suffer under the Romans.

 

[Grasshopper]

Yeah, in 20/20 hindsight, we can say that.

So in hindsight you say the inspired Paul was wrong.

What do you think of the information Job and his "friends" related in scripture? All good?

Not sure what point you are trying to make. The question is not whether the info is good or bad but rather was it correct.

"Some" WOULD be used for the fact that only THREE of the disciples witnessed it. Are you deliberately trying to misread that passage or what?

No, I believe that would be you. Jesus said "some" would not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. He did not say some would see the son of man coming into His kingdom. Seems like you intentionally changed the meaning to fit your view. "Some would not taste death" leaves us to believe that at least some of them would die before the event occured. Six days hardly falls into this catagory,but 40 years fits nicely.

Yup. What? You don't?

No, I don't read prophetic texts backwards with 2000 year gaps in them.

Israel lives around NJ. They come in.

I give up, you just make it up as you go.

I see you're having fun with type SIZE and COLORS even if your posts don't make any sense :laugh: !!

I hate this system! Everytime I past a scripture from e-sword it changes font size and colors. I can't figure out how to correct it. Any suggestions?

But as to the rest of that statement -- Huh?? The Water of Life is the Church?? And here I thought it was the Holy Spirit. Silly me!

Water of Life, Holy Spirit, salvation, it makes no difference they are all unique to the New Covenant church.

I believe the next verse explains it. The time to choose Christ -- to "worship God" -- is at hand. Death is near -- His coming is far. The warning is to those living then. And yet His spiritual kingdom is near so that any who heed the warning may enter!

The context is the prophecies of the Book, meaning everything written prior. This statement serves as bookends to the entire book:

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

[Grasshopper]

// Paul said it would happen shortly. You say he said that because he believed it would. According to you it did not happen shortly. Therefore Paul was passing on false information when he said it would happen shortly. //

This author has an incorrect observation here leading to a wrong conclusion:

1. TRUE observation:
// Paul said it would happen shortly. //

2. TRUE observation:
// You (Skypair) say he said that because he believed it would. //

3. FALSE observation:
// According to you (Skypair) it did not happen shortly. //
I've been posting alongside Skypair for what seems like a dozen years.
He has NEVER anything that would appear to be anything like this FALSE observation.

Skypair said Paul thought the rapture and tribulation would happen shortly. He then agreed with the charge that he believed Paul was passing on false information by saying it would happen shortly. So yes Ed my observation was correct. Here are his statements:

A.
Here would be my understanding of the questions you ask:

1) Paul believed that the rapture and trib were coming quickly and that is when we would crush him.

B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasshopper
Therefore Paul was passing on false information when he said it would happen shortly.

Yeah, in 20/20 hindsight, we can say that

In fact, he preaches against the idea that the Second Coming of the Lord is going to happen shortly, both for Paul, Peter, John, and for us.

Really? Read the opening thread:

Sermon presented on how close the rapture is.

4. FALSE Conclusion:
//Therefore Paul was passing on false information when he said it would happen shortly.//

The only people who think Jesus won't come back shortly are those who believe by error that the Second Coming is an individual spiritual event, OR that Jesus came back when He let 1,000,000 Jews get killed, 1,000,000 Jews be sold into slavery, and the rest of the Jews suffer under the Romans.

So you agree then Paul thought and taught Jesus was coming back shortly.

Guess what, Paul was correct:

Again I quote Gill:

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mat_24:27.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Paul was right, the Lord would come soon.
Peter was right, to God 1,000 of our years are as one day.
The Lord left two days ago.
2 days and counting is a short time. The only way two days can be a long time to a human is if they are winded jumping to conclusions :laugh:.

John was right, the Lord said "soon".
Soon is coming shortly TO US.

Mat 24:26-27 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Wherefore if they shall say vnto you, Beholde, he is in the desert, goe not forth: Beholde, he is in the secret places, beleeue it not.
27 For as the lightning commeth out of the East, and is seene into the West, so shall also the comming of the Sonne of man be.

The Adventists expected that The Lord would Return in 1843/1844.
About the same time a new 'manifestation of God' appeared in the Desert of Iran. A phony.
About the same time a seer was transcribing the Book of Morman in a secret place in New York state. A phony.

Matthew 24:27 is a PROOF TEXT that the Lord will be coming SOON.

 

[Marcia]

You said this:

There are passages that show Satan's influence on believers post-cross which, just because they are pre-70 AD, do not mean they do not apply today. It would be strange to think that since 70 AD, we do not have to heed these passages. Only if you think that Satan was bound in 70 AD and these passages are not supposed to be believed by Christians today, would it makes sense to say we can toss them out.

You seem to be saying if passages in the Bible don't apply to us today then they should be tossed out. So since much of the OT has no modern application to us today using your logic it should be tossed out.

Huh? I'm saying the opposite. You are the one saying that these passages (about Satan) don't apply to us today. I was using your reasoning and showing the implications of it. If Satan is bound>then these passages about Satan are to be disregarded.

Fair enough, but you must admit modern teaching about Satan does seem to make him almost an equal to God. How does satan know our weakness in any given situation unless he reads our minds? Yet this is the message thats seems to be prevelant in the modern church.

I don't know that "modern teaching about Satan" makes him almost an equal to God. I would say that some bad spiritual warfare teachings do that. Satan doesn't have to read our minds to know our weakness - all he has to do is observe us. What else does he or the demons have to do? They don't have jobs, families, lawns to mow. We know from the Bible that angels watch man -- these passages refer to good angels (it seems) but that does give an indication that demons (who are angels as well) watch us. Paul says Satan hindered them from going somewhere. Satan is active.

No but I lean towards the view that those were unique to that time period and that Romans 16:20 has been fulfilled accomplished. I still go back to James:

Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death

.


Yes, I know. I think this is the 3rd or 4th time you have quoted that passage. But that is not the only Biblical passage on temptation. And it does not rule out that Satan tempts (entices, lures) us as well.

 

[skypair]

So in hindsight you say the inspired Paul was wrong.

Hey, and before him, 7 disciples who ate fish with the risen Jesus were wrong as well!! They were the ones who started the "rumor" that "John should not die!"

No, I believe that would be you. Jesus said "some" would not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. He did not say some would see the son of man coming into His kingdom. Seems like you intentionally changed the meaning to fit your view. "Some would not taste death" leaves us to believe that at least some of them would die before the event occured. Six days hardly falls into this catagory,but 40 years fits nicely.

You are merely taking the transfiguration out of view and putting the kingdom of Christ on earth in it's place. But the scripture contradicts your interpretation. It goes on immediately to speak of 3 disciples witnessing an event like "the Son of man coming in His glory." In fact, I've never heard anyone even claim that Jesus was speaking of an event 40 years away.

I give up, you just make it up as you go.

Now don't get disgusted, Gh. Just because you've never heard it and you didn't invent it doesn't make it wrong. It just means you are not "feeling" my end of the "elephant."

I hate this system! Everytime I past a scripture from e-sword it changes font size and colors. I can't figure out how to correct it. Any suggestions?

Well, first off, I use Instaverse. I had that problem for awhile but it went away when I used the "copy" option rather than the "copy formatted."

Water of Life, Holy Spirit, salvation, it makes no difference they are all unique to the New Covenant church.

Nah -- too non-specific.

The context is the prophecies of the Book, meaning everything written prior. This statement serves as bookends to the entire book:

skypair

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are merely taking the transfiguration out of view and putting the kingdom of Christ on earth in it's place. But the scripture contradicts your interpretation. It goes on immediately to speak of 3 disciples witnessing an event like "the Son of man coming in His glory." In fact, I've never heard anyone even claim that Jesus was speaking of an event 40 years away.

Just curious. I wondered about this as well. Lets look at it from a different point of view. Which disciples died before his transfiguration?