Posted on 05/02/2015 6:26:45 AM PDT by The Ignorant Fisherman
You do err in that there is a future world leader coming - he isn’t called the anti-Christ in Revelation. However, he is referred to as the “beast.” He is probably alive somewhere right now - and will make his appearance at the appointed time. You have to realize that until the modern age of technology - it would be impossible for the entire world to worship him - think computers, tv. etc. And, with a one-world government and currency - these things could not have already happened until now. Also, he seats himself in the Temple in Jerusalem - which, to date, has not been rebuilt.
If you both (Muslim & Christian) gleamed it from the first 18 centuries of Christian beliefs, scholars, and writers maybe you both would have been blessed if you had trusted only the written Word of God instead of the word of man?
The Word of God is a joy and a lamppost never changing!
A humanistic view of the Bible only leads to confusion.
Things to Come,...not historical.
It is the word of man that Revelation is future. It is men who advance religions. What you believe is what you have been taught. It is not because the Lord has talked to you, since his time is all taken up talking to Kenneth Copeland. Why did it take 1800 years for the “right” interpretation to be discovered? The Bible the Puritans brought over was the Geneva Bible, a Bible the King James translators referred to when they translated the Bible. You can find it on the internet if you don’t have a copy (1599) edition. Read the commentary on Revelation by the finest scholars of that day, the “men” you say you can’t trust, but you do trust their translations. Martin Luther did not even believe that Revelaton should be part of the Biblical canon, but he was not right on every point he taught. This whole thing is a point of irritation for me because that mistaken belief has led multitudes of Christians to embrace defeatism for Christianity, especially defeatism to the one-worlders. The most diabolical events can happen and Christians will automatically think on the current interpretation of Revelation. They will say, “Oh, that’s straight out of Revelation”, and sit back and accept it. Christians have been hoodwinked.
“Things to Come,...not historical”
It’s both. Chapters 2 and 3 are Jesus giving His assessment of the early churches. Christians of all eras should apply his words to themselves and avoid the “lukewarmness” that disgusts Him.
The early Church was under intense persecution. The Roman Emperor Domitian (81-96) demanded that he be worshiped like a God. So did Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 7) in the Old Testament. God, working through His servant John, uses history to tell us that the end of the world will once again feature a man trying to force others to worship him as God.
G-d guides us by speaking to us with His Word and Commandments. This goes for you, me, Mr. Copeland and everyone.
Isaiah 30:21 With your ears you will hear a word from behind you: “This is the way; stay on it, whether you go to the right or the left.”;
Psalm 32:8 “I will instruct and teach you
in this way that you are to go; I will give you counsel;
my eyes will be watching you.”,
Psalm 73:24 You will guide me with your advice;
and afterwards, you will receive me with honor.;
John 15:10 If you keep my commands, you will stay in my love — just as I have kept my Father’s commands and stay in his love. 11 I have said this to you so that my joy may be in you, and your joy be complete.;
Deuteronomy 4:1 “Now, Isra’el, listen to the laws and rulings I am teaching you, in order to follow them, so that you will live; then you will go in and take possession of the land that Adonai, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 In order to obey the mitzvot of Adonai your God which I am giving you, do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract from it.
As for Martin Luther; he believed that the Jews should be exterminated. Is he right on both this and Revelation, wrong on both, or right on one but not the other?
I’m no expert on Martin Luther. But he was a religious leader and scholar, and unless you are Catholic, he has impacted your religious beliefs profoundly. My point was that religious beliefs are set in motion by religious leaders and scholars, or people who set themselves up as religious leaders or scholars. When I was a small child, the older folks (I can’t recall preachers at the time mentioning it) would terrorize us about the beast, the false prophet, etc. as something that was in the future. Again, from the birth of Christianity and for the next eighteen centuries, that interpretation was unknown to the Christian community. I didn’t know that then. That teaching is embedded into the Christian consciousness. It causes paralysis, resignation, passivity, in the church.
Yes, as a child Revelation might be a bit much to handle. To say the least :-)
What is it that makes you think that early Christians did not discuss, or at least, did not believe that Revelation was a future event?
“What is it that makes you think that early Christians did not discuss, or at least, did not believe that Revelation was a future event?”
There are no records that they did. There are writings that suggest otherwise, such as 666 referring to Nero. All the New Testament writers believed/hoped they would live to see the “end” i.e.:
James 5:7 - “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.”
James 5:8 - The coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”
James 5:9 - Behold, the judge standeth before the door.”
I Peter 4:7 - “But the end of all things is at hand”
I Peter 4:12 - “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you” (beginning tribulation)
2 Peter 3:12 - Looking for and hasting into the coming of the day of God.”
I John 2:18 - “Little children, it is the last time” (hour)
I John 2:18 - “Even now there are many antichrists.”
There are many more, and of course:
Rev.1:1 - “to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to past”
Rev. 22:20 - “Surely I come quickly.”
The Rapture wasn’t some 1800’s invention there’s many documents by the early church fathers who speak of a pre-tribulation rapture.
There is no rapture as it contradicts the Second Coming of Christ.
It's amazing to me that those who look to the "church fathers" to support their beliefs deny other things those same "church fathers" wrote.
"And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this", it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” [Irenaeus - Against Heresies 5.29]
There are others.
"“Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins." [Ephraim The Syrian - On The Last Times 2]
The Rapture and the second coming are different events.
odawg, my friend, there are plenty of records that they did going beyond John to Polycarp and further.
Yes, he confirms the covenant with the many.
Old thread resurrection, lol.
“A- Why does John Patmos call Jesus the “Bright and Morning Star”? (Revelations 22:16)
That is how Isaiah describes Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-14).”
I just happened to notice this, belatedly. “Lucifer” is not a Hebrew word, but a mangled translation from early on (Jerome, I believe). The name has been solidified as referring to satan. Most translations have it now as “son of the morning”.
Theological historians say that prior to Adam, satan was appointed the ruler of the earth. That is implied during the temptation of Christ, when satan offered Christ the world’s kingdoms. If he had been lying, it would not have been a temptation.
“Many scriptures confirm that Lucifer is not the ruler of the Earth...”
Certainly not now. The first thing Jesus said after his resurrection was that all authority and power on earth had been given to him. That would imply, I think, that it was not formerly so. He probably fought battles we don’t know anything about.
Are you saying that Lucifer was the ruler of the Earth before Christ’s resurrection? If so, did Lucifer give Christ His authority or did G-d transfer it from Lucifer to Christ?
Exactly how does this work?
If it is true Christ had no authority until His resurrection then what was His purpose until then especially as we see in John’s Gospel:
John 1 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
1 In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.
2
He was with God in the beginning.
3
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing made had being.
4
In him was life,
and the life was the light of mankind.
5
The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not suppressed it.
Whew! That is powerful stuff!
What does the scroll with seven seals represent? I understood it to be the “title” to the earth.
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.