Posted on 04/30/2012 7:51:06 PM PDT by wmfights
I have to go back and do some reading to respond to the rest of your post. I still believe the conversion of Israel will occur at His glorious return, but I'll try and give that some thought.
I think the mid trib rapture is not as likely in part because if the church is still present on the Earth it would negate the impact of the 144,000 witnesses and the outcry about prophesy being fulfilled would open peoples eyes.
And bring literal white horses with him? And literally have a sword protruding from his mouth?
I'll need the Scripture that you have that tells you that God doesn't mean that literally.
As for the image of the sword coming from Jesus' mouth, when we go to Ephesians 6:17, we get a definition of what God considers the sword to be:
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
Hebrews 4:12 tells us:
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
So we know from Scripture that a "sword" refers to the word of God when it is used by God allegorically. Scripture interprets Scripture if one is willing to look and learn.
Romans 2:16 says:
"on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."
We now have our answer. The word "sword", as used as a symbol by God in the Book of Revelation and pictured as coming from the mouth of Jesus, refers to His Word, with which He will judge the nations.
And we know from Scripture that Christ will literally return, will literally bring His Bride with Him, and will literally judge those who remain alive at the end of the Tribulation. And He will do with with the "sword", or the Scriptures. Men will be judged according to what is contained in the Word of God, which He tells us He values above His own name.
No mystery there whatsoever.
Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?Can you think of any place where judgment led to repentance? I don’t believe that tribulation or war will bring the conversion of Israel. If we consider the prophetic character of history in scripture, perhaps we should be looking for an event like Joseph reveling himself to his brothers. The details argue against a mid-tribulation rapture.
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:Do you suppose the rapture will cause a spiritual famine?
As for the image of the sword coming from Jesus’ mouth, when we go to Ephesians 6:17, we get a definition of what God considers the sword to be:....”
Why would you consider the horses (and stables for them and maybe someone to clean the stables...all this in heaven!) literal but that sword not?
You made the assertion of literalness, it's really up to you to show why. Making a statement and then demanding others disprove it is a no-no.
What would make you believe that Jesus would have a literal sword coming out of His mouth? And what on earth makes you think anything needs to be cleaned in Heaven? Where, if at all, did you get your Bible instruction?
You made the assertion of literalness, it's really up to you to show why. Making a statement and then demanding others disprove it is a no-no.
Actually, you expressed doubt about part of the Word of God and it is up to you to prove that your doubt is well-founded. The fact that I shot down that doubt and proved, once again, that the Scripture as God wrote it is inerrant and absolutely true and proved your doubt to be completely without merit puts no obligation on me at all.
If you want to show that God's word has contradictions and errors and cannot be trusted, it's up to you to prove your point.
I already proved mine.
Let me assure you that we are probably pretty close in that - I see the 'tribulation' lasting much longer than the common dispensational idea of seven years - I do see the same final seven years in pretty much the same light - and would tend to assume that the Church will be raptured right at that point (close to the start of those seven years).
I think the Church is on the earth through the end of the Trumpets (at the sound of the 7th Trump) - and that is a fairly extended period of time - which technically puts me in a mid-trib position according to common interpretation, even though the reason for that is because I place the trumpets as occurring earlier, and over a much longer period.
And the antichrist seems to be active longer than those final seven years, because he is already in his power by the time of the 7-year covenant with Israel (else he would not be in a position to make such a covenant)... which means there has already been a whole lot of shaking going on by then. I don't think most dispensationalists allow enough 'pre-game' time.... the whole thing is too compressed...
And I also disagree with the general tone that the Church will leave unscathed - History would prove otherwise - It would seem to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for martyrdom.
As to the 144000, That is PRECISELY the point - to open people's eyes... and there are MANY church-type folks who are currently blind as bats, perhaps myself included.
If you’re going to say the horses are literal then by what means do you determine that another detail isn’t? So why should one be literal and the other not.
Horses have digestive tracts, they eat and defecate, and unless you are going say these don’t then heaven is going to get quite messy.
That is where confusing the literal with the symbolic leads.
I did not express doubt about Gods’ word, only your what you say it indicates.
Find all the descriptions of white horses as God uses them in Scripture and list them. Then tell me how the descriptions listed differ from how the words are used in Revelation 19.
If something is obviously not to be taken literally, like a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus, then we know that God has provided the literal meaning of that symbol in Scripture and all we have to do is find it.
Like another poster said, and like I said in a previous post, when you come to Scripture already deceived, with a method of interpreting the Bible that is wrong, you will not understand the correct way when it is shown to you. If you don't have the Holy Spirit indwelling you from accepting Christ as Savior, you will never understand Scripture and will always misunderstand and, even when proven wrong, cling to your erroneous interpretations.
That is why you are simply mystified as to how the book of Revelation can have both literal images and symbolic images and that is why you don't know to search the Scriptures for what the symbols mean.
Horses have digestive tracts, they eat and defecate, and unless you are going say these don’t then heaven is going to get quite messy. That is where confusing the literal with the symbolic leads.
You're the only one who is confused. I'm not confused at all and I found the meaning of "sword" in Scripture so I know what Jesus is talking about in Revelation when He says that He will come with a "sword" coming out of His mouth.
The confusion comes from not knowing Christ as Savior and not having the Holy Spirit to open up Scripture to you and making it understandable and from depending on the explanations of men who are just as lost and in the dark as you are.
And you obviously have never read Jesus' words on Heaven or you never would have made such asinine statements about it. More darkness and spiritual blindness.
I did not express doubt about Gods’ word, only your what you say it indicates.
Your exact post:
And bring literal white horses with him? And literally have a sword protruding from his mouth?
People who don't question the validity of something don't bring it up and don't ask about it. Why would you need confirmation on whether Jesus will bring "literal white horses with Him" when He said He will? Why would you need to ask about "literally have a sword protruding from His mouth" when Scripture tells you exactly what a "sword" is when it is used symbolically in Scripture? If you don't doubt it, why did you question the truth of it? And why do you need an explanation from me if you're so sure that that part of Scripture is not really true?
Unlike much of Scripture which is descriptive, we know that the words spoken by Jesus are transformative, meaning they carry the power of Creation within them so they must be something greater than literal. Jesus words carry the power to change reality. When Jesus said; "“Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. "When He said; “Lazarus, come out!” it was so. When He said; "Your sins are forgiven." they were.
Why then can you reject His words when He said; "This is my body"?
Unlike much of Scripture which is descriptive, we know that the words spoken by Jesus are transformative, meaning they carry the power of Creation within them so they must be something greater than literal. Jesus words carry the power to change reality. When Jesus said; "“Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. "When He said; “Lazarus, come out!” it was so. When He said; "Your sins are forgiven." they were.
Why then can you reject His words when He said; "This is my body"?
Then there is the opposite view that when the Bible says “Zion” it means “Waco Texas” and where it says “Jewish” it means “Caucasian”, and if your name is Vernon Howell - you need to be named “David Koresh”.
Which view seems more reality based?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52"Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
"59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum".
"60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “ This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
So after the Jews heard Him say that He is the "bread of life" and that anyone who "eats of this bread" will have eternal life and after He tells them that "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.", and after they became angry, we see in verse 63 that He tells them that the words He had just spoken to them were spiritual.
So, like I said, Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, interprets itself. We know that the communion is not the literal flesh and blood of Jesus because He tells us Himself that those words are "spiritual".
That isn't "rejecting" His words, it is putting them in the context that He told us to put them in.
“If you’re going to say the horses are literal then by what means do you determine that another detail isn't’t? So why should one be literal and the other not.”
If you don't care to address the question..so be it, but saying I'm in darkness and don't have Christ as a savior, etc. is not an answer by any means.
And when your comments become personal instead it can only go downhill from here and I don't play the insult game.
Thanks for your comments.
I went above and beyond in explaining to you what you wanted to know. The fact that you don't like what you were told and you choose to reject and deny the Scriptures that state that God has future plans for the Jews and the Scriptures that detail Christ's literal return to earth is not my problem.
If you want to take the truth I gave you as insults go right ahead. Maybe one day you'll actually think about the fact that when you reject and deny Scripture, you are rejecting and denying Christ:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1-5)
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘ He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:14-18)
Jesus Christ is known as "the Word of God". To deny any part of Scripture is to deny Him.
Something to think about.
The fact that we disagree and that there are over 30,000 denominations in Christendom, differentiated by one degree or another, on the interpretation of Scripture is all the evidence one needs to reject that hypothesis.
If you go to that very revelation in John 6 you referenced Jesus had an opportunity to say that He was speaking figuratively or symbolically, like He did when He explained being Born again from above to Nicodemus, but He didn't. He reiterated the Real Presence on many occasions, most notably when He taught us how to pray. He called the "daily bread" Epiousios, a word found nowhere else in Greek literature, which is translated as supersubstantial bread and which the Early Church Fathers unanimously referred to the Eucharist. Jesus used a very emphatic means to reveal this to us. He told us what He was going to tell us. He then told us. He then told us again, and again, and again. It is only when you artificially construct the context to presume that the Eucharist cannot be the Real Presence or that Jesus' words cannot be transformative that your position appears sound.
So I will repeat my question in slightly different words, how can you on your own authority accept or reject the Real Presence?
I take the Scriptures as the final authority on any subject it covers, and when Jesus says that His description of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" are spiritual and not literal, then I'm going to take that as the final word on the matter even if there are men who don't like that and don't agree with it.
This thread is about replacement theology, and believing God when He says that He is not finished with Israel, and I will say again, I'm not interested in getting into a protracted argument that will accomplish nothing.
God bless you, Natural Law.
I am not trying to get into a discussion or debate on Catholic versus Protestant doctrine. I brought up the Real Presence as an example specifically because we disagree on it.
My question goes to the authority of your interpretation, or more specifically, the lack thereof. How is it that you claim that your interpretation, and not that of a fellow Protestant is correct except upon your own authority and how is it that when a finite human mind fails to fully understand the infinite the presumption is that it is the infinite that must bend?
I do not for a minute doubt the sincerity of your love of Jesus. I simply want to better understand your point of view. Peace be with you.
There is no Scriptural basis for claiming that the Church has replaced Israel, and none was offered by those who make that claim.
As for interpretations, I was able to produce Scripture which provided it's own "interpretation" of the passages in question. I know that, for some, that is not sufficient, but it is for me and I feel entirely secure in using Christ's own words to explain what He said.
It is precisely because we disagree that I'd rather not begin a discussion. It will come to nothing, and these kinds of things basically never turn out for good.
I don't doubt your love for Jesus either, Natural Law, and I pray that God will always bless you and your family.
But they are drawn from the 12 tribes of Israel. They are going to be understood by a Jewish audience.
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.