Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Preaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Weakens the Church
ArriveNet ^ | July 7, 2007 | J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Posted on 07/07/2007 7:48:37 PM PDT by tnarg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-838 last
To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC
Think about it.....[Psalm 105:37-38] He brought them forth also with silver and gold: and there was not one feeble person among their tribes. Egypt was glad when they departed: for the fear of them fell upon them. Two and a quarter million people [Exodus 12:37].....and not one feeble one among them!

[Exodus 10:25-26] And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God. Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not an hoof be left behind; for thereof must we take to serve the LORD our God; and we know not with what we must serve the LORD, until we come thither. This is before the institution of the Passover but Moses knows that the animals are to be used for sacrifice. Pharaoh says, "No way!"

While they were wandering in the wilderness, they weren’t very obedient and it doesn’t tell us that they kept the Passover.

[Exodus 12:24-28] And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

After every first born in Egypt is killed (including animals) Pharaoh says "O.K., take your animals and go!" [Exodus 12:32] Moses led them to the Red sea, not taking the shorter route directly into Philistine country because God did not want them to face war and perhaps change their minds and return to Egypt. [13:17]

It didn't take long for the grumbling to start. [15:24] This is the beginning of the testing phase.....[25-27] and they still grumbled [16:1-3]. They were starving to death; GRUMBLE.....GRUMBLE.....GRUMBLE!

The Lord wanted Israel to put their faith and trust in Him....and Him only! NIV[16:4] Then the LORD said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. That trust was knowing that He would provide meat in the evening and bread in the morning. [16:11-12]

Many people have subscribed to the idea that all the Israelites owned cattle. As far as I can tell....only the tribes of Rueben and Gad specialized in cattle raising [Numbers 32:1-5] so there may have not been enough cattle to feed 2 1/4 million people.....don't know for sure, but I do know that God wanted them eating manna......so He could continually test them. [Deuteronomy 8:3]

[Numbers 11:4-6] And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes. Here we go again! First they complained that they weren't getting anything to eat......now they're complaining about what they are eating!

[Psalm 78:17:23] And they sinned yet more against him by provoking the most High in the wilderness. And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust. Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people? Therefore the LORD heard this, and was wroth: so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation: Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven.

Here is where they got more then they had bargained for! [Psalm 78:26_32] He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind. He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea: And he let it fall in the midst of their camp, round about their habitations. So they did eat, and were well filled: for he gave them their own desire; They were not estranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouths, The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel. For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.

[1 Corinthians 10:5-6] But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

[Joshua 5:10-12] And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho. And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day. And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.

Sorry to go in such a round about way of saying.....I don't think there would have been enough cattle to go around and besides that......God didn't want them eating meat!

801 posted on 10/12/2007 7:47:09 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Thank you Diego....I passed your explanation on but haven’t had a response as yet.

I got tickled with your “GRUMBLE....GRUMBLE....GRUMBLE! They really did, just like many of us do today. He does so much for us and we just complain....like babies.

So, it appears that the reason they didn’t eat the cattle
comes down to (as any father tells his child)....because I said no! That’s good enough for me (I’ve heard it often enough.)

Thank you again and if I may ask....How do you know so much??? Have you studied since you were a child or are you just exceptionally smart? Whichever, I’m very glad you allow me to draw on that knowledge.

.........Ping


802 posted on 10/13/2007 2:14:19 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC
So, it appears that the reason they didn’t eat the cattle comes down to (as any father tells his child)....because I said no! That’s good enough for me (I’ve heard it often enough.)

These Israelites were stubborn, rebellious and stupid. I don't think I would have questioned someone who had just moved a couple of million folks from the bonds of slavery, found them ample water [Exodus 15:25], and was now providing them nourishment on a daily basis with no physical effort on their part......outside of just picking it up from the ground! But they did question....and they grumbled.

It took 40 years to travel 240 miles.....six miles a year! My grass grows almost that fast! When they reached Sinai in the third month The Lord promised that they would be a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation......if they would only obey Him and keep His covenants. Up to this point He had saved them from Pharaoh [Exodus 14:26-28], He had provided them water in a trackless waste [Exodus 17:5-7] [Numbers 20:1-13] and He fed them....all they could eat and still they complained and grumbled.

Now I don't know much about you.....but if I had witnessed these miracles, and The Lord had told me that He was going to make me something special.....I'd say...."Let's do it!" These folks and their ancestors must have been taking "dummy drops" while they were laying on the banks of the Nile.....or something.

THEY REFUSED TO ENTER THE PROMISED LAND! This was the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They arrived in Paran three days after a short march from Sinai [Numbers 10:11-13]....a little over two years from their exodus from Egypt. Twelve scouts were sent out to observe "The Promised Land" [Numbers 13:1-15]....but only Joshua and Caleb had the courage to report the truth [13:30][14:6-9]. But the rest were cowards, did not believe The Lord would protect them (DUH) and lied [13:31-33].

Forty years for every day their scouting party was gone [Numbers 14:33-35]. Wander and eat manna!

The Desert of Paran.....where Hagar and Ishmael went after leaving Sarah and Abraham [Genesis 21:17-21]. This is also where King David sought refuge after Samuel had died. He was hiding here from Saul [1 Samuel 25:1-4]. These stupid Israelites wandered around in here for another 38 years because they would not trust The Lord. Do you think He would let them have steaks and burgers after treating Him this way? They were about three days march from where Jerusalem would be!

Thank you again and if I may ask....How do you know so much??? Have you studied since you were a child or are you just exceptionally smart?

Thank you for your kind words. It is all written down....I just read it! Those smarter than me have figured out the crucial points already.

I keep pinging Doug in the hopes he will answer your earlier question about the "Shadows" [Colossians 2:17]. I'm sure he was Tabernacling with his family when you originally sent him that post.....9/27 [Preaching a pre-tribulation rapture]

803 posted on 10/13/2007 4:01:01 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Hello Diego...I have another question for you.

This is going back to the "tribes" issue. Two interesting questions have been brought up.

11 Chronicles 34:6 And so did he in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali, with their mattocks round about.

The question is if the northern tribes are scattered what was that scripture in reference to. The questioner believes it shows that the tribes had melded. My answer was 11 Kings 17:24....other men were placed in those cities.

If you have another answer please let me know.

Also, she brought up the prophetess Anna - Luke 2:36, being of the tribe of Asher and living in Jerusalem.

Any help with these two questions would be greatly appreciated.

......Ping-Pong

804 posted on 11/05/2007 11:18:09 AM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: tnarg; All
Perhaps we can gain some insight into this from the metaphor
given to us by Yah'shua.

The Jewish marriage:

When we accept His offer of marriage, we, as the bride become engaged.

Will we be married at the marriage supper of the Lamb ?

How can we become un-engaged ?

Can a engaged woman become un-engaged on her own actions ?

Would we be disciplined by the grooms father if we stray ?

How sure is the contract of marriage ?

Can we trust the marriage contract to be fulfilled ?

Will the groom terminate the engagement ?

Does the groom's father select the bride?

Does the groom go away for some time to build the bridal chamber?

Does he come back suddenly to snatch away his bride ?

Would he want to see his fiancee hurt when the father fights the enemy ?

Will this occur on the next of His unfulfilled appointed feasts ?

shalom b'shem Yah'shua

805 posted on 11/05/2007 11:33:43 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC; XeniaSt
Hi Ping.....long time no see. How are you?

I have another question for you.

[11 Chronicles 34:6] And so did he in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali, with their mattocks round about.

The question is if the northern tribes are scattered what was that scripture in reference to. The questioner believes it shows that the tribes had melded. My answer was 11 Kings 17:24....other men were placed in those cities.

Well....first of all....there is no question that the ten northern tribes were removed. There are a multitude of verses that show that to be the case. In addition....there are no specific verses that speak of their return from the Assyrian captivity. Your selection of [II Kings 17:24] does indeed prove that the King of Assyria brought folks in from Babylon to re inhabit Samaria deserted by the exile of the Israelites. They are still living there in the first century and Simon Magus [Acts 8] is one of their descendants!

The mention of the cities in the tribal areas of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon and Naphtali is to show that the entire area of Israel was being cleansed. It does not mean that these cities still remained standing. This is transpiring about eight years into Josiah's reign (verse 3 of II Chronicles 34) and Josiah became King in 640 B.C., so it is almost a hundred years after the Assyrian exile took place in 722 B.C.

The word Mattocks can also be translated as "Ruins" as you can see here on the right hand side where different translations indeed refer to them just that way.

The map shows Naphtali in the extreme north of Israel and Simeon in the extreme south. Manasseh, being split, covered the east as well as the west. Ephraim, being the leading tribe of Israel and in the center symbolized completeness of the cleansing by Josiah. He was so determined to wipe away the remnants of paganism and idolatry he even burned the bones of the priests on their alters (verse 5). Remember our study from [I Kings 13:1-2 about the Man of God? This is the result of that prophecy.

When the King of Assyria took the Israelites....he took them all [II Kings 17:18] leaving only Judah which at that time was composed of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi [I Kings 12:22-23]. Benjamin was the tribe spoken of in [I Kings 11:13] and the Levites left Israel because of what happened in [I Kings 12:31-32]. [II Chronicles 11:13-17] tells of the priests leaving Israel and coming to Judah, joining their brothers, the Benjamites....and eventually becoming known as Jews also.

If someone is telling you that this verse [II Chronicles 34;6] proves that the Northern Kingdom of Israel still inhabited this area during the reign of Josiah...they just do not have a good grasp of biblical history. [II Kings 17:23] itself, written after the return of Judah from Babylon 200 years later......says "They (The Ten Tribes) are still there....in Assyria"!

I'm kind of running short on time this evening....so I'll get back to you on Anna, the prophetess of [Luke 2:36]. I'm pingin' Doug cause he likes history and also Chuck cause I see he is active again on this thread. It's been an interesting thread....hasn't it?

806 posted on 11/05/2007 7:54:04 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt
Thank you for your answer Diego...I have sent it on to my friend and await your answer on Anna the Prophetess!

On the same thread, about the tribes, another friend has asked the following:

The 144,000 witnesses have come up several times in this and other threads, so it's time I asked... What is the significance of the division of the tribes in Rev 7 ?

For those that believe these are literal Jews. And those that believe they are not. There's several questions for both camps.

Obviously, the twelve listed in Rev 7 differ from the original sons of Israel as identified in Gen 49, but they also differ in ways that are not so obvious...

1) The difference that is normally talked about is the omission of Dan, often explained as the result of Jacob's prophecy over him (interpreted as "the antichrist comes from you so you don't get to play in the game...").

But there are others difference too.

2) Levi appears in the list. Which agrees with the tribes by birth (Gen 49) but is different than the tribes by land allocation (recorded in Joshua) - where Levi is removed and Joseph is represent by the two "half-tribes" his sons Manasseh and Ephraim.

3) Even though Levi and Joseph are included in the list of twelve in Rev 7, one of the half-tribes of Joseph is still there - Manasseh, but not Ephraim.

4) Simeon appears in the list in Rev 7, even though his tribe has (apparently) completely disappeared following the civil war in the time of Solomon's son Rehoboam (when the ten tribes split off from the United Monarchy to create the northern kingdom of Israel - listed as the nine landed tribes Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben and Gad, and some members of Levi who had no land allocation. But the Bible makes no reference at this point to the Tribe of Simeon, leaving many to believe that the tribe had already disappeared due to the curse of Jacob.

So I am very curious to hear how different people interpret these twelve specifically named Tribes - both from a literal and a symbolic perspective.

His later question about the same topic:

But why this odd mixture of tribes and half tribes ...

This list of 12 is different than any other list in all of scripture.

What do you think??? .........Ping-Pong

807 posted on 11/06/2007 4:55:00 AM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC; Thinkin' Gal; William Terrell
Also, she brought up the prophetess Anna - Luke 2:36, being of the tribe of Asher and living in Jerusalem.

This has always been a tricky little scripture for some who say Israel was deported in 721 B.C. to Assyria....and never came back. This scripture has also been used by many to "Absolutely Prove" those of us holding that position....of our error. The Tribe of Asher, of course....being one of the ten northern tribes was never mentioned in Old testament scripture, along with the other nine.....of ever returning to the Promised Land.....Israel.

Judah (Judah, Benjamin & Levi) was exiled herself to Babylon 125 years later....but the scriptures record their return thoroughly. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell of the return of Judah from the Babylonian captivity after 70 years and mention nothing about the other tribes at all! Only Judah, Benjamin and Levi are spoken of in these books.

So......where did Anna of the tribe of Asher come from? If you notice.....she is a pretty important lady! Luke calls her a Prophetess....the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher. For her to have rated all these distinctive adjectives she evidently was being singled out. Indeed, she along with Simeon, become the first prophets of the New Testament. They both identify Our Lord as the promised Messiah immediately. [Luke 2:25-38] Luke also mentions other female prophets, Philip's daughters....[Acts 21:9] but does not specifically say of what they prophecy.

From reading the scripture it appears that Anna never leaves the temple and the question....I assume....is, "What is she doing here (in Jerusalem) if she and her tribe have been exiled?"

We in the Twenty First Century consider the ten northern tribes lost to history. We don't know for sure who they might be.....(we have opinions), but there remains no definitive, authoritative source we can turn to for the exact location of the descendants. On the other hand....the folks of the First Century (this includes Luke and the others) knew exactly who they were....and where they were!

[Matthew 10:5-6] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When Our Lord gave this commandment to the Twelve He did not pass out any Rand McNallys to them. They all knew where Israel was!

[John 21:15-17] So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

So......where do we find Peter...eventually? We don't ever find him in Rome, but we find him in Babylon writing to the folks on the southern shores of the Black Sea. [1 Peter 1:1-2] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

The words "Strangers Scattered" in the Greek means "Israelites of the Dispersion" living in foreign countries. That's who these folks in [1 Peter 1:1-2] were and that's where a portion of them lived.....500 miles from Jerusalem. Other tribes lived in Babylon....closer yet and portions of their populations still visited for the festivals....those who had not forgotten. Obviously Anna would be counted in this number (folks who had not forgotten).

I always like pointing out the fact that Josephus was well aware of the location of Israel in the first century and he writes of that in Antiquities XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2, lines 6-7. He says: "There are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers." The two tribes he mentions are Judah and Benjamin (The Jews) that are subject to the Romans. The Levites owned no property so were counted among the others. The ten tribes are known to him as "Israel" and they are beyond the Euphrates (Babylon/Persia).

The point I'm making here is that everyone knew where most of Israel was in the First Century and many of the tribes were still in what we would call the Mid east. Other tribes and parts of other tribes may have already migrated through the Caucasus Mountains and started to spread out through Asia and Europe......but many of them remained fairly close to Jerusalem and those that remembered their heritage....... visited.

Anna's Father was Phanuel and it was said he descended from Asher.....or did it? [Luke 2:36] "Young's Literal Translation" And there was Anna, a prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, she was much advanced in days, having lived with an husband seven years from her virginity. Was Anna of the tribe of Asher or was Phanuel of the tribe of Asher or were they both of the tribe of Asher. Anna could have married an Asherite (her husband of seven years) and the statement "A daughter of Phanuel" could also mean she was descended from Phanuel.

[1 Chronicles 4:4] And Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem. Verse 1 shows this Phanuel (Greek spelling versus Hebrew) as a descendant of Judah! Was Anna just a descendant of this man and had she married into the tribe of Asher. Who knows! It's not important!

The fact that the Northern Tribes were exiled and never returned as a body is scripture and all the nitpicking about this verse [Luke 2:36] is silly. It shows one person out of millions of Israelites, mentioned as being in and around Jerusalem awaiting the Messiah. There is absolutely no reason to question the veracity of the continued exile of the Ten Tribes because of Anna. She....as a daughter of Israel.....had more right than the Romans to be there.

808 posted on 11/06/2007 6:45:13 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
You mean thing. This sort to of stuff drives dispensationalists crazy. Their entire structure of future spiritual events collapses if the other Israelite tribe were not wiped out.

Some achilles heel, huh.

809 posted on 11/07/2007 7:32:42 AM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

I know....I’m just terrible!


810 posted on 11/07/2007 8:28:47 AM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC; William Terrell
The 144,000 witnesses have come up several times in this and other threads, so it's time I asked... What is the significance of the division of the tribes in Rev 7 ?

[Revelation 7:4] is quite specific: And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. John was very familiar with the history of Israel and wrote simply: (verse 5) 12,000 from each tribe. This is not a difficult concept to understand unless you are totally ignorant of Old Testament history.

For those that believe these are literal Jews. And those that believe they are not. There's several questions for both camps.

We can dispel with any conjecture that these folks were all Jews. Only those of the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi were considered Jews.

[II Kings 16:6] At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day. This is the first place in scripture where the word Jew is used. If you read the first 5 verses of II Kings 16 you will see that the Jews are at war against Israel. Many people, not understanding Old Testament history, will marvel at this statement. You will read in [II Chronicles 11:1] And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he gathered of the house of Judah and Benjamin an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against Israel, that he might bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam. You will see now that Judah and Benjamin are at war against Israel.

Judah: Hebrew #3064. Yhuwdiy (yeh-hoo-dee')a Jehudite (i.e. Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (i.e. Judah). Benjamin was the tribe spoken of in [I Kings 11:13] and they became known as Jews also since they became part of Judah. Levi also became part of the Southern Kingdom of Judah and you will read about that here: [II Chronicles 11:12-17] And in every several city he put shields and spears, and made them exceeding strong, having Judah and Benjamin on his side. And the priests and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts. For the Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office unto the LORD: And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made. And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong, three years: for three years they walked in the way of David and Solomon. Levi also, by their citizenship in the Kingdom of Judah, became known as Jews.

The Greek word for Jew is: #2453. Ioudaios (ee-oo-dah'-yos)as a country); Judaean, i.e. belonging to Jehudah. If you notice now in the New Testament they are described as Judaeans. Only Judah, Benjamin and Levi are mentioned in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah as returning from Babylonian captivity to re establish the Kingdom of Judah and by the first century this area was referred to as Judaea.....not Israel.

So.....36,000 of these sealed individuals in [Revelation 7:5-8] can be called Jewish. The other 108,000 are Israelites.....but not Jews. This is a very tough concept for many folks to understand as they have been taught differently all their lives. But, as you can see, scripture explains it perfectly. All Jews are Israelites....but not all Israelites are Jews. This is the same as saying....all British are Europeans.....but not everyone from Europe is British. Like I said....it's a tough concept for some.

I need to break off here because of time constraints but will continue soon.

811 posted on 11/07/2007 8:25:04 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC; William Terrell
Obviously, the twelve listed in Rev 7 differ from the original sons of Israel as identified in Gen 49, but they also differ in ways that are not so obvious...The difference that is normally talked about is the omission of Dan, often explained as the result of Jacob's prophecy over him (interpreted as "the antichrist comes from you so you don't get to play in the game...").

The twelve listed in [Revelation 7] are Judah, Rueben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin. In Genesis 49 the same are listed except for the addition of Dan and Ephraim. Joseph, being the father of both Ephraim and Manasseh takes the place of Ephraim in Revelation and Dan is excluded for the following:

Dan is also left out of the genealogies of [I Chronicles 1-9]. The name of Dan appears in [2:1] but the tribal descendants are not listed as are the other eleven tribes because......

The tribe of Dan was guilty of gross idolatry and they even resorted to theft [Judges 18:11-31] in pursuing this practice.....for over five hundred years!

[Genesis 49:17-18] Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.

Dan will not be a part of the 144,000 that are sealed, but will wait for his salvation.....and it will come.

[Ezekiel 48:1] Now these are the names of the tribes. From the north end to the coast of the way of Hethlon, as one goeth to Hamath, Hazarenan, the border of Damascus northward, to the coast of Hamath; for these are his sides east and west; a portion for Dan. Ezekiel is describing the apportionment of the land during the Millennium and as you can see....Dan is included.

812 posted on 11/08/2007 5:36:35 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong
Even though Levi and Joseph are included in the list of twelve in Rev 7, one of the half-tribes of Joseph is still there - Manasseh, but not Ephraim.

Essentially.....Ephraim is Joseph.....along with Manasseh so this is a moot point.

Levi was removed from many lists in the Old Testament as they were the Priests....and as such, lived among the other tribes performing their duties locally. They were not given land in the Kingdom as they had no need for it. Thus they were not listed....except for genealogies, but they are listed among the 144,000 who are martyred during The Great tribulation [Revelation 7:14].

813 posted on 11/08/2007 6:09:17 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; DouglasKC
Hello to both of you. I have another question I hope you can help me with. It is about the Son of Perdition.

On another site, someone is building a scenario of end time events based on belief that the son of peridition is Judas. I won't go into all of that but I understand from scripture that there is only one called that and that is Satan himself.

He bases his belief on Judas because of:

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name: those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

He assumes this is in reference to the disciples and Judas was the one lost....hence, the son of perdition. I quoted some scipture that I believe verifies Satan as that entity but so far he isn't convinced.

So...I have come to you. Am I wrong? What do you believe? Who is the son of perdition...Satan or Judas?

.....Ping

814 posted on 12/09/2007 11:17:36 AM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; Diego1618
He's partially right. The son of "perdition" spoken of here probably is Judas:

Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

BUT, the other son of "perdition" spoken of here is most likely the false prophet:

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

This can't be Judas because of the next verse:

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Judas never did any of these things. I put the word "perdition" in quotes because the greek word it's translated from is translated a number of different ways.

apōleia

Total KJV Occurrences: 21

perdition, (8) Joh_17:12, Phi_1:28, 2Th_2:3, 1Ti_6:9, Heb_10:39, 2Pe_3:7, Rev_17:8, Rev_17:11

destruction, (5) Mat_7:13, Rom_9:22, Phi_3:19, 2Pe_2:1, 2Pe_3:16

waste, (2) Mat_26:8, Mar_14:4

damnable, (1) 2Pe_2:1

damnation, (1) 2Pe_2:3

die, (1) Act_25:16

perish, (1)Act_8:20

pernicious, (1) 2Pe_2:2

ways, (1)2Pe_2:2

That's just to illustrate that the word "perdition" shouldn't be the criteria for determining who it is.

The church I attend with has put out a pretty good study paper on the "son of perdition", the "man of sin". It's available at 2 Thessolonians and The Man of Sin

In short, it's not Satan or Judas in this verse, but is the false prophet.

815 posted on 12/10/2007 7:06:48 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Ping-Pong
That's just to illustrate that the word "perdition" shouldn't be the criteria for determining who it is.

Very good point....and a very good study. I remember a similar study years ago....but had forgotten how confusing this can be when we narrow a "KJV" word down and try to build a theology based upon an ambiguous word.

816 posted on 12/10/2007 1:59:15 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Diego1618
Thank you both for your reply.

Douglas - He's partially right. The son of "perdition" spoken of here probably is Judas:

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

I believe Christ is speaking about all those given to Him....not just the disciples, but all souls. For instance, in the same chapter, just a few verses before the above, He said:

John 17:2 As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him.

Then, a few verses later, (17:12 above) He said that He kept them in His name and none were lost. To me, He wasn't speaking about the disciples but all souls. He then adds that only the son of perdition was lost. The only one named that has been condemned to perdition is Satan.

John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

As you pointed out, the Thessalonian scriptures certainly point to anti-christ (I believe Satan is the anti-christ, or is a role he plays.)

Douglas - That's just to illustrate that the word "perdition" shouldn't be the criteria for determining who it is.

Diego - Very good point....and a very good study. I remember a similar study years ago....but had forgotten how confusing this can be when we narrow a "KJV" word down and try to build a theology based upon an ambiguous word.

Perdition - 684 - apoleia, from a presumed der. of #622.....(snip) #622 - apollumi, a destroyer, i.e.Satan - apollyon

Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

If Satan is Apollyon and Apollyon means perdition then it seems that the son of perdition would be Satan. It is always shown in the singular, never plural. It seems there can only be one.

Am I way off base with this? Do you think there is more than one son of perdition? Satan was condemned before this age began. In this age, there is only one unpardonable sin and as terrible as what Judas did....it wasn't that named sin. Also, Christ selected Judas for the deed, to accomplish what He came to earth for. And....Judas repented, whether or not it was a heart felt repentance I don't know.

.........Ping

817 posted on 12/10/2007 4:28:50 PM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; Diego1618
Then, a few verses later, (17:12 above) He said that He kept them in His name and none were lost. To me, He wasn't speaking about the disciples but all souls. He then adds that only the son of perdition was lost. The only one named that has been condemned to perdition is Satan.

That doesn't seem to work for a couple of reasons:

1. Satan isn't the only angelic being that was lost:

Luk 11:15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.

Beelzebub (Satan) is the chief of devils.

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

It would seem that these are just as lost as Satan.

2. If all souls are given to him, then Christ said that some would not ever know him:

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

If Satan is Apollyon and Apollyon means perdition then it seems that the son of perdition would be Satan. It is always shown in the singular, never plural. It seems there can only be one.

I don't think Apollyon means "perdition". If you look at the greek:

Apolluōn

ap-ol-loo'-ohn
Active participle of G622; a destroyer (that is, Satan): - Apollyon.

Note that Apollyon is the active participle of Strongs G622:

apollumi

ap-ol'-loo-mee
From G575 and the base of G3639; to destroy fully (reflexively to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively: - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

Perdition, on the other hand, is:

apōleia

ap-o'-li-a
From a presumed derivative of G622; ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal): - damnable (-nation), destruction, die, perdition, X perish, pernicious ways, waste.

Apollyon and perdition are both thought to have derived from the same word, but "perdition" seems to have softer meaning.

But even if Apollyon means perdition, and Satan is Apollyon, the in a real sense Judas could be thought of as the "son of Satan", the son of perdition, because he did Satan's bidding:

Luk 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

In this age, there is only one unpardonable sin and as terrible as what Judas did....it wasn't that named sin. Also, Christ selected Judas for the deed, to accomplish what He came to earth for. And....Judas repented, whether or not it was a heart felt repentance I don't know.

When it comes to scriptural study, as Diego pointed out, you need to be careful about making assumptions based on the English translations of greek words.

Mat 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders

Judas "repented" is this word:

metamellomai
met-am-el'-lom-ahee
From G3326 and the middle of G3199; to care afterwards, that is, regret: - repent (self).

This word is only used in 5 verses and most often means regret. Judas regretted what he did. He cared AFTER he did it. But there's a different word that's always used to describe the repentance that leads to life:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The "repent" here is:

metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.

This word is used 34 time and always to refer to Godly repentance.

If you don't have one you should invest in a good concordance. There is a freeware (well donation) bible software program called "E-Sword" that has many dictionaries and concordances all free.

I thank you my friend for bringing this up. It is making an interesting study.

818 posted on 12/10/2007 7:25:54 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Diego1618
Then, a few verses later, (17:12 above) He said that He kept them in His name and none were lost. To me, He wasn't speaking about the disciples but all souls. He then adds that only the son of perdition was lost. The only one named that has been condemned to perdition is Satan.

That doesn't seem to work for a couple of reasons:

1. Satan isn't the only angelic being that was lost:

That is true, there are also the fallen angels but he is the only one named. Many will go into perdition and Judas could well be one of those but are there more than one "named" as the son of perdition?

2. If all souls are given to him, then Christ said that some would not ever know him:

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

But because He will tell them, depart from Me, ye that work iniquity, doesn't mean they weren't given to Him.....it is that they didn't accept the salvation He offered. They were His but they refused Him.

But even if Apollyon means perdition, and Satan is Apollyon, the in a real sense Judas could be thought of as the "son of Satan", the son of perdition, because he did Satan's bidding:

Luk 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

You have hit upon the sticking point in the debate. I agree about the repentance of Judas and only our Father knows how much weight it will carry.

So, even though Judas did the bidding of Satan could he be considered THE son of perdition?

11 Thess.2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name: those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

We know that Satan has been condemned and we know that his fallen angels have also been condemned but no one human has yet been condemned. Are the humans those that Thou gavest Me...and none of them is lost? Of course then one would say....but Satan wasn't human.....Oh gosh, I don't know. It is a prickly problem.

I just continue to hold on to him being named THE son of perdition, not A son of perditon or SONS of perdition.

I thank you my friend for bringing this up. It is making an interesting study.

It is that....and I thank you for your thoughts.

......Ping

819 posted on 12/12/2007 3:45:18 AM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; Diego1618
That is true, there are also the fallen angels but he is the only one named. Many will go into perdition and Judas could well be one of those but are there more than one "named" as the son of perdition?

Okay, where do you see that Satan is going to "perdition"?

You have hit upon the sticking point in the debate. I agree about the repentance of Judas and only our Father knows how much weight it will carry.
So, even though Judas did the bidding of Satan could he be considered THE son of perdition?

You seem to be hung up on the word "perdition" as if it's a place or a person when it's only an archaic word that means "destruction" or "ruin" or "loss".

I see that saying "son of perdition" is kind of like saying he's a "son of a bitch." It's a figurative way to say what his character is like. He's about nothing but destruction and waste, he's a "son of destruction." Like a "son of a bitch" isn't really the son of a bitch but acts like a dog, a son of destruction's character is summed up in that their character is wanting to destroy.

Biblically the term seems reserved for those who do Satan's bidding because Satan is a destroyer. Therefore there can be more than one "son of perdition".

I just continue to hold on to him being named THE son of perdition, not A son of perditon or SONS of perdition.

All I can suggest is that you continue to study and use all the resources you can. Often when starting off studying people will want to hold on to their own ideas instead of believing what scripture actually says.

820 posted on 12/12/2007 10:46:15 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2

As I observe my fellow man daily, I wonder if the rature hasn’t already happened.


821 posted on 12/12/2007 10:47:34 AM PST by a real Sheila (stop hillary NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Diego1618
Okay, where do you see that Satan is going to "perdition"?

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

You seem to be hung up on the word "perdition" as if it's a place or a person when it's only an archaic word that means "destruction" or "ruin" or "loss".

I see that saying "son of perdition" is kind of like saying he's a "son of a bitch." It's a figurative way to say what his character is like. He's about nothing but destruction and waste, he's a "son of destruction." Like a "son of a bitch" isn't really the son of a bitch but acts like a dog, a son of destruction's character is summed up in that their character is wanting to destroy.

I am hung up on the word Douglas. To me, it is like a name, a title....The Son of Perdition, as in The President of Iran. (I wonder what brought that to mind?)

All I can suggest is that you continue to study and use all the resources you can. Often when starting off studying people will want to hold on to their own ideas instead of believing what scripture actually says.

That is true...and very true about me. I'll keep studying and try to do so with a more open mind but it sure doesn't come easy.

........Ping

822 posted on 12/12/2007 1:20:04 PM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC
I am hung up on the word Douglas. To me, it is like a name, a title....The Son of Perdition.

I would no more recommend a certain translation to anyone no more than I would recommend a vote for a democrat......but, I have found that "Young's Literal Translation" helps me to understand the context of the Greek.......sometimes. LOL

Let's look at John 17:12

On the right hand side you will see various translations of this verse....a central verse to this question. Young's is the last translation on the right hand side of the page. It doesn't even use the word "Perdition"!

Let's look at verses (6-9): I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

There can be no doubt that Our Lord is speaking of the disciples here....and in verse (12): While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost,......... but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

There is no doubt that the subject of verse...12....that was lost is none other than Judas.....according to the KJV.

Three entities in scripture are identified as "Sons" of perdition....Judas, The Beast and the False Prophet of [Revelation 17:3-14]. The False Prophet is a leader of the false church and the Beast will be a great political leader. It is true that all three have been influenced by Satan. We know that Satan entered the body of Judas [Luke 22:3][John 13:2] and it is quite certain that the False Prophet and the Beast will also be Satanic in their natures.

As Douglas said earlier....there will be many sons of perdition that will go down to destruction. You can say that perdition/destruction is the opposite of salvation/eternal life. None will be in the Kingdom of God who did not specifically choose to be there....by their righteousness! On the other hand....none will be in the lake of fire except those who specifically chose to be there by their wickedness!

[Philippians 1:27-28] Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.

[Hebrews 10:37-39] For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

[2 Peter 3:5-7] 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 (destruction) of ungodly men.

[2 Thessalonians 2:1-4] Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: 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, shewing himself that he is God.

Do these verses all speak of Satan? Or do they speak of others with Satan's influence?

You seem to be hung up on the word "perdition" as if it's a place or a person when it's only an archaic word that means "destruction" or "ruin" or "loss".

I would agree with this statement.

823 posted on 12/12/2007 3:23:28 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; Ping-Pong
You can say that perdition/destruction is the opposite of salvation/eternal life. None will be in the Kingdom of God who did not specifically choose to be there....

Thank you for your insights. I hadn't made some of the connections you did. I'm always amazed at how much scripture reveals.

824 posted on 12/12/2007 9:17:59 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; DouglasKC
Okay....I understand but it is difficult (and I am stubborn). Perhaps if it had been worded - Judas, a son of perdition, it would have been clearer to me. But....I do finally see! Thank you both.

I have two other questions to ask and hope you can help.

11 Thessalonians 2:4 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, shewing himself that he is God.

What is meant by the "Temple of God?" I understand that the Temple was standing at that time but the reference is to the future. As there is no Temple and I don't see mentioned anywhere in scripture that there will be another until the millennium....what does it mean?

If the Temple is Christ (raised 3 1/2 days later) how can the man of sin be sitting there? If it means us, as the body of Christ, being the Temple....how can he be sitting there? Is the "he" spoken of here an entity...that man of sin, or is it his group of worshippers and if so...why is he referred to as "man."

Or, could it mean the site where His Temple was. The Holy place of Islam. Will he, the man of sin, "sitteth in" the site of the Temple of God,"shewing himself that he is God?" So...what is meant by the Temple of God?

My second question:

Exodus 16:31 And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed,white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.

Why is "house of Israel" written before the separation of the tribes? A sidenote in my Bible said there are "14 occurrences before the division of the nation into two kingdoms." But, it didn't explain why!

I hope you two can help with this.

..........Ping

PS: I thought your remark about recommending someone vote for a Democrat was funny...and scary!

825 posted on 12/13/2007 1:12:43 PM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; Diego1618
Exodus 16:31 And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed,white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.
Why is "house of Israel" written before the separation of the tribes? A sidenote in my Bible said there are "14 occurrences before the division of the nation into two kingdoms." But, it didn't explain why!

I'll attempt to answer this since it's the shortest.:-)

Jacob was of course renamed Israel:

Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

Jacob of course had 12 sons whose offspring are called collectively "Israel"...or the house of Israel.

So this is just a way of referring to Jacob's (Israel's) offspring as opposed to the kingdom of Israel eventually became a political entity separate from the Kingdom of Judah.

In other words, all tribes are part of the house of Israel. But not all tribes were part of the Kingdom of Israel.

826 posted on 12/13/2007 1:48:57 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
But not all tribes were part of the Kingdom of Israel.

This was true after Solomon....but under Saul, David and Solomon all the tribes were part of the Kingdom of Israel.

Douglas is correct in that by saying, "House of Israel"... it's like saying "All of Jacobs descendants". There is also a house of Abraham....which includes Jacob (Israel), Esau, Isaac and Ishmael.....and others. [Genesis 25:1] On the other hand.....the House of Isaac would only include Jacob and Esau.

827 posted on 12/13/2007 2:18:51 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; Ping-Pong
This was true after Solomon....but under Saul, David and Solomon all the tribes were part of the Kingdom of Israel.

Thank you, you are of course correct. I was hoping you would answer the first part though... :-)

828 posted on 12/13/2007 2:33:07 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; DouglasKC
Douglas is correct in that by saying, "House of Israel"... it's like saying "All of Jacobs descendants". There is also a house of Abraham....which includes Jacob (Israel), Esau, Isaac and Ishmael.....and others. [Genesis 25:1] On the other hand.....the House of Isaac would only include Jacob and Esau.

That makes sense. To your knowledge was it ever used as that after the split or are all those references after Solomon to the 10 tribes only? If they weren't I have certainly been off base with some things!

......Ping

829 posted on 12/13/2007 4:09:41 PM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC
To your knowledge was it ever used as that after the split or are all those references after Solomon to the 10 tribes only?

I think the rule of thumb is: Whenever the two houses are mentioned together (Israel and Judah) in the same thought or passage....they are to be considered distinct. Whenever only one is mentioned they are to be considered only one. The problem some folks have though.....is recognizing that Judah is still part of Israel and when Israel is mentioned by itself you should always consider the fact that this includes Judah.

[Jeremiah 3:6-18] is a good example of the separate distinctions of the two houses.....whereas [Revelation 7:4-8] is a good example of The Holy Spirit wanting us to include Judah in the House of Israel (Tribes of Israel).

[Matthew 15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This is one of the few times in the New Testament that the "House of Israel" is referred to. Most of the time they are called "Children of Israel" in the New....except for a few passages in Hebrews 8. As you can see....Our Lord is including Judah with this statement.

Sometimes scriptures will speak of "Ephraim" in the same vein as Israel (Ten Tribes). Ephraim was the leading tribe of the north. Many passages in Hosea show this distinction.

830 posted on 12/13/2007 4:58:44 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC
What is meant by the "Temple of God?" I understand that the Temple was standing at that time but the reference is to the future. As there is no Temple and I don't see mentioned anywhere in scripture that there will be another until the millennium....what does it mean?

[II Thessalonians 2:1-4] Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: 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, shewing himself that he is God.

Two things jump out at me here. This is happening before the second coming and a "Man of Sin" will be revealed.

[II Thessalonians 2:5-7] Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

This man of sin is not Satan. It is a "Man" and he will be a great leader of a Church/State system....commonly called in [Revelation 19:20]....the false prophet.

Paul speaks of the "Mystery of Iniquity" already at work in the first century. This was the early beginnings of the Church/State system that was begun by Simon Magus [Acts 8] after leaving Samaria and traveling to Rome. He was exalted as a god by the Romans and even had a statue erected in his honor on a bridge over the Tiber. Luke identifies this Man of Sin and his mystery religion and the others refer to him and his false religious system continually throughout the New Testament. The system he began was an offshoot of the Babylonian mysteries.....and it still exists today.

The False prophet will be an exalted Church/State ruler and he will sit in the temple pretending he is God. Young's literal translation shows the word temple to be: Strong's #3485. naos (nah-os')from a primary naio (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple. Young's Literal Translation calls it a sanctuary: [II Thessalonians 2:4] who is opposing and is raising himself up above all called God or worshipped, so that he in the sanctuary of God as God hath sat down, shewing himself off that he is God -- [the day doth not come].

This is not speaking of the temple in Jerusalem....or the Heavenly Temple in the New Jerusalem. It is speaking of a man made edifice, a Church sanctuary, a famous structure, a well known City/Church/State building where this false prophet will attempt to convince humanity he is God!

[II Thessalonians 2:9] Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. His works follow after the patterns of Satan....and can be actually said to be Satanic......but he (The False Prophet) is a man.

Smiley to you....Douglas! :-) LOL

831 posted on 12/13/2007 6:56:35 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

I saw a funny shirt saying “in case of rapture, may I have your car?”


832 posted on 12/13/2007 7:03:40 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

LOL. That’s a good response to the one I saw.


833 posted on 12/13/2007 10:43:06 PM PST by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; DouglasKC; Uncle Chip
This is not speaking of the temple in Jerusalem....or the Heavenly Temple in the New Jerusalem. It is speaking of a man made edifice, a Church sanctuary, a famous structure, a well known City/Church/State building where this false prophet will attempt to convince humanity he is God!

I reread some older files on Simon Magus from you and Uncle Chip. The meaning is hitting home now, more than earlier. I have a busy weekend but I look forward to looking at this in depth.

Because I already had a preconceived idea it is difficult to replace....things keep running through my mind on what you are saying about the "man of sin" and what, who and where he is representing and also....how?

Thank you Diego,

.......Ping

834 posted on 12/15/2007 11:32:43 AM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong; DouglasKC
This is not speaking of the temple in Jerusalem....or the Heavenly Temple in the New Jerusalem. It is speaking of a man made edifice, a Church sanctuary, a famous structure, a well known City/Church/State building where this false prophet will attempt to convince humanity he is God!

I need to clarify this statement as after reading it I realize It's not exactly what I meant to say.

The "Abomination of Desolation" [Daniel 11:31][Daniel 12:11] has occurred already occurred twice. Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple (Jerusalem 168 B.C.) by dedicating it to Jupiter and even sacrificed pigs on the altar. Titus desecrated it in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed. Prophecy is sometimes dual in nature and we definitely see that exhibited here......but I did not mean that the False Prophet would not also desecrate a "New Temple" in Jerusalem in the future. What I was attempting....(clumsily) to say.... was that for 2000 years now desecration of "A" sanctuary has been an ongoing thing.

Our Lord said [Matthew 24:15] "When you see it (the Abomination of Desolation) standing in the Holy place" & [Luke 21:20] "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies Desolation will be near" & [Mark 13:14] "When you see it (Abomination of Desolation standing where it does not belong.....then let those in Judea flee to the mountains." The fact that Jerusalem is being surrounded.....and folks are to flee from Judea to the mountains indicates a Jerusalem locale for the desecration of the Temple.

The problem here is that there is currently no Temple in Jerusalem. That does not mean one will not be built!

The Papacy has called for Jerusalem to become an "International" city for sometime now and an open city for folks of all religious persuasions. The leadership of Israel, for the most part, has always said that "Never Again" will Jerusalem be a divided city. It will always be the Capital of a Jewish state. There is obviously much pressure from the surrounding Arab countries to insure that this policy does not prevail.

The next big war will probably tell the tale....if there is intervention from Europe (probably will be) you can bet your bottom dollar that the Vatican will be involved. If the armies surrounding Jerusalem are European Armies think of the possible misconceptions the world may have! If there is a Temple built at that point, and we see a Papal delegation, in the interest of Ecumenical cooperation....visiting that New Temple.....as the armies of Europe do indeed surround the place, giving off the impression of providing security, and whatever Pope it might be....performing miracles to millions via satellite television......well, read [2 Thessalonians 2:4] again! Maybe his personal intervention has brought "Peace" to the middle East????? You can see the ramifications!

Most folks would be deceived that this could be anything but God sanctioned....after all, European Armies protecting Israel. C'mon now....what's the problem with that? If they were Arab.....we would be concerned....but Armies of Europe and the Pope himself! Not to worry!

Do you see what I'm getting at? The Pope could claim that "THE CHURCH" was returning to its roots......and the "Abomination of Desolation" would be in place!

Everything hinges on when.... and if a new temple is built in Jerusalem. But the desecration of New Testament Christianity has been going on for two thousand years. I think the Prophecy in [Mark 13:14] is the most apropos: 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:

835 posted on 12/15/2007 7:51:48 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
The "Abomination of Desolation" [Daniel 11:31][Daniel 12:11] has occurred already occurred twice. Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple (Jerusalem 168 B.C.) by dedicating it to Jupiter and even sacrificed pigs on the altar. Titus desecrated it in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed. Prophecy is sometimes dual in nature and we definitely see that exhibited here......but I did not mean that the False Prophet would not also desecrate a "New Temple" in Jerusalem in the future. What I was attempting....(clumsily) to say.... was that for 2000 years now desecration of "A" sanctuary has been an ongoing thing.

That does clear up some of the scripture I was thinking about when comparing it to your earlier post. I still haven't studied what you are saying (hopefully I can tomorrow at work - I always have more free time at work than at home) but do you believe that a "new" temple will be built or are the references to the holy place there now - holy to Islam? But, if it was Islam's holy place it wouldn't be referred to as "Temple of God." If it doesn't mean Islam's holy place and a new temple isn't built...what is the "Temple of God?"

I ask this because someone speaking about corporate theology believes that the "temple of God" mentioned is the body of believers. Some of us are the temple the anti-christ will be in. He believes that the return of Christ is all of the body of believers...not an entity. He also believes that the anti-christ is not an entity but the body of his believers.

Diego, I just thought of something...please let me know what you think. Christ said:

John 2:19Jesus answered and said unto them, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

21. But He spake of the Temple of His body.

He did raise that Temple in three days so He must be the Temple spoken of in:

11 Thessalonians 2:4 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, shewing himself that he is God.

Could that scripture mean that anti-christ and/or the false prophet (I still don't know if they are one and the same or separate)but either way...could it be that entity sitting "as God" (pretending to be Christ) in "the Temple of God" (masquerading in looks and actions as Christ, the temple that was raised in 3 days)....."shewing himself that he is God."

The Temple of God is Christ and he will be in that form pretending to be Him...the fake. Could that be what is meant by the above scripture?

......Ping

836 posted on 12/16/2007 7:05:19 AM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; DouglasKC
I have another question on a different subject. When reading about end times the scripture about "ruling with a rod of iron," I always thought it was Christ in that role.

Revelation 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of My Father.

28.And I will give him the morning star

12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to His throne.

19:15 And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

The He and Him in caps is Christ but who is the other "he", who is the "manchild" that God gives the rod to? What is meant by Christ giving him - the manchild, the morning star? He is the morning star. Does He make the manchild a morning star? Are these the elect that rule with Him, or instead of Him, during the millennium? Is that what is meant by being gods? And...when is he caught up to the throne?

HELP PLEASE.

.........Ping

837 posted on 12/28/2007 12:37:46 PM PST by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

I don’t know if anyone on here has heard of David J Stewart but he seems to believe that the Bible has evidence of a Pre Tribulation Rapture wwe.jesusissavior.com


838 posted on 12/11/2010 2:40:24 PM PST by thewrestlingfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-838 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson