Posted on 11/19/2005 2:43:37 PM PST by Tycobb
Edited on 11/19/2005 3:15:19 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
You capitalized proceed, shouldnt the proper word be precede? As in before, not proceed as in you may continue.
I think you are correct in the difference, and that precede is the correct word for this sentence.
Its main danger is that if really nasty stuff happens and those who consider themselves saved aren't raptured away from it, they will have their faith severely tested. Jesus promised much suffering before He returns, especially for those who are His, and which will be only once and is described in 2 Thessalonians.
You are right. Is there anyway that I can edit or delete my post? Thanks
Ping the admin moderator and ask him to change it. Normally a misused word can be insignificant. But in the context of what you wrote it changes what you mean to say entirely.
from: http://www.bible.ca/D-AntiChrist.htm
...In fact, the word "antichrist" is only found in 4 passages. All were penned by Apostle John within the books of first and second John.
So exactly what does the Bible have to say about the "antichrist"? Here is an exhaustive study on the word. I, personally, have such a high regard for the Bible, that by reading the scriptures for yourself without my comment is all you need to have a clear understanding of the "antichrist".
THE 4 BIBLE PASSAGES:
1 John 2:18-19 "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."
1 John 2:22-23 "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."
1 John 4:2-3 "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world."
2 John 1:7 "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."
From the Bible we can clearly see 3 things. First, the "antichrist" is defined as anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the divine son of God. Second, "antichrists" appear to actively teach against Christ. Third, there were many "antichrists" in the world when John wrote the book. This directly contradicts the teaching of modern speculationists who say that one antichrist will arise at some still future time.
If you want that personal data deleted from this thread, you'd best ping an admin moderator, or press the abuse button on yourself, and politely request that it be removed.
My bad.
I would say that you are correct in that assertion that there have been many anti-christs then as there are now, and will be in the future. The important point though is that there will be one anti-christ in particular that will be worse than others and he will be the one to look out for.
Its been taken care of...thanks y'all.
The premise of the whole article is completely flawed. Whoever said that rapture had to coincide with the second coming? Of course there is no scripture that says this. God could rapture independent of the return of Christ. What is this author talking about?
My premise is that the Antichrist comes before Jesus Christ. The scriptures I refered to are very clear on this.
I'm just a little confused as to the main point you are trying to make. Are there really people out there who argue that the appearance of anti-Christ is not before the return of Jesus? I am not well versed in all the pre-post-trib theories and I've never heard the one that equates a pre-trib rapture with the second coming. From your last sentence, it appears this is at least a part of your argument. You appear to be saying that the elect will get to fully "enjoy" the tribulation because a pre-trib rapture is not possible without the official return of Christ at that same time (which, as you correctly prove, is not possible according to scripture). Is this correct?
You are right.
Jesus Himself said His coming would be as the days of Noah and as the days of Lot. (Matthew 24)
In both cases, the wicked were the ones "taken" and the righteous were the ones "left behind." (Read carefully those verses -- the wicked are taken in judgment. Noah and Lot are left behind on the earth.)
But people have been taught just the opposite because of the errors of the "rapture" teaching.
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.