King James Bible
King James Version (KJV)
Bible Discussion Thread Page 3
Viewing page: 3 of 3
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
(Part 3):
You say that the wrath of God is very different from the great tribulation. I disagree with that. I believe that the wrath of God is poured out during the last 3-1/2 years of the 7-year Tribulation. In Revelation, we see the seal judgments and the bowl judgments. By the time we get to the 6th bowl judgment, God's wrath has begun ( Revelation 6:17). Then we have the description of the 7 bowl judgments beginning with Revelation 15:1 and going through revelation 16:21. Revelation 15:1 calls it the wrath of God.
The 7th bowl judgment is poured out at the end of Revelation Chapter 16. This happens before the second coming of Christ. So, the wrath of God is poured out during the last 3-1/2 years, not after the second coming of Christ.
Jimbob, hopefully I have answered your questions, whether you agree with my answers or not. Now to be fair, I would like a turn to ask you a few questions. You said that you believe we are living in the beginning of sorrows time period right now! great tribulation will start soon. Also, you honestly believe we are much farther along in the Lastdays timeline than most True Believers think we are.
I believe I mentioned that we have been living in the "last days" for about 2,000 years now.
But, my first question is: Do you believe that the "beginning of sorrows" and "birth pains" are both referring to the first 3-1/2 years of the 7-year Tribulation?
If you believe the beginning of sorrows is the first 3-1/2 years, how far into this time frame do you believe we are in, or when did you first start believing we were in this time period?
If we are in the "beginning of sorrows" right now, would you say that Christ is coming back within the next 7-years?
Last question: If Christ does not come back within this time frame, how would you explain that?
If you choose to answer my question, I wish to thank you ahead of time. Blessings!
Jimbob,
If the Spirit indeed showed you these things, then it must be true because the Spirit cannot lie. The reason I am perplexed by this is that you go on to say "If that does not happen then I will say I misinterpreted Scripture. But if the Spirit truly showed you these things, how could there be an "if" that does not happen. If the Spirit showed you, then it must happen as you say, right?
So, then my only question to you would be, what if the Spirit showed me something different?
Again, thank you for answering my questions. May you continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Jimbob,
I agree, Matthew does not mention a rapture of the church anywhere in Chapter 24. In fact, he never mentions a rapture in any of the chapters. You say that there is not rapture in ( Mt. 24:4), and that I am believing something that's not written over the pure Words of the Lord Jesse.
You are absolutely right about Matthew not mentioning a rapture in Verse 4, But you are falsely accusing me of believing something I never said. I never once said that any of those verses preceding Verse 4 mentioned a rapture. All I said was I believe the rapture takes place before the start of the Tribulation Period.
You go on to say that "The comment I made about the 7-year tribulation starting in ( Mt. 24:4) Would mean Jesus comes for the church in either that verse or the 3 verses before that."
Why would Matthew have to mention Jesus coming for the church in Verses 1-3? Again, you already agreed with me that the pains of birth (first 3-1/2 years) started in Matthew 24:4. So why didn't Matthew mention Jesus coming for the church in the preceding three verses? Maybe for the same reason that Paul, after speaking about the Rapture of the Church in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 didn't immediately speak about the Tribulation Period, or the wrath of God being poured out in the very next verses. He didn't need to, and Matthew didn't need to mention a rapture in Matthew 24-1-3 either.
Jimbob, our discussion on this topic seems to be at a stalemate. We are not going to completely agree with each other on this, so I see no need to continue on and I am ending off with this discussion. I would much rather discuss things that we can agree on.
God Bless!
Thanks for sharing your view. For the second time, I am done with this particular discussion. If there's another topic we can discuss, I would be more than happy to converse with you.
Have a great evening!
You're telling me that I am saying Jesus comes in ( Mt. 24:4) where it says nothing about Jesus returning, and yet I am doubting the Words of Jesus in ( Mt. 24:29-31) where Jesus very clearly tells us He will return in the clouds to gather together His elect.
First of all, accusing me of doubting the words of Jesus is a pretty harsh thing to say. I would NEVER doubt the words of Jesus. Secondly, I did NOT say that Jesus comes in Matthew 24:4. If you have been carefully reading the things I've said, you would see that I have already stated in another post that Matthew 24:29-31 is the promise of His coming (2nd coming of Christ). I never once said that He comes at Matthew 24:4. If you can point out where I said that, then I will make the correction. In case you missed it, I will state it again. Matthew 24:4-14, Pains of birth. Matthew 24:15, Pivotal point, Matthew 24:16-28, Perils of Tribulation, and Matthew 24:29-31, The Promise of His coming. (2nd Coming of Christ).
In this thread, you asked me when I thought the 7-Year Tribulation period began. I answered by saying that the first 3-1/2 years of the 7-year Tribulation is known as the pains of birth which is covered in Matthew 24:4-14. This was your response: "You (I) said "The first 3 1/2 years of the 7-year tribulation is known as the pains of birth which is covered in" ( Mt. 24:4-14) I completely agree with that Jesse."
You asked me "Does this 7-year Tribulation period you speak of start in ( Mt. 24:21)?" I responded by saying that the 7-year Tribulation begins once the church is removed. I then said that the beginning of the 7-year tribulation begins at Matthew 24:4.
I did say that the beginning of the 7-year Tribulation begins at ( Mt. 24:4). You agreed with me on that. But then you say "I'm sorry but Jesus would say something about an event that is that important, there is absolutely nothing in that verse or the 3 verses before that shows anything or says anything about a rapture."
See Part 2:
Yes, studying the word of God is always a good thing. I do agree with you on that. I would be happy to answer your "one more" question. Your question to me is "Does this 7-year Tribulation period you speak of start in ( Mt. 24:21)?
Unless you are trying to trip me up, you should know by now that I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture of the church. So, because of my position on this, my answer to you would be that the 7-year Tribulation begins once the church is removed. Matthew 24:21 is not the beginning of the 7-year Tribulation. The beginning of the 7-year tribulation begins at Matthew 24:4, the mid-point is at Matthew 24:15, and the last 3-1/2 years (Great Tribulation) starts at Matthew 24:16.
In previous discussions, we've already went over Matthew 24:22, and who the "elect" is referring to where it says "but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened," so I will stand by my belief on that.
You mention Matthew 24:7, "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." And you ask me if this sounds like today? I would say yes, it does sound like today. However, these things have been going on for much longer that 7-years, so how does that fit into your belief that we are living in the Tribulation time frame?
Jimbob, I do thank you for answering my questions. But your answer to my question "If Christ does not come back within this time frame, how will you explain that"? has me a little perplexed. You responded by saying "I'm not setting any dates Jesse, But I am showing what the Spirit has showed me in the Scriptures. If that does not happen then I will say I misinterpreted Scripture, but I honestly do think we are living that time period now."
I need to send a part 2. It will be short, I promise!
I made a mistake when I said 6th bowl judgment. I meant to say, "By the time we get to the 6th seal judgment, God's wrath has begun ( Revelation 6:17)."
(Part 2):
For your next question, "If all those who are left on the earth to start the 7-year tribulation period are non-believers then who would the war in ( Rev. 12:17) be against who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ?"
Here is my understanding of Revelation 12:17:
First of all, it says that the dragon was very angry with the woman (Israel), and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, (and the remnant would be the believing Jews), which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. So, as I think I already mentioned before, there is a 144,000 Jews who are sealed on their foreheads who will be protected. But there will be other Jews on the earth who will receive the testimony, especially from the two witnesses who are in the streets of Jerusalem.
But there will be people on the earth. And we know that there will even be an angel flying in heaven warning the people not to take the mark of the beast, but to believe in God. But their lives will be taken if they do not receive the number. They will not be allowed to live because they've rejected the system. And they'll be killed with the sword.
And that will fulfill this group that is underneath the altar when God says to avenge your blood is not yet, there's still more coming, more people who have to die during the Tribulation Period that will be taken up under the altar of God. But there will be other Jews and Gentiles here on the earth that basically will believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah and Savior. They will lose their lives. But after Satan sees that his efforts to chase the nation into the wilderness fail, he'll go after the remnants seed.
(Part 1):
No offence taken. I can understand why you say some things don't seem to be adding up. I feel the same with some of the things you are saying so that makes perfect sense to me why you would say that. As for your first two questions, "Isn't it part of the pre-tribulation rapture belief that the Holy Spirit is taken away, removed from the earth when the church is raptured?" and "Wouldn't the Holy Spirit have to be here if people are being saved?"
As to the first question, I cannot speak for others that believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. But here is what I can speak for myself. I am assuming that these questions come from 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7. Those verses never say that the Holy Spirit has to be removed before the wicked one is revealed, so no, I cannot say that the Holy Spirit is taken away.
What that section of scripture tells me is that there is a restraining force that will continue to restrain until it's time for the antichrist to be revealed. I believe the restraining force is God's Spirit who will remove the hold, or restraining on the man of sin, and he will be revealed.
But does this mean that the Holy Spirit is gone from this earth just because the church has been removed? No, it does not. I believe that God in His fullness (Father/Son/Holy Spirit) is omnipresent. The Holy Spirit is not confined to just dwelling in the church but is also active in His ministry reaching out to those who are lost. So, with that being said, and to answer your question of "Wouldn't the Holy Spirit have to be here if people are being saved?", yes, I believe the Holy Spirit will still be functioning in His full capacity even after the church is removed. Why? Because God's Spirit is omnipresent.
Pt 2.
Because the New Testament interprets the Old Testament and the Old Covenant was temporary until the New Covenant came with Jesus; because Jesus said that the kingdom would be removed from ethnic Israel, the purpose of the nation of Israel was completed in the advent of Jesus, which is why the Jews were preserved in the land of promise but not the other "brother" nation Israel (who were scattered across the world from Assyria and Jews were allowed to return to Judea). The Messiah was to come from the tribe of Judah. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. Therefore the Jews needed to still be in the land promised in order for the promises of the Messiah would be fulfilled with accuracy for the world to see. With Jesus' advent, the purpose of the nation of Israel was completed. Jesus came through the Jews.
At the time of Jesus, Judaism was very corrupted. It was not a system that could bring them to God. It was only through Jesus' life and teachings and power that the hearts of some of the Jews were able to accept Him as the Messiah and believe on Him for salvation. These Jews became the first Christians in Jesus' lifetime and they eventually realized that they needed to forsake Judaism because it was a dead religion and stood against their Messiah, Jesus.
When Jesus was speaking in Matt. 24, He was speaking to His disciples, who had put their faith in Him, therefore they were of the true Israel of God in Christ. Jesus was not speaking to the Jews at large. This was a private encounter, away from the religious leaders and the common people. This teaching was for the church, not the Jews. These disciples belonged to Jesus just as we do. He was speaking to those who would be used to spread the gospel and establish believers in church fellowships with their preaching and teaching.
Jesus was warning them so that they would know what to do when Jerusalem came under siege. And He was speaking to us, for when the things foretold happen in the end
Thank you for sharing those things. I see that when Jesus was speaking in Matthew Chapter 24, He was speaking to Peter, James, John and Andrew. They were the four who came to Him privately and asked Him those three questions. Jesus was responding to the questions they asked Him. If I'm not mistaken, all four of them were Jewish. I do agree with you that Jesus was not speaking to the Jews at large.
If I may comment on your last statement saying "Jesus was warning them so that they would know what to do when Jerusalem came under siege. And He was speaking to us, for when the things foretold happen in the end."
The first part I agree with. Jesus was warning them (the Jews) what to do when Jerusalem came under siege. But I am not in agreement with the second part, that He was speaking to us, for when the things foretold happen in the end. I don't believe we (the church) will be here in the end.
Blessings to you!
You are having a good discussion here. I just want to mention this verses from Galatians 3
16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
7 "Know ye therefore, that they which are of fait, the same are the children of Abraham."
8 "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus."
29 "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed,, and heirs according to the promise."
These verses tells us that the true Israel of God is one person, Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect life as a Jew. He was the perfect Israelite, He fulfilled the commandments and ordinances of the law perfectly. Those who are in Christ, being one with Him, are then the Israel of God. This does not mean that Christ and the Christian believers replace the Jews or nation of Israel. It means that Jesus and the Church [is the terminus of the nation of Israel. Any Israelite of Jew can be included in this true Israel of God by faith in Jesus. Those who do not believe have are part of a nation which Jesus said that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another people, which is a spiritual people (which is better than ethnic by far) in Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham.
The reason why I bring this up is because Jesus was not just speaking to the Jews of His day. He knew that Judaism would come to an end along with the ethnic nation of Israel in the Roman seige of A.D. 70, (which He prophesied would happen in Matt. 24.
The plan of God came to fruition in Jesus, creating a spiritual Israel from the true Israel of God, His Son Jesus Christ
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."
Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ
For me, this verse says that God went from Abraham straight to Jesus-identifying Christ as the Seed of Abraham to which the promises were made. This verse indicates that God bypassed all of the nation that came from Abraham physically to come to Christ, which is the promised Seed. If Abraham's natural seed resulted in the multiple nations that came from Ishmael and the other 6 sons Abraham had through Keturah (after Sarah died) and from Isaac (who was the child of promise), yet the prophecy said, thy "Seed", which Paul says is Christ. Therefore, it is valid to say that Jesus is true Israel-the promised Seed, not those nations who make up the many, the nation fathered by Jacob.
I realize that the people of Israel in the OT were the God's chosen people, not because they were righteous, but according to His redemptive plan for all of mankind, which culminates in Christ, is fulfilled in Christ, and in Christ, the Israel of God continues to both Jew and Gentile by faith, not by natural lineage.
We may differ on this Jimbob. That's ok. This thread is really long, so it may be best to begin a new thread on this topic if you wish.
If I understand well your post has to do something with dispensationalism? That is the way God deals with mankind through time? Your belief is the opposite of the dispensational theology, that is the covenant theology? If so then we agree on that although we disagree about the time of the rapture. I went through some sites that explained dispensationalism and the only thing I got at the end was a headache. At the end I found an Eastern Orthodox site that explained the differences well. So yes the covenant theology is what seems to be the right one to me. If I got you wrong then forget my post. GBU
I meant to say that I do NOT like to categorize my self into any "ism" camp.
theology of God's overreaching purposes and actions in creation. While looking into dispensationalism, I realized that there was
another theological approach that is called covenant theology. I had never heard of the term dispensational nor covenant
theology before this recent study. I guess I lean more towards covenant theology, and definitely do not embrace dispensational
theology. I do like to categorize my theological leanings under any "ism" as I am still learning. But covenant theology seems to
fit much better with the revelation of God throughout the Bible. I'm not one to say I am 100% this way or not. I leave room for
God to teach me through the Scriptures.
I guess God kept me from either of these theological systems all my life for a reason. I have always been one to simply read
the Bible again and again to learn the way God has worked throughout history. I began using a concordance about 20 years ago
because, while I could remember many verses, I did not know the chapter and verse. The concordance helps me find the verse
that the Spirit brought to my mind and then I can read the chapter to understand the verse in context.
Giannis, I hope that you are doing well and I appreciate all of your wise and good input on this forum.
Both Jesse & I agreed with you that Strongs #5278 for 'endure' is correct. And that word is 'hupomeno'. However, the word 'endure' is not just a word on its own, but is qualified by the words, "that shall endure". Here, Jesse would give a better explanation of Greek grammar, but the word 'hupomeno' is no longer just an 'endurance' (which it certainly is), but in those verses, it changes to 'hypomeinas', to give the intended meaning by the writer. So, what you should be reading in the verses, is not just 'endurance to the end', but 'having endured to the end'; and this now gives our reading a different perspective. Where a cursory reading would imply 'one can only be saved if he endures to the end', a proper reading would assert the 'one who is saved will endure to the end'.
Leaving those verses aside & just thinking of an English example to give you (which is unrelated to the verses); if I said to you, as passenger in my car, 'a car is coming right behind me', or expressed it this way, 'a car is right behind me', I'm sure you would pick up on the nuance, exactly where the other car is positioned, apart from the look on my face. Even though 'coming' is understood as to where the car is approximately located, how I express its correct position helps you understand if we are in imminent danger of being hit.
Re: 1 Peter 1:7. Peter is writing to the strangers (Christian sojourners (of the diaspora) in Asia Minor), who were going through 'manifold temptations' for their faith - faithfully living in a pagan & hostile society; as also in 1 Peter 3:14-17. Also, the coming trials ( 1 Peter 4:12-19) upon them & Christians throughout the world generally. Their faith was already on test, not just prior to Christ's coming, but having come through their present & future trials, their victory would be to their credit & Christ's recognition. GBU.
Thank you for the additional clarification. I think we're on the same page here. If we take Matthew 24:13 from the English text, it looks like it is a challenge for us to endure. But the Greek text a different understanding. It gives the proof of those who are saved. They will endure.
Matthew 24:13 (KJV) "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
Matthew 24:13 (TR) "HO DE HUPOMEINAS" translated the one having endured.
And yes, you are correct. The Textus Receptus has the word HUPOMEINAS. This is one who remains under or one who endures. It is a form of the word HUPOMENO which is made up of the preposition HUPO meaning under, and MENO which means to remain. Also, MENO (Remain/Abide/Stay) by itself denotes permanency. Once a person has experienced a spiritual birth by receiving Christ, that person is then abiding and remaining in the Lord because of the Spirit of God abiding in him. This position, or condition, can never change, because the Spirit of God forever lives within the spirits of His people. This also would apply here. We endure to the end because we have Gods Spirit permanently abiding in us.
But both words (HUPOMENO/HUPOMEINAS) are very close. As for HUPOMENO possibly implying that salvation cannot be guaranteed now unless the Christian works hard at it to maintain his endurance & thus receiving salvation at the end, I have never looked at that word that way. But I do see how one might come to that conclusion.
You mention the reformers, which I think is a great example of enduring to the end. This also proved their salvation. They could only endure because of the indwelling of Gods Spirit.
I am running out of space so I will need to send a part 2.