Jehovah’s Witnesses Leader: COVID-19 Signals the “Last Day of the Last Days” rapture

Patheos ^ | 20 march | He meant mehta

[MHGinTN]

Cultist, there is that thing about casts for foolishness. pearls before swine ... there those who lack wisdom and discernment so truth is unfathomable to them. You have shown your weaknes

[MHGinTN]

Typos! Big fingers little keyboard.

[Iscool]

ONE may naturally enquire, what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely.
What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth him from being revealed?

That which witholdedeth seems to be a he, not a that...

2Th 2:7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Wouldn't the Roman empire be referred to as a she???

Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede

You guys listed the names of some who you agree with...Who are those who say it is the Holy Spirit, or the grace of the Spirit??? They aren't worth mentioning or researching???

And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it—but what? “that he may be revealed in his own season,” he says, “For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work.”
He speaks here of Nero, as if he were the type of Antichrist. For he too wished to be thought a god. And he has well said, “the mystery”; that is, it worketh not openly, as the other, nor without shame...

Who speaks of Nero, Paul??? Paul wasn't talking about any 'type of Antichrist'...Paul is talking about the real deal...And I don't believe the Antichrist showed up while Paul was alive...And curiously the apostle John didn't mention the Antichrist except in future revelation...

[Iscool]

Why do ALL of your “Prophecy experts” not ever mention who the early church fathers believed the RESTRAINER OF THE ANTICHRIST was?

Could be they did and that information was destroyed by the Catholic religion like so much other non Catholic history was destroyed...

[Iscool]

“It should be noted that none of the Fathers held the futurist gap theory, the theory that the book of Revelation overleaps nearly eighteen centuries of Christian history, plunging at once into the distant future, and devoting itself entirely to predicting the events of the last few years of this dispensation.

The church was an unrevealed mystery thru out the 4000 years of the Old Testament...

Luk 10:24  For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. 

God took 6 days to create the earth and all that's on it...

Psa 90:4  For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. 

2Pe_3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So the Lord says make yourself aware of the 1 day, thousand year thing...God tells you and me not to be ignorant about it...I'd say it is pretty important stuff, wouldn't you???

Creation took six days (six thousand years) and rested on the seventh...
We are bout done with 6000 years of Christian history, ready to go into the rest on the seventh day...

Heb 4:3  For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 
Heb 4:4  For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 
Heb 4:5  And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 

And this rest on the seventh day will be the thousand years spoken of in the book of Revelation and it will be the physical kingdom that God promised his people in the Old Testament....Praise God...

Is it any wonder that early Church Fathers would not know about this??? Your Catholic Church Fathers that you reference never got THEIR bible together fore 3 Centuries after Jesus died...How could they know??? And then they didn't believe their own bible anyway...

And here's a curious thing...Many people who understand this prophecy that we are not supposed to be ignorant of understand the the year 2000 would have been the end of the 6 day mark, starting the 7th...
But since Jesus says the New Testament doesn't start until he dies, and he was born in 0004 (some say) and lived for 33 years, that puts the end of the six thousand year completion at 2037...Just some food for thought...

[Cronos]

Iscool — you said that you can’t find the Trinity in the bible.

So you go back and explain your Modalist belief in God from the Bible

[Cronos]

Iscool - you deny Christ's very words in the Bible

if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

as our Protestant Lutheran brethren say From the Lutheran LCMS.org website

All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."...

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ.

Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here ........................that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.

So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

[Cronos]

Yet you say you don’t believe in the Trinity - so what do you believe in? That God the father died on the Cross?

Or are you a Mormon?

[Philsworld]

Creation took six days (six thousand years) and rested on the seventh...
We are bout done with 6000 years of Christian history, ready to go into the rest on the seventh day...

---

This may come as a shock to you but I actually believe this theory. Yes, humans have been on this earth for about 6,000 years. Christ returns with his elect, and we are with him for 1,000 years in heaven, giving the earth a 1,000 year sabbath rest. Same principle in the bible as letting the land rest every 7th year and forgiving debts, etc... You’ll get no argument from me there. After the 1,000 years Jesus moves the New Jerusalem to the earth and we are forever with Him here. (we will also be keeping the 7th day sabbath as Isiah clearly tells us).

However, that has nothing to do with the Antichrist showing up 7 years before Christ’s return and the falseness of the “Gap Theory” The two have nothing to do with each other (mutually exclusive).

Yeah, as far as putting an EXACT date to His return, I would probably advise against it. There are many other factors involved. However, I believe that the mark of the beast (involves Sunday keeping) begins the countdown. But, that won’t matter to you because you and MHGinTN will be out of here before that happens, right?

And as far as God creating and resting on the Sabbath, you should find out what that actually means to God (Jesus) and how that has all played out throughout the bible’s history...Just some food for thought.

[Philsworld]

Cultist, there is that thing about casts for foolishness. pearls before swine ... there those who lack wisdom and discernment so truth is unfathomable to them. You have shown your weaknes

---

And yet you STILL refuse to address any question I posed to you and others, pertinent, biblical, historical questions. That tells me that you are AFRAID that your precious pre trib rapture theory may actually be authored by Satan himself and that the SDA church may actually be all they say they are. Imagine that.

[Philsworld]

2 Th 2:6 And now ye know WHAT withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

What, not who, then referred to as he.

[Philsworld]

St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) Doctor of the Church Homilies on Second Thessalonians HOMILY IV. 2 THESSALONIANS ii. 6--9.

"And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming: even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan."

ONE may naturally enquire, what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholdeth...... And, why so obscurely is a good question. If the restrainer of the Antichrist was the Holy Spirit there is no reason to obscure the name, none at all. But, if it's the pagan Roman empire, there is indeed a very good reason.

[Philsworld]

THE RESTRAINER IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT:

ONE may naturally enquire, what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. ... And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it—but what? “that he may be revealed in his own season,” he says, “For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work.”

[Philsworld]

THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS THE RESTRAINER OF THE ANTICHRIST.

“Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way,” that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exit himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: so will this also be by the Antichrist, and he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness.

[Philsworld]

Who speaks of Nero, Paul??? Paul wasn’t talking about any ‘type of Antichrist’...Paul is talking about the real deal...And I don’t believe the Antichrist showed up while Paul was alive...And curiously the apostle John didn’t mention the Antichrist except in future revelation...

---

Antichrist, man of sin, little horn....THEY ARE THE SAME.

You are correct in that the “real deal” Antichrist power did not show up while Paul was alive.

I have no doubt that St. John Chrysostom was talking about Paul/Nero in this sense: See below.

1 John 2
18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

[Philsworld]

Why do ALL of your “Prophecy experts” not ever mention who the early church fathers believed the RESTRAINER OF THE ANTICHRIST was?

Could be they did and that information was destroyed by the Catholic religion like so much other non Catholic history was destroyed...

---

I just showed you some that we do have and were on record as to who the restrainer of the Antichrist was. Biblical and church fathers experts, KJ and AW have NEVER mentioned them.

[MHGinTN]

The Restrainer, HE is still restraining the advent of the antichrist. Rome no longer exists (and don't try the bait and switch cult tactic of claiming the Roman Catholic Church is Rome still in existence).

Human government is not the restrainer since satan uses human government to increase his evil.

satan cannot be the restrainer because as Jesus told you a house divided against itself cannot stand.

ONLY The Holy Spirit has the supernatural power to restrain the supernatural signs and lying wonders. The Holy Spirit has the attributes of God so He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Even Michael the Archangel did not try to rebuke satan, he said 'The Lord rebuke you' when contesting over the body of Moses.

Now answer me this, cultist Where is The Holy Spirit abiding during the Age of the Building of the Body of Christ Ekklesia? [HINT: 1 John 3:9]

IF God / The Holy Spirit / Jesus is not in you, you are none of His, cultist. And trying to claim you keep the Law will not 'bargain' God in you.

One last note to you, cultist: The Day of the Departure (THE Apostasia) is The Blessed Hope, for those in whom God abides.

[MHGinTN]

Ran to the mods when called what you are I see! Read John 6:63. JESUS cleared up the metaphor you asserted He did not clear up:

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life

[Philsworld]

The Restrainer, HE is still restraining the advent of the antichrist. Rome no longer exists (and don't try the bait and switch cult tactic of claiming the Roman Catholic Church is Rome still in existence).

-------------------------------------------------------

No kidding, Sherlock. I know that, and so did the church fathers. When the Roman empire was gone, the ANTICHRIST would be able to take over. Get it?

(and don't try the bait and switch cult tactic of claiming the Roman Catholic Church is Rome still in existence):

You really know NOTHING, do you? The Western Pagan Roman empire ended and the Catholic church took over. They persecuted, tortured, and murdered for 1260 years....538 to 1798. It is a historical FACT. They meet every single criteria for the Antichrist/man of sin/little horn, in the bible, EVERY SINGLE ONE. And, you don't see it? They are called THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

"The Roman Church, without dispute, had by 538 inherited the seat of the Caesars, as Adolf Harnack recorded in his book What is Christianity?,

It [the Papacy] is a political creation, and as imposing as a World-Empire, because of the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Pope, who calls himself "King" and "Pontifex Maximus" is Caesar’s successor. (New York, Putnam, 1901, second edition, page 270).

The same historian concluded that—

The Roman Church in its way privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman World-Empire, of which it is the actual continuation. (Ibid.)

Alexander Clarence Flick in his historical work, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church, concluded that,

The mighty Catholic Church was little more than the Roman Empire baptised. Rome was transformed as well as converted. The very capital of the old Empire became the capital of the Christian Empire. The office of the Pontifex Maximus was continued in that of the Pope. . . . Even the Roman language has remained the official language of the Roman Catholic Church down through the ages. (New York: Burt Franklin, 1959 pp 148, 149).

The title Pontifex Maximus was held by the head administrator of the Roman pagan religion. Eventually the Caesars envied this title of high honor and power; and first Julius Caesar and then Augustus Caesar made the title and office their own, as did later emperors. Thus developed a religio-political power well suited to the aims and ambitions of Roman bishops. https://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/twobeasts/tb02.htm