I just have to locate the guy in time (which I did), that is what is important, to disassemble the dispensational "argument" Stephanie.
lol, oh I see,,,:two camps arguing over gut instinct",,and who's gut instinct won again?
The Tribulation and the Church, WHEN?
- Thread starter bluto
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
lol, oh I see,,,:two camps arguing over gut instinct",,and who's gut instinct won again?
My two cents.
It had to happen 2000 years ago because we are the temple of God and there is not, and never will be another physical temple.
My two cents.
It had to happen 2000 years ago because we are the temple of God and there is not, and never will be another physical temple.
Or another option is we are the temple and someone might say "let us make an image of the beast that was,was not yet is..." and it will ascend up out of that pit where it was in Rev.17:8 as if it's deadly wound was healed and set it up in a place where it ought not be. That would sure be blasphemy to God and his tabernacle I think(Revelation 13:6).
Or the man of sin is any man who puts himself above all that is called God (the Bible) and is his own god.
Nothing in the verse that I can see restricts it to being one man.
No gut instinct at all, direct contextual exegesis.
Hebrews claims he was a coming and come he did with no delay.
(Heb 10:37 For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay. )
I don't make things up but accept what the scripture says.
Now if a theology claims a "little longer" and "no delay" means 2000 years and counting then language has no meaning and the scripture can't be trusted.
See 1 Samuel 8,,,they want a king like the other nations,,,and their going to get him (John 5:43).
The problem is we have no inspired apostolic writings/letters after the 70 AD conflagration to inform us to the man of sin, and if we accept a 70 ADish coming of Christ then the man of sin went *poof* at the "brightness of his coming", presumably leaving no remains.
Another thing that is often missed is that Paul had already told them about the man of sin, which means it was of direct consequence to them and their time frame. Whether Paul had told them in person who the MOS was we will never know.
(2 Th 2:5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? )
(2 Th 2:5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? )
Then the Apostolic fathers who did speak of this matter(up to about Irenaeus) seemed to disagree in autographs after ad70,namely Revelation and just out of fairness we should not put words in theirs...
Yeah, there's a distinction between...
--1 John 4:2-3's "that Jesus Christ in flesh having come [perfect participle]... that Jesus Christ having come [perfect participle] in flesh"
[and]
--2 John 1:7's "who confess not Jesus Christ coming in flesh [present participle]" ['this is the deceiver and the antichrist']
____________
On the subject of some of your other points...
let me ask you this. Do you believe the following two passages are speaking of identical things in the bold? [/by the bold (Matt10:27 and Lk12:3 identical things)?]
Matthew 10:25-27 -
25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
[and]
Luke 12:1-3 -
12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
Are these (the bolded) speaking of identical things?
...and, of course, I don't see many posters making any points with regard to what concerns "present day unsaved [/unbelieving] Jews," but rather, what prophetic scripture has to say about Israel's FUTURE per passages such as Romans 9:26/Hosea 1:10 (distinct from 9:25 about the Gentiles [/Hosea 2:23b]), and [about Israel's FUTURE in] Hosea 5:15-6:3, and Daniel 12:1-4,10 [distinct from v.13], and Ezekiel 37:12-14,20-23, and Isa26:16-21 and Romans 11:15[25] and John 6:39 [distinct from v.40], and Micah 5:3 [distinct from verse 2] and... etc
Anytime preterists debate futurists there is never a good outcome.
Preterists have too many grand canyon leaps for any cohesion in eschatology.
When those leaps are pointed out, they go default ,ironically,into attack the message/messenger
Iamsoandso pointed out azamzimmoto was not postrib rapture adherent. I really dont know what either if them are.
Preterist? Part prederist?
Anti dipsie?
Partial dipsie?
And what is a dispensationalist?
Is a future rapture view a dispensationalist?
Whata you wanna bet that if you ask the dipsie bogie man crowd "what is a dispensationalist" they will give you 20 different answers,and have a supreme need for the 2 references in the nt of that very word to mean something other than "dispensation"
(A dispensing of time)