I was born on October 31st 1985 A.D.
I'm a Caucasian male who lives in Racine Wisconsin.

I'm a Christian, I take the Bible literally, I'm a 6 Day Young Earth Creationist. I don't Identify myself with any Denomination, the Churches I sometimes go to are Independent Baptist, but I'm a Member of none, I was raised Catholic but I'm not anymore. I believe Salvation is by Faith Alone, and I don't believe you can lose your Salvation. I'm definitely not a Calvinist or an Arminian.

I do not believe Homosexuality is a Sin, I've studied all the Bible verses cited as claiming that, and their only condemning certain Pagan practices. Even Pre-Marital sex all together I do not believe is as condemned as people assume.

My Political views are also complicated to explain, I voted for Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin in 2008. I'm liberation on about 95% of Issues, I despise both major Parties, I consider both the Libertarian and Constitution parties, but their flawed too.

I love reading books, including Comic Books. I like Video Games but mostly Nintendo. I consider The Dark Knight the greatest movie ever made.

I desire to be a writer. I have many kinds stories I want to write. From Young Adult Romance, to stories inspired by French Pulp Fiction and Comic Books and Anime, to Historical Epics, to Steam Punk SciFi/Fantasy. And plenty that merge some or all of those.

My beliefs have an effect on my writing. But I try very hard not come off a preachy, and I do want people who disagree with me to still find the stories entertaining and the characters likeable (or Love to Hate-able for the Villains).

 

The Olivite Discourses, Matthew and Luke’s are different

http://z13.invisionfree.com/BlogMithrandirOlorin/index.php?showtopic=55

First of I want to explain that the accounts in Matthew and Luke are of separate discourses with ultimately separate intents. A lot of things Yeshua says in both, that happens, I repeat myself on this forum for paragraphs on different subjects often. What is different in them is vital, no matter how small it is percentage wise in the texts.

Mark 13 may be a separate matter altogether.

First off, the setting.

QUOTE   
Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
____________________________________
Lu 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.  And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Matthew’s is a private conference    with the Disciples where some time has passed since his “not one stone left” statement. And said statement is not really what the Disciples asked, they asked about his coming and the time of the end. Maybe they assumed they’d be the same thing, but the Answer Yeshua gave made no illusion to The Temple’s destruction.

But in Luke he’s asked to elaborate on what he said immediately, and is clearly in context something he preached publicly. The introduction to Luke’s Gospel if you know the Greek implies Luke interviewed eye witnesses, he wrote down I think reports he got from many, not just the Disciples with whom his contact was limited if he knew them at all, cause he joins Paul in Acts 16, after his last meeting with the Disciples.

The very set up tells us their different. See I’m going to argue that the Preterists are mostly right about Luke 21, but not at all about Matthew 24. Luke’s context is to explain the Destruction of The Temple, but Matthew’s is The End Times and his Second Coming

QUOTE    Mt 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

__________________________________________
Lu 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am He; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.  But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

These have difference in details but I won’t dispute he’s talking about the same thing. This is the section constantly interpreted to be parallel to the Four Horsemen, I’ll explain my issues with that in a future study, but for my purpose here that’s irrelevant.

The key distinction is the timing of what comes next. Persecution of believers is what’s being described in both, in some similar terms because persecution are often similar, Satan isn’t that creative. but how their timed with what he just described is distinct.

QUOTE Mt 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted,

_______________________________________________
Lu 21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you,

In Matthew he speaks of a persecution that follows the prior signs he just described. But in Luke the Persecution comes first. In Luke it’s the persecutions inflicted by Jews that Luke latter records in Acts, as starting with Stephen. Specifically Jewish references exit in Luke like Synagogues. No references to False Prophets here, meaning no falling away within the Church, because they were prepared for this persecution.

In Matthew no specific Jewish references like Synagogues exist, but we are hated of All Nations for his name’s sake. False Prophets do arise to deceive many, and iniquity abounds. The believers were not prepared for this Persecution. Even though I’m against Pre-Trib I’m not gonna blame people being Pre-Trib on this, cause lots of Pre-Tribbers like Chuck Missler believe a Pre-Trib persecution. Regardless of their Rapture views all Western Christians have become complacent by having it too easy for so long now. But Matthew also says during this time The Gospel shall reach all kingdoms of the world, and then the time of the End shall come.

I’m not gonna quote the Persecution accounts here, read them for yourselves. My next point is what follows Persecution. The centerpiece    of both accounts are different.

QUOTE Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
_______________________________________________
Lu 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains

No reference to Daniel in Luke, no Armies surrounding the city in Matthew. No Abomination or Holy Place in Luke. Also Jerusalem is only named in Luke but that’s not significant both clearly mean Jerusalem.

Only the word “Desolation” and a warning to Flee to Mountains gives any basis for thinking their the same.

Desolation only refers to “The Abomination of Desolation” when both words are used together. The Hebrew Scriptures often uses “Desolations of Jerusalem” to refer to Jerusalem being desolate after the destruction in 588 B.C. Like in Daniel 9 setting up the 70 Weeks prophecy. In Luke Yeshua is foretelling that that shall happen again.

Some trying to insist a preterist interpretation doesn’t work even for Luke’s insist the word Desolation should make us think only of the Abomination, and that he’s clearly directed people to the 70 Weeks prophecy. But the second to last verse of Daniel 9, in the same sentence that foretells the Second Temple’s destruction says “and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” Same word that’s translated “desolation” in the next verse.

It shouldn’t surprise us both these events would be followed by people fleeing, possibly to mountainous regions, and some similar poetic language used. Josephus records how the problems of succession in Rome following Nero’s death, the Romans Armies surrounded Jerusalem for a year before the siege really started. The Early Church fathers like Eusebius of Caesarea record how the Christians of the Jerusalem Church under their second “Bishop” Simon (possibly the half Brother of Yeshua) fled Judea heeding Yeshua’s warnings and so no Christians were killed in the 70 A.D. siege.

But also only Luke refers to

QUOTE Lu 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The “times of the Gentiles” is further explained in Romans 9-11. It’s an idiom of the Church Age. After this the materiel again matches Matthew’s, in a very broad sense at least, lots of details are missing.

Where the Preterists stumble is that reference is were it jumps forward. As long as Jerusalem is still trampled by Gentiles (is even now with the Muslim shrines there) this Prophecy isn’t done.

Now some Preterists might insist on saying this must be understood in the context of Revelation 11 reference to the trampling under of Jerusalem. That is only the very end of the “Times of the Gentiles”, which Paul clearly defined himself as the Church Age.

Harmonizing The Gospels, The Disciples who were likely present when this Pubic sermon in Luke was given, may have at first drew the same false conclusion from this public speech Preterists take, that the End Times signs immediately follow Jerusalem’s destruction, and sought more details on the subject.

The statement that prompts The Olivet Discourse occurs in all 3 Synoptic Gospels. But Luke uniquely seems interested in recording Yeshua’s predictions of the Coming fall of Jerusalem even outside this Chapter. After the Triumphal entry Luke 19:41-44 records that Yehsua.

QUOTE And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying.  “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.  For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

And then the cleansing of The Temple follows this.

As Yeshua is bearing his Cross on to his Crucifixion Luke 23:27-

QUOTE And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.  But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.  For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.  Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.  For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

Where he speaks of Judgment that will come upon them in the lifetime of their small Children, when they’ve become full grown adults. Some people want to add an End Times context here because of “say to the mountains, Fall on us” but such idioms of distress are not limited to the actual End Times.

What’s interesting is Matthew and Mark were written way before Luke, The Gospels were written in the order we place them in according to all early Church sources. Mark was written based on what Peter taught in Rome in the Second year of Claudius. So the discourse(s) given more privately were written down first. Logical since people already knew what he taught publicly, only the bare essentials of that were of high priority to write down at first, mainly the Sermon on the Mount. which Matthew has the most complete account of

Luke was written right when it’s narrative ended I believe, two years after Paul’s first arrival in Rome. 62 A.D. about the latest possible date. So Luke was inspired to write down these Prophecies Yeshua gave of The Temple’s destruction when it was less then a decade away.

In terms of the intent Audience wise, is the usual Pre-Triber view that Matthew’s is to Israel and Luke’s The Church accurate?

Matthew’s is a Gospel that is in some ways the most Jewish as it was written in Hebrew first, and is the first Gospel written, Paul said “The Gospel is for the Jews first and then the Gentiles”. But Matthew’s is also kind of very Church specific, being the most themed on Discipleship.

Luke was a Gentile, who’s audience was over all Gentiles ultimately. But that ironically results in Luke spending the most time explaining Jewish things.

The Church and Israel are separate Covenants, but they do overlap, all Jewish believers, the remnant not under the Spiritual Blindness Paul spoke of, are heirs to both Covenants. That begins with the 12, promised to rule over the 12 Tribes, and goes don to any present at the Rapture. I’m still unsure if I view the 144,000 as part of The Church.

If either Discourse was only for the Church it would be Matthew which was given, like the Kingdom parables, to only the Disciples. While Luke’s account is a Public speech all of the Jews, whether they became saved or not, in Jerusalem during that Passover season heard. But in fact I view both as being equally for both, in terms of 70 A.D. only Christians heeded the warning, but he gave it to all.

But in terms of what the Disciples were told about the End Times, it’s supposed to be what those of us who already know the content of this warning are proclaiming to the people of Israel who’s time of Trouble is at hand, and I think chiefly the 144,000 will be doing just that, as well as the Two Witnesses. So that when it happens, they will know at that moment the New Testament was right, and their national salvation won’t happen all at once here , but it begins in this moment. The persecution Matthew records before the Abomination of Desolation however is a Christian persecution not Jewish. The Disciples listening (representing the Church) are refereed to inclusively with those who are persecuted, but not with those who flee Judea.

Some have minimized the significance of the Sabbath reference in the fleeing part of Matthew’s account. Saying that on the Sabbath it’s difficult to travel for anyone in the region. Those usual traffic patterns of Israel however will be mot when this very Public Earth shattering event happens. The Sabbath isn’t part of the Luke warning.

My interpretation of the Sabbath reference making it a warning for the Jews doesn’t mean that I think they should delay fleeing when this happens if it’s the Sabbath. Just to hope that it isn’t an issue.

Now some hold the view that the people in Judea being told to flee here must be Christians because it must be understood in the context of the earlier persecution where they are hated “for my Name’s sake. That doesn’t fit grammatically or contextually at all. These people flee in response to the Abomination event, the victims of the earlier persecution are obviously all ready on the run, they did not need to see this event to become frighted. In fact Christians in this period should be relived, we should know his coming is imminent.

Who are the Elect. Elect means Chosen, 7 times the same Greek word is rendered Chosen. It can mean either the Church or Israel, or maybe even sometimes both. And once is used of Yeshua’s Messianic claim in Luke 23:35. And of Angels in I Thessalonians 5:21. Those who want to assume it always refers to the exact same Elect are not paying close enough attention.

Thinking it means only The Church or The Saved is chiefly a Calvinist heresy to support their twisted take on Predestination. 1 Peter 1:2 makes clear we’re Elect/Chosen because of the foreknowledge of God. God is outside time, so when we accept Yehsua as our Savior he writes our names in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the Foundation of the World.

But some Pre-Tirbers insist it always means Israel to support their desire to claim Matthew 24:31 isn’t the Rapture. Yet this part of Matthew resembles Paul’s two definitive Rapture accounts in Corinthians    and I Thessalonians more definitively then any other supposed Rapture reference.

The Elect in Matthew 24:31 are gathered from “all the winds of Heaven” Israel at he the end of the 70th week is in Edom, not scattered in different regions. And we know from Comparing John 19 and Isaiah 63 Yeshua returns to them, gathering is only a part of the Rapture.

Sadly, many fellow Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath supporters (like Chris White) state definitively “Elect” NEVER means Israel in their zeal to refute the Pre-Trib view here. I don’t know if he is Calvinist, or just ignoring the Calvinist implication of this very dangerous conclusion.

He cites John’s Second Epistle’s “Elect Lady” as a proof it means The Church always. This one is the least clear to me, first off I believe the individual woman being written to may well be like many others suspect Mary the Mother of Christ, who is the individual Woman in whom the core purpose of the Revelation 12 Woman was fulfilled, birthing The Seed of The Woman. And who Yeshua entrusted John to take care of from The Cross.

To those who insist there is no individual in mind in John 3,and it’s simply to The Church, she has specific relatives refereed to in verse 4 and 13. Why not use this phrase in all three epistles if it simply means the Church?

Verses like “For many are called, but few are chosen.” can’t meant the Church unless you support the Calvinist heresy. This refers to Israel being God’s Chosen people. It doesn’t meant their Salvation works any differently, but they have an Election for a special status in Eternity if they accept Yeshua. Some of the Parables elaborate on this.

Eklegomai (ek-leg’-om-ahee) is a related but different word also rendered Chosen. On many occasions this and not Elect is used to refer to the 12 Disciples, that might help confuse people, it clearly includes Judas who was not saved. John’s Gospel always uses this word, not Elect. He may have meant the same thing by the word. Either way, using it of Judas proves you don’t need to be saved to qualify for that word.

The 12 are part of the overlap between Israel and the Church remember, they will rule over the 12 Tribes in Eternity.

Paul in Romans 8-11 uses another Greek word related to Elect, translated Election, clearly refers to the same concept, the verb form. 9-11 is all about refuting replacement    theology   . Those of us who are saved are saved by the “Election of Grace” Israel’s covenant is a different Election, but is an Election. “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” enemies of the Gospel only because of a temporary Spiritual Blindness.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 is absolutely using Elect of Israel, not the Church, because he wants them to become Saved, so their clearly not saved believers already in The Church.

Back to The Olivet Discourses’ usage of the word. Luke’s doesn’t use it at all. In addition to the key Rapture reference. The reference to “deceive if possible even the Elect” is probably also The Church, I’m not sure what exactly this means, if it means we can’t be deceived, or that we could be if we’re not paying close enough attention. But I know it’s related to having The Holy Ghost, being biologically of Israel gives no special resistance to Deception. All the Unsaved will accept The Mark.

The first usage of the word is Matthew 24:22 “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened." And Mark 13:20 "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.”. Must be chronologically after the rest, regardless of what you think Elect means or when the Rapture is, this is referring to the days in question, and what follows is talking about what leads    to that.

In this Context I feel it means Israel, because their people at risk of being killed if those days aren’t shortened. Saved here clearly doesn’t mean Eternal Salvation, but being saved from death and destruction, because it speaks of the flesh. But why even in the same discussion mean something different with each usage? Because the Rapture helps bring about the Spiritual Salvation of Israel.

The Olivet Discourse of Mark 13

The distinction between Matthew and Luke’s account is fairly well acknowledged Christian circles, but that Mark also is distinct from the two is generally set aside.

Starting again with the setting, Mark’s more resembles Matthew’s as it’s a private teaching and not a public sermon. But while in Matthew all the Disciples are implied to be present, Mark 13:3 says “And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately”. So this is even more selective knowledge, at least at first.

Now for Mark’s version of the core set of signs all 3 have in common.

QUOTE Mr 13:5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am He; and shall deceive many.  And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

What I neglected to address here before is that the “be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet." And it’s equivalent wording in the other accounts is basically saying these aren’t signs at all. Chuck Missler likes to call them the "non signs". Their about conditions that exist all through the period of time between The Second and Third Temples. To a lesser extent they can apply to Pre-70 A.D. too, as students of the History know, and could continue into the 70th week also. But for Eschatological Doctrine building purposes this is defining of the Temple-less Diaspora period.

The account of the persecution is more like Luke’s because it’s defined as being Jewish in origin. But it does have a connection to Matthew’s where it talks of the Gospel being preached to all nations. But Mark is saying not to worry for the Church can’t be wiped out during this period because the Gospel must be preached to all nations and that hasn’t happened yet. While Matthew says that at that time The Gospel will be Preached to all nations, and that is the last thing to happen before the Abomination of Desolation.

The timing distinction between the Non Signs and the Persecution that is so important to the Matthew-Luke distinction doesn’t exist at all. As if in Mark this Persecution is during this period, not before or after.

After the Abomination of Desolation part it parallels Matthew’s pretty well. But the core of my view of Mark 13 is in how the Abomination of Desolation is described differently in Mark. Matthew says it will happen in the Holy Place, in the Temple, fitting what Daniel and Paul describe. But in Mark.

QUOTE Mr 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

"Where it ought not", is a pretty interesting distinction. Mark’s, unlike every other reference, does not require The Temple itself in place for it to be literally fulfilled. Just an Abomination placed on that same land area.

I think we are dealing with a double fulfillment in this verse. I know your thinking “but the near fulfillment of the Abomination of Desolation was Antiochus Epiphanes, already in the past”. Some times the multiple fulfillment doctrine has even more then just two. Every key detail of Yeshua’s First Advent had an OT foreshadowing, and some of the First Advent has a Second Repeat, mainly the Triumphal Entry.

I do believe only twice in history ever will an Idol (or Man proclaiming himself God) ever stand in The Holy of Holies of a fully built and consecrated Jewish Temple on the site of Solomon’s Temple. Epiphanes and The Man of Sin. But something that could be viewed as “close enough” was already in the past even in Daniel’s time. King Manasseh of Judah, son of Hezekiah, placed Idols in The Temple.

I think the double fulfillment applies only to to the Abomination verse here. I don’t see any future Christian persecutions being chiefly Jewish in origin, so what’s before it here is the past. But what’s after strongly matches Matthew to much for me to see it as different. So this Abomination is a jump forward point. Like how Daniel 8 jumps forward at Antiochus Epiphanes persecution, and Daniel 11:35 at the Maccabees victory.

I believe The Abomination of Desolation that is the near fulfillment here is The Equestrian Statue of Hadrian in the Jupiter Temple complex built over the Holy Mount after the Bar Kochba revolt was crushed. I discus that statue elsewhere, when I talk of my support for the Southern Conjecture or Al-Kas fountain view of The Temple’s location.

The Bar Kochba revolt’s importance to not just Jewish but Christian History is sadly overlooked. To me it’s vital, and I also believe it was Bar Kochba not The Beast Yeshua meant in John 5:43 “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." Though I also consider that a verse not to build Doctrine on at all, least not Prophetic Doctrine, as the "if" makes it purely hypothetical. Like the imagined Psalm 83 War, or the hypothetical Assyrian attack in Micah 5.

What more people need to understand about the schism between Judaism and Christianity, is that it didn’t simply go    from bad to worse consistently from Stephen to Hitler.

The Jewish-Christian conflicts you see in Acts (and foretold in Luke 21) actually ceased after 70 A.D. Because the sects of Judaism most hostile to Christians, (Sadducees, Zelots, and Shammai following Pharisees) were completely wiped out in the 66-73 A.D. War. And the sect most tolerant of Christians, the Pharisees who followed Hillel The Elder (Hillel’s grandson was the Gamaliel of Acts 4) became the sole surviving sect, until it eventually broke up among themselves. So from 75ish on into Hadrian’s reign Christians and Jews not only got along, but were the same to outsiders, as historical references linked to Domitian’s persecution of both demonstrates.

But in 132 A.D. Simon Bar Kochba started another Jewish revolt,in response to Hadrian’s plans    to built a Temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount. Christians might have been supportive, but because he proclaimed himself The Messiah, Christians were naturally not wiling to follow him. So he started a    vicious persecution of Christians. And resentment towards this Persecution is what Christian Anti-Semitism was born from, we failed this time to follow the example of Stephen’s dying words. “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.”

I tend to agree with those Prophecy teachers who say that to some extend all of Israel’s history has been laid out in advance by God. The Bar Kochba period is definitely of vital importance.

Perhpas to a lesser extent even what happens after the Abomination verse could have a type fulfillment in this period. Bar Kochba certainly was a False Christ(False Messiah) and the Rabbi who wrote the Sedar Olam to try and make the 70 week Prophecy point to him was indeed a False Prophet and/or False Teacher. And them in Judea did flee, many scholars consider this the real beginning of the Diaspora rather then 70 A.D. Indeed in 70 A.D. it was mostly Jews be taken as slaves to Rome, which Luke’s Discourse references but not Mark, Hadrian kicked all the Jews out of Jerusalem, and many out of Judea.

Do the three different contexts color the differences in how the Non Signs are expressed? I will address only one. Contrary to what the many Translations say, the Greek text used Christos after “Many shall come in my name, saying, I am…..” only in Matthew.

First though does the “in my name” really mean literally claiming to be Yeshua? Not really, it can just mean someone usurping his status. Revelation 19 says both “and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.” and “And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

You might at first think this usage of the word Christ/Messiah is the opposite of what you’d expect. The two in the contexts of Jewish in origin persecution, and Jewish revolts that involved Messianic claimants. But I think the key is who’s being warned not to be deceived. Matthew the most has a Jewish context in mind. While the other two are for Christians, they weren’t vulnerable to thinking Bar Kochba was The Messiah.

Luke’s the one taught publicly because that was the one nearest to be fulfilled, the word needed to spread fast. Matthew and Mark quickly wrote down what future generations needed to know.

Matthew’s was heard by all 12 Disciples, so Matthew was again recording something he was an eye witness too, he tends to write down the longest speeches, being trained in short hand as a Roman customs official gave him an advantage there. I believe the statements of the Early Fathers that Mark was writing down what Peter preached in Rome in 42 A.D. is correct, and has possible Biblical support in Peter’s referring to Mark in his Epistle. I also believe subtleties of the text in Acts 13 imply Mark’s Gospel was already written by the time those events took place. So we have Peter’s eye witness account in Mark 13.
Anonymous asked
So its okay to smoke weed but not drink. Really?

hashtagpll:

please do not twist my words. hanna is drinking BECAUSE OF HER PROBLEMS. if hanna was drinking in moderation, i would not be so concerned. maya was not addicted to weed in fact it’s impossible to be physically addicted to it and it’s one of the most un harmful drugs and dont tell me it’s a gateway drug cause if you’re dumb enough to do cocaine you are gonna do it no matter what you smoke first. cigarettes are more harmful to your health as is drinking if it is not done in moderation, and right now hanna has no moderation and that is dangerous.

Addressing more Pre-Trib arguments

http://z13.invisionfree.com/BlogMithrandirOlorin/index.php?showtopic=23&view=findpost&p=23603252

I dealt with the main reasons I’m not Pre-Trib. I want to address some other Pre-Trib arguments here. Mostly I felt like making this in response to some arguments from Dave Huntin a radio debate I saw him have with a “Pre-Wrath” supporter (who sounded more like he was Post-Trib).

Like a lot of Pre-Tirbbers he obsesses over the Parables in Matthew 24 and 25. Insisting they demonstrate it’s not just the World but the Church caught off guard. Problem is you have to be careful building doctrine off parables. And I can’t help but think the simple fact of both Pre-Trib and Pre-Wrath being proven wrong not very long into the 70th week may cause a lot of believers who’ve always taken the Mid-Trib view the least seriously to just accept the Post-Trib arguments, which sadly could lend themselves to becoming enemies of Israel, since Post-Trib is virtually inseparable from Replacement Theology.

But I actually don’t think the point of those parables is technically an issue of the Rapture’s timing at all. Their about attitudes. Attitudes that even Pre-Tribbers can take, I know most don’t but they can, if they engage in date setting, or just see that the Temple Reconstruction hasn’t even started yet as assuring them they have time. What I’d say to any Mid-Trib, Post-Trib or Pre-Wrath believers temped to use their beliefs about the timing of The Rapture as an excuse to take such an attitude. Is that you could Die at any moment, and will be with Jesus then.

Like a Thief in The Night

Pre-Tribbers obsess over this phrase. Those who aren’t Pre-Trib insist it’s the World taken by surprise. Pre-Tribbers respond with “Jesus wasn’t talking to the world” then reference back to those Parables again.

The point isn’t who he was talking to but what he was talking about.

I Thessalonians 5 is one of the places that uses this phrase of the Second Coming, and a favorite one. They kind of ignore it’s usage in Revelation 16:15 where it’s said when the Bowls of God’s wrath are already being poured out. Which I suppose lends itself to Post-Trib arguments, which I’m against. But I’d just say this proves Jesus felt it could be descriptive of either of his returns.

But back to I Thessalonians 5.

QUOTE But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.  For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.  For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

Verse 4 clearly says WE are not to be taken as a Thief. But Hunt just writes this off when it’s pointed out to him and references other passages I already addressed rather then letting Paul elaborate on what he said.

Let’s talk about the origin of this Phrase. because while the New Testament uses it in various places, it is in fact secular in origin. It was coined in reference to how Cyrus sneakily captured Sardis. Jesus reminds us of it’s origin by using it in his message to the Sardis Church in Revelation 3:3.

However not everyone in Sardis was taken by Surprise, the spies and collaborators he no doubt had in the city that helped him uncover this vulnerability were not surprised. Which is why I think Jesus may want us to be thinking of Joshua and the Siege of Jericho, and the two spies who got Rachab saved. We as part of the Church are citizens of God’s Kingdom but are dwelling in Satan’s. We’re his spies, as are the Two Witnesses. And Rachab could be viewed as a type of he Church.

What about the idiom of as a Woman who travails? Does she have no warning signs   ? No, she has a pretty good estimate of when to expect her child to be born. If she’s taken to by surprise at all it’s because of there being so many false alarms   .

"For when they shall say, Peace and safety" is a specific phrase Dave Hunt loves to dwell on.

First thing is, I don’t see how that could accurately describe Christ’s return if he returns today? The world isn’t remotely saying that now. But his fixation is an assumption that this phrase can’t work if any of the Seal or Trumpet Judgments are already going on. (He’d also include the Bowls, but I don’t disagree that those are post Rapture).

I believe this refers to after the Abomination of Desolation. When the Antichrist is trying to convince the world he’s ushered in a new Golden age of Peace, a Pax Romana. if he’s using a false Judeo-Christian religious premise then he’ll be saying the Millennium/Messianic era has begun and convince people somehow that the first half of the 70th week was really the last. Post Post-Tribbers and Pre-Wrathers garble the chronology of Revelation in ways that would lend themselves to that.

But perhaps he won’t be claiming anything Biblical, perhaps he’ll be saying it’s the “Age of Aquarius” or some other BS.

Point is either way every eschabological tradition agrees that things get worse before they get better. As Harvey Dent said “The Night is darkest just before the Dawn”. And Lucifer is the Dawn bringer according to Albert Pike.

Now, allow me to explain my view. I’m Mid-Trib, though probably not your standard form of it. I’ve never even read or listened to a Mid-Trib teacher. I’ve come to this conclusion listening to Pre-Trib, Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath people and taking note of both what I find right and what I find wrong in their teachings while studying The Word for myself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I believe all 7 Seals and the first 6 Trumpets all happen before the Abomination of Desolation. So I agree that the people being martyred for not taking he mark are not part of The Church. I also believe Joel 2:1-14 is the Sixth Trumpet and Joel 15 the Seventh Trumpet.

I believe the Ministry of the Two Witnesses is the first half of the 70th Week, because Malachi said Elijah would return BEFORE the Great and terrible Day of The Lord. During which time they will smite the Earth with Plagues and with hold Rainfall.

I believe The Beast kills the Two Witnesses the same day be does the Abomination of Desolation and causes the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease. Probably soon after.

They then lie in the streets of Jerusalem for Three and Half days. During which time the people of the Earth celebrate their death.

QUOTERevelation 11:10 “And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. “

I’ve considered the possibility that this might be during Chanukah, the 3rd day of which is the traditional day for gift giving. And the 25th of Kislev is the anniversary of both the Maccabees victory over Antiochus Epiphanes but also of his Desolation in the first place. Allowing this date too fit two conflicting views of what the coming Abomination might look like. But I wouldn’t be dogmatic on that.

The point is that this roughly 84 hour period is the time period I believe Paul was describing. Everyone thinks the bad times are over and now they are now in peace and safety. Then the Two Witnesses Resurrect and Ascend, and the Seventh Trumpet sounds, and the Sign of the Son of Man, the Ark of his Covenant (The Cross I believe) is seen in the Heavens. This is when the Rapture occurs for the Time of the Dead is at hand, to give rewards to the Saints. And then God’s Wrath is poured out. Revelation 14 also describes the Son of Man coming on the Clouds, an the 144,000 who sound like their in their Resurrected state.

The 70 weeks of Daniel

Dave Hunt and other Pre-Tirbbers feel the Church Age must exactly match the gap between the 69th and 70th week.

Problem is, the 69th week points to the Triumphal Entry and Crucifixion, which both occurred in Nisan. Not Pentecost which was 49 days after the Resurrection.

Study Daniel 9 closely and you’ll see that the 70 weeks revolves around the Temple. So I believe the moment the 69th week ended was when the Veil was torn at the moment Jesus died. The Talmud says that for 40 years before the Temple’s destruction the crimson thread never turned white. I’ve written elsewhere on why I date the Crucifixion to 30 A.D.

The Second Temple was effectively dead for 40 years before it actually ceased to stand. It lost it’s divine anointing when Jesus became the True Sin Offering. So I believe the 70th week is initiated by the consecration of the Third Temple. Revelation 11 confirms for me it’s standing during the Ministry of the Two Witnesses, refuting the view that it’s only under construction during the first half. The outer court being given to the Gentiles I believe refers to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, because I support the Al-Kas fountain view.

It’s always confused me how Daniel 9’s last verse doesn’t tell us really anything about what happens when the 70th week ends, just what marks the midst of it. We know Daniel was told his vision was sealed up. Perhaps Gabriel’s vision for Daniel here was meant to end about when the Rapture will happen.

The term “Great Tribulation”, is not a specific time period

http://z13.invisionfree.com/BlogMithrandirOlorin/index.php?showtopic=74

On The Rapture I’ve mostly settled into a Mid-Trib position. But your typical Mid-Trib believer says that the “Great Tribulation” refers only to the second half of the 70th Week (and so from their POV their Pre-Trib) and is basically synonymous with The Wrath/Day of The Lord. I’m different, I view the term “Great Tribulation” as characteristic of the entire 70th Week.

The Pre-Wrath position also believes both “Great Tribulation” and “Wrath” are only the last 3 and half years. But they divide it up, with the Rapture being were the split is.

Chris White, who’s Pre-Wrath, makes an amusing mistake, he says the term “Great Tribulation” occurs only twice in The Bible, in Matthew 24, and Revelation 7. There is in fact another usage of the term I shall discus.

The word “Tribulation” alone occurs a lot, and is a term that most serious students of The Bible realize is synonymous with persecution, and is not at all limited only to a specific End Times time period. It is the term “Great Tribulation” that we tend to insist on making more specific, to some it refers to the entire 70th week, to some only the first half. And as I pointed out above some view it variantly as the second half or part of it. Some Pre-Tribbers would also say the entire 70th week is Tribulation but only the second half the “Great Tribulation”.

The usage of the term that gets overlooked is in Revelation 2:22, where it’s part of the message to the Church at Thyatira. “Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.”

Typically people insist this should still be viewed as strictly end times because of the typological applications that clearly make Thyatira characteristic of The Catholic Church, and perhaps also other Paganized “Christian” religions, like the Orhtodox, or Anglicans, or Mormons, ect. And I agree with those typological views, but it still must also apply to the original immediate context, or else the type tells us nothing. I think this was first fulfilled by the Christian persecutions that broke out in Asia Minor early in the reign of Hadrian.

And even looking at the type, it doesn’t fit the way many Protestants want to see the Catholic Church’s role in the Tribulation period. If it applies to the Vatican’s End Times role then they will be victims of The Beast’s persecution as much as any other Christians. Of course Revelation 17 does say he Beast will turn on Mystery Babylon. I don’t view Mystery Babylon as the Catholic Church alone however, but as all Pagan religion.

One could say this has happened to the Catholic Church via Henry VIII’s persecutions, or the massive Christian Persecution during the French Revolution, which was mostly against Catholics because the Protestant Reformation never much ground in France. But those Atheists and Deists certainly hated other Christian sects just as much.

The point is, when we take this verse seriously the term “Great Tribulation” is no longer just one time period.

Matthew 24:21 is the main basis for insisting that the term applies specifically to the second half “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." the timing of this verse being what’s happening in the wake of the Abomination of Desolation.

First off, I feel the wording can indeed work as saying we were already in Great Tribulation, but now it’s escalating to it’s most severe phase. Indeed Jesus had clearly already described a massive worldwide persecution before he reached the Abomination of Desolation. The typical Pre-Wrath position seems to be that he describes the persecution then looks back to describe how it began. But it’s funny because there are other places were their main objection to other views is their not interpreting the Olivte chronologically. I make no claim that the Olivte Discourse is strictly chronological, but as I’ve explained elsewhere Revelation is the key to how to unlock the Chronology of other Bible passages that summarize the End Times.

Revelation 7:14 “And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

The Pre-Wrath position is that Matthew 24 tells us when “Great Tribulation” is, so we must be in the second half of the 70th week already here. To me it’s absurd to think Revelation has reached the midway point of the 70th week any sooner then the 7th Trumpet in Revelation 11. I’ve explained why elsewhere.

"Great Tribulation" is a term describing severe persecution. I view there as being two great persecutions coming.

1. A persecution of The Church during the first half, which will have a corresponding “Falling away” Paul describes in 2 Thessalonians 2, and clearly placed before the unveiling of the Man of Sin.

2. A massive attempted Genocide of Israel, that begins as soon as the Abomination of Desolation happens which is why Jesus warned Israel to flee immediately (see my Olivite Discourse study). Revelation 12 likewise describes God as having a hiding place for her in the wilderness. Isaiah 63 hints at that place being in Edom. Petra is a popular theory.

Now the persecution of Israel we know for certain has The Beast and The False Prophet (The Antichrist) as the force behind it. The Church’s persecution earlier may or may not be also, it isn’t clear. The original Antichrist heresy may be what we’re being persecuted for not accepting or maybe not. I’ve explained in other threads why I feel there may be decoy Antichrists during the first half of the 70th week.

But that’s besides the point, the point is there will be a major worldwide persecution of Christians BEFORE the Abomination of Desolation happens. The Pre-Wrath people think their the ones most prepared for the coming persecution, but the ones I’ve studied at least (like Chris White) are clear that it doesn’t happen till after the unveiling of the Man of Sin, and that the first half of the 70th week will be a seemingly good time for all Judeo-Christians. So to me their unprepared just as much as people thinking we’ll be taken out first, because they think they’ll be safe so long the Abomination of Desolation hasn’t happened yet.

So that’s why to me “Great Tribulation” characterizes the entire 70th week. But there is no single individual “The Great Tribulation”, that three word phrase is never in The Bible.

Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath, also Seventh Trumpet

http://z13.invisionfree.com/BlogMithrandirOlorin/index.php?s=813dd84a5475676762851f5832275170&showtopic=23&view=findpost&p=23568249

Now that I’ve argued against both Pre-Trib and Post-Trib, I want to get into things that are disputed within the Mid-Trib/Pre-Wrath camp.

One part is debating when in the sequence of Judgments (Seals, Trumpets, Bowls) we reach the midway point.

I know Revelation isn’t purely chronological, certain single statements span an entire half of the 70th week. But there is a basic chronology to it that clearly places the mid way point between the Trumpets and Bowls. This is a problem for some people though, who have tried to argue that we’re at the halfway point at the Sixth Seal, or that we’re already at the end of the 70th week when the 7th Trumpet sounds, but those argument always seem forced.

In Revelation 8 there is no gap between the Seals and the Trumpets, the Trumpets and the Censer both come from the 7th Seal. But between the 7th Trumpet and the Bowls is the entire narrative of Revelation 12, 13 and 14.

I think it’s telling that in Revelation 11 the 7th Trumpet is preceded by 2 reference to 3 and a half years that clearly correlate to the first half of the 70th week (i know some see those as the second half already, but they describe conditions that can only apply pre Abomination of Desolation) and then in 12 and 13 is followed by 3 references to a 3 and a half years period that are clearly the second half.

Now for the matter of at what point are we already under “God’s Wrath”. Many both Pre-Tribbers, and certain Mid-Trib/Pre-Wrath supporters view us as already in Wrath at the Sixth Seal, and refer to the Trumpets as God’s Wrath. For the latter this is why they need to force the mid-way point sooner, for the former they consider it reason to view Tribulation and Wrath as indistinguishable and rending the Pre-Wrath distinction a mute point.

The account of the Sixth Seal is the only time the word Wrath occurs before the sounding of the Seventh Trumpet. And the problem is you can’t build Doctrine on dialogue uttered by fallible human beings who aren’t anointed Prophets of God.

That hermeneutic is of course lost on many people, there are teachers out there building doctrine on the things Job’s idiot friends said, or justifying referring to Joseph as Yeshua’s father because Mary did in Luke 2 when Yeshua was 12. The Bible is an infallible Book, but it still records humans saying very wrong things.

So I won’t even get into any textual debate about if “is come” should be “is coming” or whatever else. The Sixth Seal happens to be one of the most recognizable passages of Revelation, my earliest memory of hearing Revelation quoted back when I was a kid was in the movie Ghost Busters when Ray recounts the Sixth Seal (He got the chapter it’s in wrong), Dan has a good voice for quoting Scripture. For people who don’t study Eschatology it’s probably a more unmistakable event then even the Abomination of Desolation.

So when it happens the world will think the Lamb’s Wrath has come already, but a further reading of Revelation shows that that is nothing compared to the Wrath. And I don’t believe it’s describing an average local earthquake, but a global one. But it’s interesting that it’s been recording in some local earthquakes where there were also volcanic eruptions, the Sun wen black and the Moon looked blood red as if it was a Lunar Eclipse. So because of that I consider the Blood Moon theory probably a distraction, but I will still be paying attention to them.

The Sixth Seal is indeed an unmistakeable parallel to the Cosmic Signs refereed to in Joel and Matthew 24 and elsewhere. But it’s only the beginning of those Signs, they continue through the 7th Seal and the Trumpets. Only the Bowls in Revelation 15&16 are actually defined as being God’s Wrath poured out on the world. Trumpets are warnings and declarations Biblically, they precede Judgment.

The multitude of Saints seen in Heaven in Revelation 7 are frequently interpreted to be already Resurrected/Raptured, I think that argument is weak. They are in a different state then they where after the Fifth Seal was opened, but that could mean any number of things. Perry Stone specifically says the Bema Judgment must have already happened, many would need to have Crown to absolutely prove that point. Basically it’s having their Robes people think prove being already Resurrected, the washed Robes represent that their Sins are removed, that is all.

A debate exists over whether or not the “Last Trump” that signals the Rapture in Thessalonians, and Corinthians and Matthew 24 is the 7th Trumpet of Revelation 11 or the Last Trumpet sounded on the Feast of Trumpets.

Chris White argues it’s neither and that we should look at the Silver Trumpets of Numbers 10. It is true that the Biblical Hebrew text does not explicitly link Trumpets to the First of Tishri feast in Levitcus 23:24, that’s an assumption we make based on Trumpets being added in translation, and extra Biblical traditions about that day. Chris White however seems to assume the Trumpets affiliated with the First of Tishri are the Ram’s Horns. But a book I have on Hebrew customs (by Ethan Allen) says it was the Silver Trumpets sounded on that day.

Numbers 10:10 does say the Silver Trumpets are to be sounded “Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months”. Now “solemn days” in the Hebrew texts refers to the “appointed times’ or High Holy Days, meaning all of them outlined in Leviticus 23. And the beginning of each month would also include the First of Tishri.

The single word translated “blowing of trumpets” in Leviticus 23:24 is T@ruw`ah (ter-oo-aw’); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 8643. Is use din Numbers 10:5&6 where it is translated “Alarm”.
"When ye blow an alarm, then the camps that lie on the east parts shall go forward.
When ye blow an alarm the second time, then the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journey: they shall blow an alarm for their journeys.”
In verse 7 it’s a different word translated alarm, but one that is probably the root of the final syllable of Taruwah.

At any rate I’d agree we can’t build solid doctrine on any extra Biblical assumptions about Rosh Hoshana. But this one may have more of a Biblical basis then he realized. The First of Tishri is the one day there is double the reason to sound those Trumpets. And the only thing we are told about it in Leviticus is a key word also used in Numbers 10 about blowing Trumpets.

I don’t think we should distinguish between the Rams Horns and Silver Trumpets in terms of how they may symbolically point to the Heavenly Trumpets, whether it’s the verses indisputably about The Rapture or the Seven Trumpets in Revelation. Earthly Trumpets needed to be made from separate materials for Earthly reasons, but the Heavenly Trumpets are probably not really made from any Earthly substance at all. Silver is Levitcully a symbol of Redemption, and Ram’s Horns are taken from Sacrificial offerings, so symbolically both point to Jesus as out Sin Offering, who’s voice is sometimes described as “like a Trumpet”.

Hosea 5:8 Poetically uses both words for Trumpet as if their synonyms. But the KJV renders one of them Cornet to avoid sounding redundant.

I believe that the references to the Trumpets in Revelation are meant to draw on all the earlier Trumpet themes of Scripture. Both the Silver and the Rams Horns. Because I view Revelation as explaining the rest of Scripture, and unveiling all what where before mysteries. Meaning if the Trumpet that singles the Rapture isn’t in Revelation, then Revelation has arguably failed to serve part of it’s purpose.

Both Post-Tribbers and Mid-Trib/Pre-Wrath supporters love to refute the Pre-Trib argument that Matthew 24 isn’t referring to the same coming/gathering as Paul by pointing out all the parallels between that account and Paul’s from Thessalonians and Corinthians. There are at least 20. But what many either miss or ignore is that a number of those same parallels apply to the Seventh Trumpet in Revelation 11.

We have a Trumpet sounding followed by great voices in Heaven. The use of the word “Archangel” in Corinthians is a different from then when Jude uses it of Michael. It ends with an “n” making it technically plural in Greek.

We have this time not fallible humans but the Four Cherubim declaring God’s Wrath is come.

We have talk about it now being the “Time of the Dead” and time to judge and reward the saints. That sounds like the Bema Seat Judgment to me.

I also think “And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament” correlates to “The sign of the Son of Man” being seen in the Heavens. One can argue the Ark of the New Testament is the Cross on which The Lamb’s Blood was shed for our Sins.

There is lighting and another Earthquake.

I also think you could argue that after the symbolic recap of history in Revelation 12 and 13, that 14 returns to chronologically where we left off.

The 144 Thousand are seen on Mt. Zion, and it sounds to me like their in their Resurrected state, with talk of being “Redeemed from the Earth” and being the “First Fruits”. I do not allegorize the 144 Thousand, their a specific group of believers, I don’t think they represent the Church. But I do think their part of the Church and possibly Resurrected already here. A better argument certainly then the weak one that the Multitude in Chapter 7 are Resurrected already.

And latter we have “And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man” in verse 14. And with it Harvest imagery.

And further reading shows the pouring out of God’s Wrath is still only about to happen.

And then supplemental to what follows the 7th Trumpet, is what proceeds it. It seems to immediately follow the Resurrection and Rapture of the Two Witnesses. Again, I do not allegorize the Witnesses, their Enoch and Elijah to me. But I do think it’s possible their Rapture could have a connection to ours. Their being taken out of the Earth alive before are each seen as types of The Rapture after all.

The Parallels are perhaps not as many as a whole 20, but that’s because Revelation is a sort of coded book your supposed to use the rest of the the Bible to unlock, and visa versa. And I think there is more then enough connection between the Seventh Trumpet and the Last Trump to see them as connected.

Revelation 9:20 shows the Image of the Beast hasn’t been set up yet. Because the Idols these people are being judged for worshiping “neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:”. So the life like Image of the beast isn’t here yet.

Actually, Revelation 9 is a major Death nail for the Pre-Wrath position. No damned individual should be able to Ascend out of the Bottomless Pit before that is unlocked. But the Pre-Wrath position needs this to be well after the Abomination of Desolation, which can’t happen until after The beast ascends out of the Bottomless Pit. We’re told he’s ascended out of it already when he kills the Two Witnesses.

The Pre-Wrath position also insist the ministry of the Witness sis the second half, of the 70th week. But Malachi clearly says Elijah returns BEFORE the great and terrible Day of the LORD.

I’ve also decided I see Joel 2:1 as the Sixth Trumpet, what happens after it sounds has some clear parallels to what happens in Revelation 9:13 and up, with a bizarre Supernatural army of Fiery Horsemen. And 2:15 I see as the Seventh Trumpet, and the rest of Chapter 2 and into Chapter 3 as describing it’s outcome, and clear Rapture illusions exist there, the Bridegroom coming for his Bride.

I did a Google search on the subject, and it seems no one else has noticed this yet. Which surprises me. Many I’ve seen, like in J.R. Church’s book on the Minor Prophets, see Joel Chapter 2 correlating to the Fifth Trumpet, though to me that doesn’t work quite as well. I don’t like Allegorizeing the Locust of Revelation 9 into an Army, when the next Judgment is explicitly defined as an Army. To me the creatures let out of the Abyss are Demons taking temporary physical forms, like the ones they sometimes take from TransYughothian Ceremonial Magick rituals. That’s the significance of The Smoke.

But The Invading Army in Joel 2 is usually either taken as the Gog and Magog Invasion, or Armageddon. But to me it seems to be placed before The Rapture, which doesn’t fit the latter. And I’ve become convinced that the former happens after the Millennium.

It seems allot of people identifying as Pre-Wrath think a lot still happens between the Abomination of Desolation and the Rapture, enough to account for months or even years. Basically, to them the Persecution of The Church the Matthew 24 Olivite Discourse describes happening before the Abomination of Desolation, and as correlating to the Fifth Seal, actually happens after the Abomination.

Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 clears places the “Falling Away” before the Abomination of Desolation. The Falling away I view as a compromise doctrine that will happen during this period of persecution. In fact I believe the Antichrist doctrine of the First half of the 70th Week will be deny only that Jesus was the Son of God and God made Flesh. I personally believe he’ll fully view Jesus as real/historical, a Prophet and even Messiah Ben-David.

There are two coming end times Persecutions I believe. Before he midway point The Church is persecuted, and after that The Jews are who he targets. The Pre-Trib view is considered dangerous because it encourages Western Christian to feel secure that they won’t face any persecution. But teaching it won’t begin until after the Abomination of Desolation has almost the same effect. I think this persecution might even begin in some from before we’re even in the 70th Week.

Since I’ve recently reconsidered, that maybe the 70th will be Nisan-Nisan years (as I added to the Jewish Holy Days study) like the first 69 were. I’ve considered that the sounding of the Seventh Trumpet could be on the Feast of Trumpets, making all 3 theories of what the “Last Trump” refers to correct.

Why I’m not Post-Trib

http://z13.invisionfree.com/BlogMithrandirOlorin/index.php?s=813dd84a5475676762851f5832275170&showtopic=23&view=findpost&p=22939016

Most debates about the rapture are simply framed between Pre-Tirbbers and Post-Tribbers (with the latter sometimes claiming they don’t believe there is a Rapture at all, however absurd that is), with Mid-Trib/Pre-Wrath/7th Trumpet type views not being taken too seriously and just written off as compromises. Thing is there are different layers to the Rapture debate, and Mid-Tirbbers rather then being normal compromisers, in my case at least agree with the Post-Tirbbers absolutely in one area but with Pre-Tribbers absolutely in another.

The first part of this thread was about were I agree with the Post-Trib camp, that there are things that must come first. But now I want to address were I agree with the Pre-Tribbers. And that’s the issue of if there are “Tribulation Saints”, people saved after the Rapture who aren’t part of The Church, but are Saved before the Millennium begins.

First I want to refute the favorite argument of certain Post Tirbber’s I’ve seen. That’s a focus on the connection between the Rapture and the Resurrection. The First Resurrection and the Second Resurrection are categories more then a chronological sequence.

The First Resurrection is the Resurrection of the Saved and begins with Yeshua, then Matthew 27:52&53 says “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” Some want to label    this only a temporary resurrection like Lazarus, but that would have been nothing new, this is being cited as a sign that the Redemption has been achieved. Also this is why Yeshua descended into Hell, to take the saved that had been collected in Abraham’s Bosom, Yeshua’s descent into Hell is scripturally supported by Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:27-31, 1 Peter 3:19-20, 4:6, Romans 10:6-8, and Zechariah 9:11.

So we know the First Resurrection isn’t all at once, that is the first phase, then the Rapture, then any Tribulation saints or any others left at the start of the Millennium. Revelation 20:4&5 is only referring to the Resurrection of Tribulation saints specifically Martyred for not taking The Mark. The Second Resurrection happens mostly at the end of the Millennium, but that The Beast and The False Prophet are thrown alive into the Lake of Fire without needing to be killed first suggests to some that they may be early partakers in the Second Resurrection.

Basically, they insist there is no Biblical basis for saying that anyone but Jesus himself is Resurrected prior to Revelation 20. The problem is it makes no sense for that Resurrection be the same one Paul Spoke of. Paul Spoke of the Dead in Christ Rising FIRST, and then us being gather with them all simultaneous with his Coming on the Clouds. In Revelation 20:4 and 5 these individuals aren’t Resurrected until after Jesus has been back for awhile, after Armageddon is already done and the Beast and False Prophet taken care of.

When Jesus returns riding on a White horse he has Resurrected Saints with him, but those clearly, chronologically, can’t be the ones Risen in Chapter 20, who rise latter.

The Two Witnesses also Rise at a different time. in Chapter 11. And in Chapter 14:4 the 144,000 are spoken of as if already Resurrected. “These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.”

Recently, I noticed something interesting. Revelation 21 treats New Jerusalem as synonymous with The Bride of Christ. First verse 2 says “I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband”. That could be purely a poetic expression, the big thing comes latter in verse 9 “Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife”. New Jerusalem descends at the start of the New Heaven and New Earth. So the implication of that is that The Bride isn’t on Earth during the Millennium. So that means there is no way you can make those “Tribulation Saints” refereed to as being part of the Millennium a part of The Church.

As I said before, Ecclesiology is a factor. A notable majority of Post-Tribbers hold some form of replacement    theology   , which Romans 9-11 refutes. The Church and Israel are separate covenants (and Salvation is separate from either of those), not all Saved are apart of either, and some will be part of both. Or even if they don’t strictly believe in replacement theology they still don’t understand the Uniqueness of the Church, including our promise that we will not go trough God’ Wrath. I’ll make an entire thread on Ecclesiology some day.

The thing is Pre-Tribbers have this idea that God can only deal with one at a time. Israel was still the main focus of Acts for several chapters after Pentecost. As I just said some saved people get to be part of both Israel and The Church this starts with the 12 Apostles themselves who are promised that they “shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30.

I think it’s possible the 144,000 are part of that overlap, they like the Two Witnesses shall lay the the ground work for Israel’s national salvation during the First Half of the Tribulation. Their literally of the 12 Tribes and so are definitely Israel biologically/nationally, not just a metaphorical or spiritual Seed of Abraham. The Gentile spiritual Seed of Abraham is mentioned at the end of Revelation 12 where it refers to saints of the second half of the 70th Week.

Revelation 14 speaks of them in terms that can seem like uniquely Church/Bride of Christ imagery. And refers to them as “Redeemed fro the Earth” and as “The first fruits” suggesting their already in their Resurrected state.

So that is why I’ve come to favor the Mid-Tribulation or Pre-Wrath view.

Why I’m not Pre-Trib

http://z13.invisionfree.com/BlogMithrandirOlorin/index.php?showtopic=23

I’m not quite as decided on this as I am on many other views.

I used to be firmly in what is called the Post-Trib camp. (Even though unlike many Post-Tribbers I’ve always been Premilenial, Futurist, Dispensationalist and completely against Replacement    Theology   .) And certainly never liked the Pre-Trib argument. What Chuck Missler explains about the uniqueness of the Church alters my perspective though, once you understand that not all saved are part of the Church then the references to believers on the Earth during the Tribulation no longer inherently contradicts the Pre-Trib view. Chuck also seems certain that if your not Pre-Tribe on the Rapture your problem is Ecclesiology not Eschatology. Well I am the same as Chuck on Ecclesiology, yet I still have issues with the Pre-Trib view. I’m still not sold on the Pre-Trib argument, however rather then being firmly Post-Trib I’m now leaning towards a Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath view.

First off, the Pre-Trib camp seems to consider Imminence their cornerstone argument. Verses where the Bible tells us to “Expect” Yeshua’s return at any moment. Problem is the intent of those verses weren’t about chronology, it’s about the attitude believers should take and how we should behave. But they insist it means that the Rapture must be the absolute next thing to happen Chronologically, even though plenty of Prophecies have already been fulfilled while we’ve been waiting (Israel Restored, the first portion of Isaiah 19 ect.) Now it’s the Gog&Magog invasion that can’t possibly occur until after the Rapture, but logically before 1948 they’d have had to say the same thing about Israel being reestablished, or till 67 about them reclaiming all of Jerusalem.

When my Dad first starting teaching me how to use a gun, he told me before even letting me touch it to always treat it like it’s loaded, even when I know for certain it’s not. The point of that instruction to make sure I’m always very very very careful with it, which is a very smart approach to take, but it doesn’t change the fact that an unloaded gun still needs to be loaded before you can actually shoot something with it.

The Bible verses that imply Imminence are there to tell us to behave like he can return at any moment, to before committing any Sin think “Is that what I want to be in the middle of when Yeshua comes back?” and to motivate us to work tirelessly in spreading the Gospel and doing God’s work by acting like we could run out of time at any time. After all, in a sense it does happen for you immediately when you die. But the fact remains that there are at least Two Bible Passages that make it clear the Rapture won’t occur at least until after the “Abomination of Desolation”.

Before I get to those, contrary to some assumptions I do not believe the exact time of the Revelation 19 Second Coming will be known once the Tribulation starts, or even after the Mid-Trib sequence of events. The 2nd Coming is not the end-point of the 70th Week/42 Months/1260 Days like people tend to assume, The Defeat of The Beast/Battle of Armageddon is. We have a tendency to think of that as simultaneous with the Second Coming but it’s actually not, Isaiah 63 tells us he goes first to Edom/Petra to be reunited with Israel. In my view that could be days or even weeks before the final battle.

Matthew 24’s account of the Olivet Discourse reaches the “Abomination of Desolation” in verse 15. Then it goes on describing more End Times drama until verses 29-31 when Yeshua (And Pre-Tribbers tend to ignore this) explicitly says

QUOTE    Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds    of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is clearly the same event described in 1 Thessalonians 4, and clearly described as AFTER a tribulation. And also in this narrative it seems to be significantly after the “Abomination of Desolation”.

I should add that the term “elect” contrary to Calvinist assumptions is not always a synonym for the saved, in many places it seems to refer rather to Israel. Doug Hamp has written a book on that subject and been interviews about it on “Prophecy in The news”. Both he and Gary are of course Pre-Trib, and they’d probably respond that this part of the Olivet Discourse isn’t about The Rapture because it refers to the Elect. But regardless of what that one word strictly means, this passage still clearly uses allot of common imagery with 1 Thessalonians 4, the Trumpet, the Clouds    ect and so on.

The word Elect can refer to more then one thing, when Yeshua returns at the end of the Tribulation Israel will not be gathered to him, he’ll be going to where Israel is in hiding, in Edom as I already mentioned above. Israel and The Church are both his “Elect” in different senses, we both have the opportunity to be part of very special covenants that not all of the Saved have the opportunity to be part of. With neither meaning would I consider how the Calvanist co-opt the word to fit their version of “predestination” valid.

I will go into more detail on 2nd Thessalonians Chapter 2. First off, many take the language of “By letter as from us” in verse 2 as referring to a letter falsely attributed to Paul. It’s not, he’s referring to people misunderstanding or outright misusing what he said in 1st Thessalonians Chapter 4. He certainly is referring to that exact same event when he says “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ   , and by our gathering together unto him”. Now he goes on to explain in no uncertain terms.

QUOTE    for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

I put “and” in bold, because some Pre-Tribbers like to insist only the first of these two things has to happen first.

The Pre-Trib camp likes to make this fit their view by insisting the “Restrainer” mentioned latter is The Holy Spirit   . Even if it where, that doesn’t undermine the clear chronological implication that Paul is unambiguously saying that the Gathering Together will NOT happen till AFTER the “Man of Sins” is revealed. Yet so many Pre-Tribbers insist the Church will never encounter that individual. That’s part of the danger of the Pre-Trib view to me, The Bible gives us all these clues about his identity for a reason, the Church should be using them, not just insisting “We’ll never meet him anyway”.

Now, let’s get into this “Restrainer” verse, first of all the KJV rendering in verse 7 is.

QUOTEFor the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

There could possibly be translational issues with the phrase rendered “taken out of the way” but that’s incidental.

It’s “He who now letteth” is who is commonly called here the “Restrainer” Restrain is what the Greek word translated “letteth” actually means. The previous verse uses the same word in a different form and the KJV translated it “Withholdeth”. In verse 6 it’s a present tense verb, there it should be “restraining” and in verse 7 “letteth now let” should be “restrains will continue to do so”.

The use of “he” in verse 7 is added by the translators, their not in the Greek. It’s “what” not “who” that identifies the restrainer in verse 6. Chuck Missler insists it’s “what” only because it’s Gender neutral, the Holy Spirit    is never described with Gender Neutral pronouns, poetically she’s Feminine more often then not. It could very well be an object not a personage.

Job makes clear God does restrain Satan, and many verses describe God as restraining Sin, and those verses get cited to prove this verse is referring to The Holy Spirit, but none of those other verses about restraint affiliate it with a specific person of The Trinity.

I’ve thought about it and now I’ve come to view that the restrainer being removed refers to when the Abyss is opened in Revelation 9. I believe it’s the lock keeping the Abyss sealed and the entities inside chained. Note, the word translated “perdition” in “Son of Predition” is Apolyea, a Greek related to Apollyon, Apollyon is just the proper noun form. He is being restrained because he’s in the Abyss, the removal of that restraint is what happens when the 5th trumpet is sounded.

Revelation 20 says

QUOTE And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon   , that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth

Being locked in The Abyss is what will restrain Satan during the Millennium. Right now Satan isn’t restrained, but something else is which Paul alludes to. That removal of Restraint is in Revelation 9.

So to me, both these passages are insurmountable obstacles for the Pre-Trib view. But I am very open    to Mid-Tri/Pre-Wrath/Seventh Trumpet.

2 Peter 3, the real Biblical relevence of 2012, the boy who cried wolf

Verses 3-7

QUOTE Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Many things are foretold here. Including the Uniformitarian Scientific heresy, which is the root of Evolution and the big Bang Theory and all of that stuff. A denial of the both The Creation and The Flood.

But also hinted at is the notion that people will stop taking predictions of the End Coming seriously because people have always been saying the end is about to come. This one of the reasons the signs of the end are compared to a Woman in Labor, because false alarms happen there often.

This attitude was emerging already even before the Y2K panic. Skeptics pointing out how Christians have always thought their Generation was going to be the last. The overlooked problems is during most of Church history it was impossible to do that taking the Prophecies literally at face value, with Israel not being a Nation. Now the only factor lacking is The Temple, and once the Rabbis accept that the traditional view of The Temple’s location is wrong it can be rebuild immediately.

Before the end of 2012, there was one random Church predicting the Rapture would happen in May. Then when it didn’t people starting wearing T-Shirts mocking the whole thing saying “I Survived The Rapture”.

So I think 2012 may have been the last straw, the way the hype around that surpassed all the others, and sadly even many Christians jumped into it in-spite of it being based on a Pagan concept. They should have viewed Chris White’s 2012 debunking videos on Youtube.

larkbellerose:

Film & Television Christines/Christine equivalents in different Phantom incarnations (excluding animation) - Part 1/2

1. Mary Philbin (1925)

2. Hu Ping (1937) - Song at Midnight 

3. Susanna Foster (1943) - as Christine Dubois

4. Heather Sears (1962) - as Christine Charles

5. Jessica Harper (1974) - Phantom of the Paradise - as Phoenix

6. Skye Aubrey (1974) - Phantom of Hollywood - as Randy

7. Jane Seymour (1983) - as Maria Gianelli / Elena Korvin

8. Deborah Van Valkenburgh (1988) - Phantom of the Ritz - as Nancy

9. Jill Schoelen (1989) - as Christine Day

The Biblical view of The After Life

One of the problems in the world today is that Casual Christianity looks at the after life in a way that is inherently Pagan. It’s not a matter of going to Heaven or Hell.

The perfect eternity we’re looking forward to is NOT contemporary Heaven, contemporary Heaven is going to be us giving an account before God of our lives, washing our Robes in the Blood fo the Lamb. What we’re looking forward to is the Resurrection and the Millennium and then the New Heaven and New Earth. The Restoration of the Kosmos to how it was before Adam Sinned.

This is part of why I object to Preterisim and Amillennialism. It’s not just about Eschatology. A denial of the Literal fulfillment of the Millennium allows a Christian to still hold a Pagan view of the After life. And a denial of the literal Resurrection of believers defeats the point of the Resurrection of Christ.

I believe that Salvation can’t be lost, but I believe there are ramifications when a Christian sins, one of those I‘ll discus here. Because all saved during the Church age have the opportunity to Reign with Christ, as Kings and Priests after the Order of Melchizedek. But not all will. We can’t lose our entrance into the Kingdom, but we can lose our Inheritance. There are also rewards for the good works we do, but some will get no rewards.

There are three Greek nouns translated Hell in the KJV rendering of the New Testament. While the Bible often uses different words for the same thing, these 3 names are all distinct entities.

1. Hades, is the equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol (The word for Hell in the Hebrew Bible). Prior to the Cross all of the Dead went there, not just the unsaved. Luke 16 reveals that is has two compartments, the Saved were comforted in Abraham’s Bosom.

2. Tartaros, this word appears only once, in 2 Peter 2:4. The Grammar of this particular verse is also messed up in the KVJ, because the KJV translators wanted to make an assumption about where it was located. SO here is how it should be.

“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them into chains of darkness in Tartaros to be reserved unto judgment”.

Hades and Tartaros both I believe in a sense have geographical locations within the Kosmos. Hades definitely being inside The Earth. But I say in a sense because if we ever were able to physically dig down there, I don’t think we’d see it with our four dimensional perception of reality. I believe they are there but in the other six dimensions, which we know are there but we can’t perceive in our current mortal fallen state.

Tartaros is often assumed to be also inside the Earth, and maybe it is, but I’m not so sure.

Tartaros is beyond any doubt the same place as The Abyss, the Bottomless Pit, their linked by the imagery of Chains and Darkness. In addition to the Genesis 6 Angels, that is also where Demons go when Christian cast them out of possessed people properly, also binding them. Revelation 9 says “And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.” Elsewhere in Revelation (1-3 and 12), Stars often symbolize Angels, so it’s often assumed the Star is the Him being given this Key. But this is a completely different part of Revelation, less symbolic and more literal. Every other Star in in the Seal-Trumpet-Veil judgments is always an astronomical object, not specially what we today have limited the meaning of a “Star” to, but still what it literally meant then. Given the context of verse 13, I believe the Angel who sounded the Trumpet is the one being given the Key. The term translated “Fall from” could simply mean descend or move from one location to another. It could simply mean some object in the Solar System, or further out in space, coming much closer to Earth then it currently is.

But that’s a conjecture, it could still be inside the Earth like Hades/Sheol. Jesus is also described as going to the Abyss during the three days he was dead (Romans 10:7, where it’d translated Deep in the KJV). Also Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-33 have references to a Pit that I go into in my Resurrection of the Antichrist study, there seem like it’s by or in Sheol.

3. Gehena, This word has it’s origin in the name of a fiery Garbage dumb in ancient Judea. But every time Yeshua used it (http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/FRMCONGRK106.htm#S1067), it appears to be a synonym for “The Lake of Fire” not of Hades. This is the finale Damnation, the “Second Death” the ultimate perdition of the unsaved.

The terms “First Resurrection” and “Second Resurrection” are categories more so then a chronological sequence. The First is the saved and the Second the Unsaved.

“The First Resurrection” begins with Yeshua’s own. Remember during the three days and three nights he was “In the Belly of the Earth” he descended into Hades. Why? At least one reason was to get the people being kept in Abraham’s Bosom. Matthew 27:52 “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

So as we can already see it doesn’t necessarily happen all at once. There is also the Resurrection of the Two Witnesses during the 70th Week. The saved who are part of the Church will be Resurrected at the “Rapture” (whether or not you view it as Pre-Trib, Post-Trib or Mid-Trib). And if any saved are left Un-Resurrected after the Beast is defeated, they’ll be Resurrected at the start of The Millennium.

“The Second Resurrection” Revelation 20 puts at the end of the Millennium, after Satan’s final defeat. But since The Beast and The False Prophet are cast alive into the Lake of Fire without any reference to being killed in Revelation 19, at the start of the Millennium, some have argued that those two are individuals who where allotted to experience the “Second Resurrection” early. Probably his resurrection is the healing of the mortal wound.

There is one area, where Yeshua’s Resurrection is different from ours (The rest of “The First Resurrection“) that I want to discus quickly. Some critics of The Bible I’ve encountered have suggested that Yeshua’s sacrifice on the Cross doesn’t mean anything since he knew he’d be Resurrected. But The Logos didn’t just become a Man temporarily, he became one permanently.

Revelation 5:5&6 “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain.” It’s well known that Yeshua still had his wounds from the Crucifixion when he was walking on the Earth following The Resurrection via the Doubting Thomas story. And Zechariah 12 and Revelation 1 both tell us he’ll still be Pierced when he returns to be reunited with the Redeemed of Israel in Petra. But here we see it implied he’s Pierced right now at his Father’s right hand, even though he’s not in the physical realm.

None of the other Saved I believe will still have the wounds that caused their Death when their Resurrected, I can’t picture Rachel Scott walking around in the New Jerusalem with multiple gunshot wounds to her head, chest, arm and leg. That’s the permanent part of Yeshua’s sacrifice for us, he’s going to carry His wounds forever so we won’t have to carry ours.