Preaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Weakens the Church

To: fortheDeclaration

No, Jesus stated that He was sent to the lost of house of Israel, when He was refusing to help the Syrian woman (Mat.15:24). Both Peter and Stephen are speaking to the house of Israel (Acts, 2:36, 7:42) So the house of Israel is back in the land and are known as Jews.

Matthew 10:5 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:

Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Clearly, your logic is flawed assuming what you need to prove. Eventually all Jews lost their tribal identity didn't they? Do any of the Jews today know if they are from Judah or Benjamin, no less the other 10 tribes?

I'd think the Jews retain their tribal identity quite well, don't you think? Find a Jew and ask him what tribe he belongs to. Judah has always kept records.

No evidence of any migration by the 10 tribes, no evidence of any revolt by the 10 tribes, and no evidence that those tribes are anywhere else.

No evidence that the multitude belonging to the tribes of Israel merged in with Judah in Palestine. You have simply repeated over and over that Israel merged with the Jews as if the sheer repetition could of itself give proof.

The only thing close to evidence you have offered is a couple historical texts that stated who destroyed the Assyrian empire. They did not mention the Israelite tribe, so you presume the Israelite tribe were not involved.

And that's it for anything other than repetition.

Whereas, we have, and I have pointed out, many references in the Bible and in the Assyrians own writings from that time, that indicate Israel did not go to Palestine, not to mention the logical impossibilities of them having gone there, and the logical likelihood they remain in vast numbers somewhere waiting for the time to fulfill prophecy.

I would expect someone so absolutely sure that an event happened would have some, if not an overwhelming amount, of evidence to justify his statements.

501 posted on 08/02/2007 7:31:17 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)

To: fortheDeclaration

Stop your lying. Individual Jews do not know if they are from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin or Levi. Any genealogies to prove what tribe they are from? No, because there are no more genealogies that trace the tribes as there were in Ezra.

Why would you call me a liar? Have you ever asked a Jew if he knew what tribe he was from? I have. Try it. Judah has always kept records.

And there were those who did not show up in the records that were in the Land as well, such as the tribe of Aser. And do they have any records today tracing their ancestor ship? Those records were destroyed when the Temple was destroyed. Except for DNA testing, no Jew knows what tribe he is originally from.

I believe that's "Asher". The reason you will not find any, or very few known Jews with no tribal lineage is because the Israelites didn't join Judah.

Jews know what tribes they're from because they keep records. Do you not understand this concept?

Any Jew that claims he is from a particular tribe can only state he thinks he is from that tribe. He has no proof, no way of tracing his origin back to the the original 12 tribes-and you know it. Stop blowing smoke.

Have you ever accused a Jew of not really knowing which tribes he comes from after he has stated it?

The three I mentioned had references to temple records. This info is passed down from mother to son and daughter, and hard records are kept. This information is required, I believe, to become a true native citizen of the land currently called Israel.

I don't know what you mean by 'contaminated'. But all 12 tribes were present in the South, when Judah and Benjamin went into captivity.

"Contaminated" means that the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with their allotment of Levite priests and teachers, received others not of those tribes, but from tribes of the northern kingdom fleeing the sins thereof.

All 12 tribes were present in the southern kingdom before Babylon? Where do you get that idea? The northern kingdom had already been take off by the Assyrians. Did the Assyrians relent and give them back?

Well, it isn't in Kings. So, if you cannot provide the actual verse to show it, it just shows that you do not know what you are talking about. More hot air.

Thanks for looking. All I can say is that I saw it years ago, but have forgotten.

But, then, you have already called me a liar. There is a individual count in 1 Chronicles, which indicate nearly two million (350,000 fighting men, not just men times 5 from family counts), excluding Judah and Benjamin, but that is low and not the one I saw.

t is clear from your evasion and lying you do not have any proof. And know you state that the count was 'well before the Assyrians' which could mean anytime. Well, the kingdom was under judgment and being smitten by God so the numbers were shrinking rapidly.

You're calling me a liar again. I don't do that to you, why do it to me? Have you no decorum?

God used the Assyrians to "smite" the Israelites. They were quite numerous until then. Then they had a couple of hundred years to rebuild their populations from whatever damage the Assyrians caused sitting on light duty on the Assyrian northern border.

And what were their numbers? You don't know. And the size of a nations army is good indication of the relative population. Now, why don't you find the verse that actually gives the number of peopel that went into exile. I will accept the number of men that went into exile. Your theory is built in a foundation of lies.

Again you call me a liar.

I've cited high numbers in scripture. You've cited no numbers at all. The usual multiplier is 4 or 5, probably five since the families of the Israelite would be large. You may even be able to use up to 6 or 7. I gave you a cite above, but it's lower than the one I had seen before.

The tribe of Benjamin was once down to 600 men, with no women and children left (Ju.21).

And this had what to do with the topic? Please, post "Ju.21". I'm not sure what it is.

No, the Bible tells us that the lost house of Israel was back in Israel (Mat.15, Acts,2,7). Now, since each tribe is among the Jews, we don't need to look any further for them. So you are making up history to support your own lack of Bible knowledge.

I have to guess you're talking about:

Matthew 15:23 "But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Uh, so what? Jesus had told His disciples to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He couldn't been talking about the Jews because He knew them as Jews and they were right there with Him.

Remember this woman wasn't from there, and He acknowledges she wasn't from the other Israelite tribes elsewhere, so this is what He said.

Pretty weak argument, if you ask me.

As for your other cites, "men of Israel" is the only thing I can find to which you're referring. Let me try again. Judah, Benjamin and Levi were tribes of Israel. This means that men thereof can be referred to as men of Israel.

Do you understand?

No, the scripture states clearly that the house of Israel was present during the Lord's day, since Peter accused them of crucifying the Lord (Acts.2:36).

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Acts 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

It's pretty obvious the house of Israel is the whole of Israel, and with reference to the past, and the Jews, there and then, killed him.

Weak, I think, again. I have much stronger arguments, I might say so.

There are no records of the 12 tribes individual identities that go back to the original 12 tribes.

You are right the northern kingdom lost their identity. However, there are for the southern kingdom.

What you have to prove is that they actually left. As for the tribes being present in the land of Israel during Christ's day, that is proven by Scripture (Mt.15, Acts,2,7).

You are kidding right? They were there, then they're not. Duh?

We already discussed your misreading of those passages.

No, I am dealing with facts. You have accepted a theory with no facts to support it. You have this assumption that in order for Hosea 1:10-11 to be true, there must be millions of pre-existing Israelites before the Millennial Kingdom. This comes from your poor reading skills. 'Then' doesn't have to mean 'at that time' it can also mean 'in addition'. Thus, the Millennial reign will begin with the reuniting of the two divisions of the tribes and as a result, the house of Israel will become as the 'sand of the sea'.

But you haven't cited any facts. I'm the only one here who has presented any evidence of his theory.

In order for there to be member of the Houst of Israel to be uncountable, they must already be vast. Or you have to expect God to raise the very stones up as sons of Abraham. The number of Jews extant are minuscule, diminishing and have enacted not even one promise of God relating to Israel.

Hosea stands, and so does Ezekiel, and you cannot explain them in terms of your theory.

Why do you keep insulting and denigrating me? Do I do this to you. Have you proper raising or skill in interpersonal relationships, or any decorum?

And if there is no record of them in the assault, then we have no prove that they were involved in it. Just because they were there, doesn't mean that they were part of the revolt against Assyria. Once again you are 'question begging'. They could have been assimilated into the local population by then.

I do not have to prove the Israelites were involved in the raz of Assyria beyond that necessary to get free.

However, you need something to support your theory that they went to Palestine and merged with the Jews.

And do you have any facts that discuss their involvement? You are assuming that they were involved, but being in captivity for over a century, they could have adopted Assyrian culture as well. One of the curses placed on Israel was that they would be dispersed and adopt the Gentile gods. So, it is you that have to show that the tribes were still existing as tribes. That they did actually revolt against the Assyrians. If you cannot, then you have another conjecture to add to your house of cards.

Why, yes, I do. We know the northern kingdom was there and then they weren't. And there is no way they could have merged with Judah in Palestine.

They would have adopted Assyrian culture when they were kept away from Assyria proper and kept in sole contact with the Medes?

A curse of God will win out. But that curse would have also kept them from returning to Palestine, and, wherever they went, retained their bloodline.

It is entertaining that after virtually every response to each statement I make, you reiterate I have no proof, while you have given no support of your theory in any form. We have no proof of anything that happened that long ago, but I have much evidence to support my theory. You have no evidence to advance whatsoever, yet you keep repeating this to me.

And do they say anything other then that the 10 tribes were there-which everyone knows! Does it say that they revolted? Does it give their number? Once again , a irrelvant fact that does nothing to advance your theory that the 10 tribes broke free and left the area for lands unknown.

No, but they have graphic scratchings on them that show Israelite religious dress and some of those come from outposts not in the direction of Palestine, during the time we are discussing.

What I have are facts, what you have is myth based on conjecture. Stop living in a fantasy world. Now, unless you can supply some facts, like the number of people

But, but, but, You're shown not one fact supporting your theory. How can you honestly say the above?

502 posted on 08/02/2007 9:18:10 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)

To: fortheDeclaration

As for the numbers taken, Bullinger notes that in Sargans own inscription he lists-27,900!

I don't see the number you mention in the paragraph you posted. You'll be kind enough to post the part which contains it and the context. Thank you.

Then you may explain what makes you think that was all of the Israelites?

"Hearing no more of them" means "assimilated completely"? Please post the good professor's reasoning for the assumption.

503 posted on 08/02/2007 5:05:08 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)

To: Diego1618; Ping-Pong

He told Boaz....Go for it! The first Kinsman was not prevented from taking Ruth...he just opted out.

Actually the kinsman said, “I cannot redeem it.” He was concerned that taking Ruth would jeopardize his inheritance. In fact Boaz and Ruth had discussed this possibility the night before.

Ruth 3:11 And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman

Have you considered that it is Naomi and Ruth that had no hope? Naomi set up the meeting between Boaz and Ruth. Perhaps it was Naomi that required Ruth to be part of the deal. This would explain why the nearer kinsman did not appear to know. Note the following details;

Boaz promises Ruth to fulfill the kinsman’s part.

Boaz says go not empty to thy mother-in-law.

Boaz says to the kinsman, ”Naomi … selleth a parcel of land.”

Ruth 4:14 And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel.

Ruth 4:17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

There are no insignificant details in scripture. I think that Naomi is a type of Israel and Ruth is a type of the Church.

Continuing in Christ

Seven

504 posted on 08/03/2007 12:49:32 AM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)

To: Seven_0; Ping-Pong

Well....aside from all the proof I have provided showing that Ruth was an Israelite living in the plains of Moab (Israelite territory for probably 200 years at that point), and the fact she was probably of Gad, Rueben or Manessah [Numbers 32:33]; The fact that there would have been no logical reason for Elimelech, Naomi and the boys to go to the Kingdom of Moab when the Israelite Moab was basically the breadbasket of the area [Numbers 32:1-5] (remember the famine); The fact that multiple scriptures speak against the practice you say happened (intermarriage with non Israelites) [Deuteronomy 23:3][I Kings 11:1][Ezra 9:1][Nehemiah 13:23]; The obvious fact of mistranslation about what the Hebrew says....and what Ruth really said [Ruth 1:15-17]; The fact that Moses himself dies and is buried in Israelite Moab [Deuteronomy 34:5-6].

All this evidence and you keep coming back to the Kinsman Redeemer.

Well....let's see what really happened here also. Remember, the whole idea of God's plan with the Kinsman Redeemer [Deuteronomy 25:5-10] was to keep the property in the tribe and in Israel. Non Israelites were not eligible to to participate.

I think everyone would agree that Boaz had designs on Ruth. When he tells the first Kinsman about the deal [Ruth 4:3] he does not mention Ruth by name....only Naomi and Elimelech's land and the fact that Naomi wishes to sell. Boaz is letting all present know that he, too... wants the right of redemption....and all other responsibilities that it entails. As far as the first kinsman, all he is aware of is the land at that point....and he says "I'll do it!"

At this point Boaz introduces the other element of the deal...Ruth and an heir required for Elimelch and Mahlon. The first kinsman only thought redemption of the land was the deal and now he finds that if he does it he must also provide an heir for that land through Ruth. So....bottom line, He spends all his capital on a parcel of land that he is just going to see go right back to the heir of Mahlon....which he will be required to produce. Not a good deal...and this is why he says, "I cannot do it because I may endanger my own estate." Obviously the man is already married, probably has some kids and doesn't feel like making a bad investment so someone else can reap the profits. He then tell Boaz....."Go for it!" He then takes off his shoe and gives it to Boaz....sealing the deal....giving up his right.

Boaz then makes it very clear that his intentions were to take Ruth as his wife and raise up children in the name of Mahlon.....and care also for Naomi [Ruth 4:14-16]. The reason the genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not show Mahlon as the father of Obed was because Boaz was not married and had no prior children....so the genealogy stayed through him.

505 posted on 08/03/2007 7:15:01 PM PDT by Diego1618

To: tnarg; attiladhun2; fishtank; caseinpoint; streetpreacher; LiteKeeper; The_Reader_David; labette; ..

I am not sure how the Assyrian capture and mass destruction of the house of Israel relates to the end-times or the premise that Preaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Weakens the Church but I will try to make a stab at it. Just for the sake of gaining some knowledge in someones feedback, I will state my opinion without any facts.

It is my opinion that the American Indoctrinated Church crucifies the Truth of the Lord everyday. It is also my opinion that the lost tribes of Israel are todays so called Christians who are also lost. We are the sons and daughters of Abraham just as the Israelites, Jews and do not forget the Muslims. Will we ever get it together? Not in our lifetimes nor in a millennial lifetime. We are saved through the passion of Jesus Christ because he loves us all. We will live with God for a thousand years but a thousand years is as one day to God. So on that day we will be together with him for -e. The millennium would have taken place if we all had not crucified Jesus. This arguing and bickering and Preaching a Pre-tribulation Rapture absolutely weakens the body of Christ as exhorted by Paul in his 2d letter to Timothy and I paraphrase Chap 2; 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 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...shewing himself that he is God...for the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. (I think this is the restrainer who may or may not be evil but definitely not Michael. I personally know Michael and he is not taken away from anything...he's very strong and a heads-up player, and in fact, is presently kicking Satans ass out of heaven that is why we need to be dealing now!!!!). Verse 8: And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders (such as a pretrib rapture), and with all dissemblance of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: (such as a pretrib rapture) that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness...Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS WHICH YE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT whether by word or our epistle.(not by some Scofieldian or Weslyan from the 19th century or by the new age fellowship, charasmatic, and/or evangelical churches of the 20th century). NOW!!! by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

And that is all I have to say about that.

506 posted on 08/04/2007 9:20:24 AM PDT by perseverance-e

To: perseverance-e

I personally know Michael and he is not taken away from anything

You have proved nothing. And your statement about Michael is idiotic. You have not demonstrated how teaching a Pre-trib rapture weakens the Church at all. And your railing against Christians is vacuous!

The only thing you are demonstrating is that you understand neither the Bible, nor theology.

507 posted on 08/04/2007 9:49:36 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)

To: perseverance-e

I believe that preaching a pre-tribulation rapture weakens the body in two ways: First, it conditions a group of Christians to believe they will be spared from trials along with everyone else so they don’t prepare. Second, if it does not happen, it will shake the testimonies of those who did believe they would be raptured prior to trials. But I consider these errors in interpreting scriptures not, as you seem to indicate, evidence of evil.

508 posted on 08/04/2007 10:05:21 AM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things.)

To: perseverance-e; Diego1618; William Terrell

We are the sons and daughters of Abraham just as the Israelites, Jews and do not forget the Muslims.

I believe we are the children of Abraham but remember, only through Isaac is the seed called.

The millennium would have taken place if we all had not crucified Jesus.

I believe the Bible states that the millennium will begin at His 2nd. coming. Why do you think it would have taken place if Jesus had not been crucified? Is that not what He came to earth for - to die for our sins?

I agree with you that rapture is part of the deception of end times and it will deceive many.

only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. (I think this is the restrainer who may or may not be evil but definitely not Michael.

"Letteth" is a transitive verb (no noun present to make it carry), so it has to go back to who is being discussed - Satan. "Letteth" means to hold on to and the one doing that is Michael (not the church, as some teach). We are told that in Rev. 12:7:

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, (8) And prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.

It is also my opinion that the lost tribes of Israel are todays so called Christians who are also lost.

I agree. They aren't lost to God but they don't realize where they came from. Most don't know their genealogy past their great grandparents.

509 posted on 08/04/2007 10:23:32 AM PDT by Ping-Pong

The preaching of pre-tribulation rapture weakens the Faith in another way: those who accept the teaching will be easily deceived by Antichrist, since, they will reason, that the seemingly benificent false substitute for Christ cannot be Antichrist, and their times cannot be the Tribulation, because the Rapture has not taken place.

510 posted on 08/04/2007 10:54:49 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)

believe that preaching a pre-tribulation rapture weakens the body in two ways: First, it conditions a group of Christians to believe they will be spared from trials along with everyone else so they don’t prepare.

How do you prepare now for when you face starvation and watch your children starve during the tribulation for refusing to accept the mark of the beast???

And how do you prepare now for when 'they' catch you and you are standing in line to have your head removed from your body???

You'll get to watch your children get shot and stabbed...

Luk 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

Two thirds of the world population is going to be destroyed in a three and a half year period...Are you really preparing for that??? And do you really think that God will keep you there and protect you while this is going on???

Luk 21:35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.

And if you think this happened in 70 A.D., my guess is that you're delusional...

Luk 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

There's the Rapture...We won't live thru this catastrophic devastation, we will escape it, beforehand...

And you think this is bad teaching for your church??? On the contrary...Be ready...Be always ready for the Son of Man will come in an hour which you know not...Live your life like He's coming this afternoon...

511 posted on 08/04/2007 11:00:05 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)

To: perseverance-e

I’d be careful about supposing that you know any of the Bodiless Powers personally—there is a sin, often forgotten in the West, called prelest, or spiritual delusion. I’m not saying you have fallen into it, but be very careful.

As to the identity of the one who restrains, the Church (and readers of the religion forum know that by that I mean what is commonly called the (Eastern) Orthodox Church, but which is properly the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, claims to the title ‘Catholic’ by the Latins notwithstanding) has always identified the one who restrains with the Christian Emperor, who was ‘set aside’ in 1917 with the abdication of the last Tsar.

512 posted on 08/04/2007 11:01:40 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, (8) And prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.

The verse says nothing about Michael holding onto Satan...The verse is discussing the future battle between Michael and Satan and his Angels...How do you arrive at your conclusion???

513 posted on 08/04/2007 11:05:18 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)

We won't live thru this catastrophic devastation, we will escape it, beforehand...

Why do you think that? Do you think the believers in the last days should not earn the crown of martyrdom, even as the Holy Martyrs who died under Diocletian, or at the hands of the Arians, the iconoclasts, the Saracens, the Turks or the Bolsheviks received the crown of martyrdom? Will they be less worthy? Weaker in faith so that they will not be given grace to accept martyrdom, to urge their children to accept it, even as Solomnia urged her sons to manfully accept torture under the Selucids, as St. Sophia urged her daugters to accept martyrdom during the reign of Hadrian?

You are deceived. The scriptural passages adduced to support the rapture describe the experience of those believers who will be alive at the time of the General Resurrection.

514 posted on 08/04/2007 11:09:51 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)

To: The_Reader_David

You are mistaken...If Satan can lift us Christians off the face of the earth while we least expect it, and open the grave and resurrect the dead, you may have an argument...

The Rapture is something God does...Not us...If Satan can pull that off, who's he going to resurrect...Did God give Satan the authority to Rapture the Christians to deceive the Christians???

they will reason, that the seemingly benificent false substitute for Christ cannot be Antichrist, and their times cannot be the Tribulation, because the Rapture has not taken place.

I'm confident that those familiar with the Bible will have no doubt they they are going thru the Great Tribulation when it happens...

515 posted on 08/04/2007 11:13:28 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)

Your reasoning is faulty. Satan deceives through falsehoods, including misreadings of the Holy Scriptures (while it was Shakespeare who wrote that the devil can quote Scripture, the notion is Scriptural—the Evil One quotes Scripture in his temptions of Christ).

The notion of a ‘pre-tribulation rapture’ is a 19th century innovation. Before then, no Christian, Orthodox, Latin, monophysite, Nestorian, Anglican or protestant (of any variety) believed the Scriptural passages adduced to support it referred to anything other than the experience of Christians alive at the time of the General Resurrection, which is after the tribulation described in the Apocalypse of St. John. Doctrines that were manifestly not held by the Holy Apostles have a really strong track record of being false, and the ‘pre-tribulation rapture’ is plainly not an Apostolic doctrine.

My point is not Satan will deceive with a false rapture, but rather with the absence of a rapture at the time those who believe the false doctrine of the ‘pre-tribulation rapture’ expect one.

516 posted on 08/04/2007 11:35:00 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)

To: Iscool; The_Reader_David

Ping...And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, (8) And prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Iscool...The verse says nothing about Michael holding onto Satan...The verse is discussing the future battle between Michael and Satan and his Angels...How do you arrive at your conclusion???

They are about the same event. 11Thess.2 is about the end of days. Paul tells us that Christ will not come back until after Satan.

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.

We know the son of perdition is Satan and that is who vs. 7 speaks of. He is held but will be released at the 6th trump, 6th vial and 6th seal (666 Mark of the beast) by Michael. We know it is Michael because Rev. 12:7 tells us that.

It isn't the church as scripture tells us who restrains Satan and that is Michael.

517 posted on 08/04/2007 1:35:05 PM PDT by Ping-Pong

To: Iscool; perseverance-e; caseinpoint; The_Reader_David

How do you prepare now for when you face starvation and watch your children starve during the tribulation for refusing to accept the mark of the beast???

There are 2 tribulations. The one of Christ follows that of Satan. If we have remained true to Christ we will not be harmed. The first one is the one Christians must worry about. That is when Satan comes, pretending to be Christ. Most won't realize it is a tribulation as it will be one of peace and prosperity but it is full of lies and deceit. He is coming after Christians specifically and most will follow him, believing he is the true Christ - the apostasy. They do this because they aren't prepared by knowing the truth. They are told they will be raptured away so won't have to worry about anything.

When you read scripture such as: Luk 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people, it is speaking of spiritual distress. If you don't remain a virgin for Christ and instead fall for Satan's lies (with child) and help his program along (give suck) great distress will be in the land. Woe unto them. That is what is meant by "taking the mark of the beast". You fall for his deceit.

Luk 21:35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.

The "snare" will be Satan pretending to be Christ and the unlearned will fall into that trap.

You are mistaken...If Satan can lift us Christians off the face of the earth while we least expect it, and open the grave and resurrect the dead, you may have an argument...The Rapture is something God does...Not us...If Satan can pull that off, who's he going to resurrect...Did God give Satan the authority to Rapture the Christians to deceive the Christians???

I don't know how much power he has but it is considerable. What he cannot do is change us into our spiritual bodies. So....If someone standing before us is professing to be Christ, telling us we're about to be raptured away but we are still in our flesh body - do not go. Remember that when the true Christ arrives (7th trump, 7th seal, 7th vial) we are changed in an instant into our spiritual bodies. Then, we know that is Christ.

The Reader David...My point is not Satan will deceive with a false rapture, but rather with the absence of a rapture at the time those who believe the false doctrine of the ‘pre-tribulation rapture’ expect one.

That is an interesting thought. Either way, the rapture doctrine is very dangerous. Think about this verse:

Ezekiel 13:20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; 'Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.

What could that be except Satan going after our souls by telling us we will "fly" away in a rapture?

518 posted on 08/04/2007 2:06:39 PM PDT by Ping-Pong

When you read scripture such as: Luk 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people,

it is speaking of spiritual distress.

I don't believe you...There's nothing to indicate that those Tribulation events are 'spiritual'...

So....If someone standing before us is professing to be Christ, telling us we're about to be raptured away but we are still in our flesh body - do not go.

Here's where you miss the boat, and everything that goes with it...

For some reason you seem to think Christians will have a choice...Jesus will come 'like a thief in the night'...He will 'snatch' us away, in the twinkling of an eye...We'll be half-way to Heaven before we even know we left...

Think about it...Satan's going to sit on the throne and call himself God...Is he going to preach about a rapture that he can't pull off, or is he going to say there is no rapture??? But to sit tight and worship him...

No one can follow Satan into a rapture...Preparing for the Rapture will prepare us to be better Christians...There's nothing Satanic about it...

519 posted on 08/04/2007 2:41:56 PM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)

To: Diego1618; Ping-Pong; Alamo-Girl

Well....aside from all the proof I have provided showing that Ruth was an Israelite living in the plains of Moab

All this evidence and you keep coming back to the Kinsman Redeemer.

I agree that you have presented evidence, but I don't consider it proof. I am not surprised that we disagree on many details; our doctrine is built on details. We fit them into our thinking like a pieces in a puzzle. You have been tugging on one of the foundational pillars of my doctrine.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

I believe that the book of Ruth is scripture and because it is scripture, it testifies of Christ. Do you see Christ in the book of Ruth?

Christ is the kinsman-redeemer, and he can redeem Ruth even when the nearer kinsman, the law, cannot.

I think it is obvious that Boaz is a picture of Christ. What can we say of the other people, places, things and events? Do they also have meaning? Can we discern what that meaning is? I have answered those questions for myself.

Back to the details; you have said that you don't think Ruth or Rahab would not have been eligible to be in the linage of Christ if they were in fact a Moabitess and a harlot. There were 77 generations of sinners from Adam to Christ.(63 generations if you look at Matthew) What criteria allows a murderer and excludes a harlot?

I think everyone would agree that Boaz had designs on Ruth.

Not everyone; I grant you that it is possible, especially if Boaz is typical of Christ, but I believe that Rahab the Harlot was Boaz's mother. It may be a bit of a stretch, but it means that Boaz, Obed, and Jesse would have had to have been in their mid to late nineties when their respective sons were born. Perhaps that will put a different perspective on the story considering that the nearer kinsman was probably Boaz's older brother.

The reason the genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not show Mahlon as the father of Obed was because Boaz was not married and had no prior children....so the genealogy stayed through him.

This would make Obed a firstborn son. I am arguing from structure here. The firstborn is the natural man, the second born is the spiritual man. In most cases, we are not told of other brothers in Christ's linage. In the cases where we are told, we can discern that the firstborn is not in the line to Christ. We are not told whether Boaz was married or had other children. I suspect that he was married partly because of his age. Remember the 10 generations from Pharez to David's ascension the throne spanned about 700 years.

Seven

520 posted on 08/04/2007 2:49:59 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794