Why is the end times so important?

Those who worship, must, worship in spirit and in truth. To do otherwise causes one to miss out on an abundance of blessings in this life.

It is my understanding that it is not "against the rules" to only quote a portion of a poster's post and I had snipped the link (and did so here as well) because I didn't want that link in MY post, but wanted to caution the readers about "American Vision" (which is "Dominion Theology," of which many Christians are wholly ignorant, and I've known many "ungrounded" Christians that have gotten sucked into it ).



Here's a very brief description of it (but there are likely better, more thorough articles found elsewhere):

https://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-theology.html


It is "American Vision" and its "Dominion Theology" that I am cautioning the readers about. Ignore it if you wish.

As for myself, I've done in-depth study regarding it, hence my very strong caution (and, yes, even warning against it)

I already did.

If you have an issue with the material in the link then refute what the writer has said in regards to Jerusalem being the whore of the book of revelation. That's the honest way to do it.

Resorting to gotquestions is just a form of "appeal to authority" which is what you tried to establish yourself as in warning our readers about American Vision.

Nope. It is a way to give the other readers of this thread a place to begin their own research regarding a subject they themselves may not yet be aware of. That's it. Nothing else.

As for the phrase found in Scripture (in the following), I found this by typing the phrase "the blood of all the prophets" into Bible Gateway's SEARCH feature:

2 Kings 9:7 -

And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel.


Luke 11:50 -

That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;


Revelation 18:24 -

And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.


Any differences?



If Lk11:50 were someone different than Rev18:24, how would that make Lk11:50 untrue of the ones that verse is speaking of??

^ EDIT: meant to quote the following post with the above ^ : https://christianchat.com/threads/why-is-the-end-times-so-important.181225/post-3903079

(Mat 27:34-35 For this reason I am sending you prophets and wise men and experts in the law, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town,

so that on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.)

The above is the same judgment dealt out to whore (Jerusalem) in the book of revelation and there's more:

(Mat 27:25 In reply all the people said, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" )

In the context in which he used the link, no it was decidedely not an appeal to authority. It was simply a link to some information. And the only reason you would continually be whinging about it is that, although you claim not to be a fan of Kingdom Now/Dominion theory, you are defending a link which contains it and also whinging that someone edited the link out of their quote from you in their reply. It is not against the rules to chop a reply quote down for the sake of brevity or focus. Editing a post would be changing the wording to make it appear the person said something they did not say by changing or inserting things into the quote that were not originally there. If I was quoting someone that had a link to a false doctrine quagmire, I'd snip the link out of a reply quote as well.

No.

Your "doctrine" takes just about every prophecy in Matthew 24 and tosses it in the trash. In verse 34, the generation that Jesus is speaking to is the generation that sees the things He is predicting come true. That couldn't be 70 AD Israel, or you are calling Jesus a liar. Either these are yet to be fulfilled, or Jesus lied. So which one is it? It can't be both. After verse 8, Jesus begins to detail what will happen, not in the immediate future, to the Apostles or Israel, but to the world overall. That's pretty obvious. The Gospel is still not being preached in every nation since there are still a few that have no contact with the outside world. You are saying Jesus lied about that. There was no "abomination of desolation" in the Temple in 70 AD. The Romans simply burned the Temple. This particular component, in regards to the Temple is important because Jesus refers the reader back to Daniel, and He does so for a specific reason. So you are saying Jesus lied about that. 70 AD was not distress and war so great that the world has never seen its equal since. WW I and WW II eclipse it many times over. So you are saying Jesus is lying about that. Most importantly, the visible return of Jesus. You won't discuss that at all because you know scripture requires it, if you study the Bible, and there is no way you can give any kind of tangible proof that Jesus returned in 70 AD. So you are saying Jesus lied about that. The Church certainly did not proclaim that Jesus returned. No one said He came back, and virtually nothing in the world, spiritually, changed in 70 AD to indicate that Jesus had come back. With that belief you may as well go whole-hog and just become an SDA or a JW and go full-on false doctrine. The Olivet Discourse demands a visible, physical return of Jesus. That component does not evaporate because you don't think it's going to happen that way. Every single prediction about Jesus' first coming was fulfilled in literal, testable, physical ways. To a Preterist, for no explainable reason, these requirements just suddenly disappear and you can just re-work them any way you want to fit your teachings. And I'm the one changing things? I don't think so. I'm the one going by what the texts says. You are not. You are either putting things in that are not there or removing things that are inconvenient to your personal doctrine. Most words have more than one meaning depending on usage and context. But in your world, "shortly" has to mean only one thing. We already know that Jesus is not saying that the Apostles will see these things, so the word "shortly" can't have the immediacy you demand of it. It means "shortly" in a different type of time frame. Can I assume that you also believe that the Church replaces Israel, since you've already yanked Jesus' Millennial reign away from Him, as well as taking His power and glory away? What did Jesus do when he came back in 70 AD? Have a trendy brunch with a few close friends and He's just been hanging out incognito ever since? When is he going to let everyone know He's here?

We know that Jesus will judge the world at that time. We know Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats. We know His coming is sudden, and will catch unbelievers by surprise. We know there are no second chances for salvation after His return. We know death and sin will be destroyed.


My answer to WHY is end times so important? Well, what is important is BEING READY. That is the message.

My answer on what will happen? I dont know everything that will take place, all I know is the words of Jesus in which He says when He returns He will separate the sheep from the goats. In other words : He shall return to judge the quick and the dead. Final judgment.

when it comes like that ?

what kind of allegory ?

Whut?

hehe

dont follow ?

the kingdom comes without signs when and where ?

Matthew 25:31-34 (Sheep and goat judgment [of the nations]) pertains only to the "quick" (those "still living") at the time of His Second Coming to the earth [His "RETURN" to the earth], and should not be conflated with the judgment of "the dead" which takes place at the later GWTj


[Rev19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 parallels the timing of Isaiah 24:21-22[23] and its TWO "PUNISH" words separated (time-wise) by a very specific period of time, which Amill-teachings (and the like) do not account for in their scheme of things]

The "sheep and goats" were separated during the early church days. The sheep were those that heeded Jesus and the apostles, the goats did not.

The context is relating to the sons of the natural kingdom of Israel which had both the sheep and goats living together and growing in the same manner that the wheat and tares did.

(Mat 8:11-12 I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,

Mat 8:12 but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.)

More context:

(Mat 13:36-39 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."

He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.

The field is the world and the good seed are the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one,

and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.

As the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age.)

The harvest was already underway before the cataclysmic destruction of Jerusalem and the surrounding lands.

John stated the winnowing fork was already in his hand:

(Matt 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clean out his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with inextinguishable fire.")

There is a 1st century related connection between the harvest and the "wrath to come" of John the Baptist.

The harvest of the wheat was already under for they were white

(John 4:35 “Don't you say, 'There are four more months and then comes the harvest?' I tell you, look up and see that the fields are already white for harvest! .)

Within the Olivet Discourse, Jesus speaks of EACH [of the two distinct time frames (70ad events; AND also [separately] the events leading up to His Second Coming to the earth FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom)] distinctly.

So Luke 21:12-24 is the only section of the Olivet Discourse where Jesus speaks of the 70ad events (note that the beginning of birth pangs in vv.8-11 are said to FOLLOW the events in this section [which section ends with the "led away captive into all the nations"], whereas in the Matthew passage "the beginning of birth pangs [plural]" kick off the entire passage that leads up to His Second Coming to the earth [note: not our Rapture, which is not its Subject] for the commencement of the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom (commencing upon His "RETURN" to the earth [Matthew 24:29-31 paralleling Isaiah 27:12-13--note WHO, and HOW [in what manner], and TO WHERE, and BY WHOM, and WHEN, which is in every way distinct from that of our Rapture]):



Luke 21:12-24 [blb] (the 70ad events which must come BEFORE ALL of the "beginning of birth pangs [plural]," INCLUDING their being "led away captive into all the nations") -

12 But before all these things [but BEFORE all "the beginning of birth pangs" just listed], they will lay their hands upon you, and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors on account of My name. 13 It will result to you for a testimony. 14 Settle therefore in your minds not to premeditate to make a defense. 15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all those opposing you will not be able to resist nor to reply to.

16 And you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put to death some from among you. 17 And you will be hated by all because of My name. 18 And no, not a hair of your head should perish. 19 By your patient endurance, you will gain your souls.

20 And when you see Jerusalem being encircled by encampments, then know that her desolation has drawn near. [note Matt22:7] 21 Then those in Judea, let them flee to the mountains; and those in her midst, let them depart out; and those in the countries, let them not enter into her. 22 For these are the days of avenging, to fulfill all things having been written. [these item cannot be skipped over or bypassed, in prophecy; this is not saying these are the sum total off everything in prophecy ]

23 But woe to those having in womb, and to the ones nursing in those days. For there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people. [note Matt22:7] 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the TIMES of the Gentiles are fulfilled. [see Rev.11:2; correlating with Daniel 7:25,27,20-21 "whose look was more stout than his fellows"; Dan7:7 "in the night"]

["the TIMES of the Gentiles" speaks to "Gentile domination over Israel" (think Neb's statue/image, with Neb as "head of gold") which started in 606bc... this is not synonymous with what some call "the Church age" ['this present age [singular]']



The SEQUENCE revealed within the entirety of the Olivet Discourse is KEY to understanding and applying it aright.

the 70ad events come BEFORE "the beginning of birth pangs" [Matt24:4-8/Mk13:5-8/Lk21:8-11]

No they don't, so I would conclude you have the sequence incorrect.

By the way that is one hideous looking post

Note that John 4:35 is stated in the context of:

36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

37 And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.

38 I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.

39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.


Where it says "I sent YOU to reap," this is not the equivalent to when He shall send the angels to reap.

You mean you do not agree that Matthew 24:4-8 EQUALS Mark 13:5-8 EQUALS Luke 21:8-11 ("the beginning of birth pangs [plural]")??

Examine these and tell me how you do not consider these to be the equivalent of each other.

That's me. Originator of the "hideous-looking"