Pre Wrath overview

[PHIL121]

Maybe this chart will help. It is a simplified version, but it should do the trick.

The chart is interesting, but seems to neglect the seven trumpets. Until the seventh trumpet is blown, the world will be in control of the Beast and the False Prophet.

 

[Vic C.]

The chart is interesting, but seems to neglect the seven trumpets. Until the seventh trumpet is blown, the world will be in control of the Beast and the False Prophet.

That's because the trump spoken of in 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Th 4:16 is not the same trump as in Rev 11:15. This trumpet is an Angelic trump; the trump in 1 Th 4:16 is the Trump of God, as the verse states.

1 Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:...

http://philologos.org/bpr/files/l002.htm

http://www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/et06b.htm

Many students of the Bible and especially End Times tend to ignore the OT and the importance of The old Hebrew and Jewish customs, Holy days and feasts. I did. Remember, Jesus was Jewish; Paul was Jewish. Both had to have been VERY familiar with these OT events.

Trust me, all this came as a surprise to me too. All I ask is that you take the time to read the links and decide for yourself if there is more to this than most End Times teachers and writers tell, IF they touch on this at all.

Peace,
Vic

 

[Vic C.]

The chart is interesting, but seems to neglect the seven trumpets. Until the seventh trumpet is blown, the world will be in control of the Beast and the False Prophet.

I'm SO sorry... I got so wrapped in the last trump thing, I never did address your actual concern. :o :-D

Read the events taking place as these seven trumpets are sounded. I think there's no doubt that the A/C has little control at all over world events at this time. This is God's Wrath coming upon him and his unbelieving cronies. 8-)

I summarized these events in another post somewhere in the End Times Forum. If I fund it, I will repost the link.

Vic

p.s. I said this was a simplified version of a more comprehensive chart. :wink:

 

[PHIL121]

That's because the trump spoken of in 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Th 4:16 is not the same trump as in Rev 11:15. This trumpet is an Angelic trump; the trump in 1 Th 4:16 is the Trump of God, as the verse states.

Trust me, all this came as a surprise to me too. All I ask is that you take the time to read the links and decide for yourself if there is more to this than most End Times teachers and writers tell, IF they touch on this at all.

Peace,
Vic

Well, what I did was check with my own source. The Millenium Bible. It does state that there are scholars who agree with your position, but also those who think the trump of 1 Cor 15:52 IS the Seventh Trumpet of Rev 11:15.

I'll have to investigate futher.

 

[Vic C.]

That's all one can ask when studying something like End Times. I'm not familiar with this Bible translation. I will look into it. I usually use the various KJ versions along with the LITV and YLT.

 

[PHIL121]

That's all one can ask when studying something like End Times. I'm not familiar with this Bible translation. I will look into it. I usually use the various KJ versions along with the LITV and YLT.

The Millenium Bible is not a Bible per se, but a VERY thourough exegisis of all prophetic scripture, drawing on a LARGE number of sources. It was originally published in 1924 (my copy is a reprint). It was written by William Biederwolf. It presents various schools of thought on end-times prophecy.

And, of course, it was written BEFORE the restoration of Israel. 8-)

 

[noblej6]

Hi Vic,

I'm confused. You say, "No, that is what the wrath was all about" as though you feel the Wrath has already happened.

Well yes, I don't think there is any biblical doubt. All of Matthew 23 is Jesus discussing the anger and who it is pointed at. It finally states:

35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

You go on to list and quote a number of verses that agree with one another and I see it that way as well.

noble6

 

[PHIL121]

Hi Vic,

I'm confused. You say, "No, that is what the wrath was all about" as though you feel the Wrath has already happened.

Well yes, I don't think there is any biblical doubt. All of Matthew 23 is Jesus discussing the anger and who it is pointed at. It finally states:

35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

You go on to list and quote a number of verses that agree with one another and I see it that way as well.

noble6

Taken waaaaayyyyy out of context. Matthew 23 is a chapter in which Jesus pronounces judgement on the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders for being hypocrites. It has nothing to do with end-times prophecy. That's the next chapter, Matthew 24

 

[Cameron]

Well, what I did was check with my own source. The Millenium Bible. It does state that there are scholars who agree with your position, but also those who think the trump of 1 Cor 15:52 IS the Seventh Trumpet of Rev 11:15.

I'll have to investigate futher.

Keep in mind the date of 1 Corinthians verses the date of Revelation.

I Cor was written around 55 AD. They knew nothing of the book of Revelation.

 

[Cameron]

Well yes, I don't think there is any biblical doubt. All of Matthew 23 is Jesus discussing the anger and who it is pointed at. It finally states:

35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

You go on to list and quote a number of verses that agree with one another and I see it that way as well.

The view you are expressing is in the preterist direction - prophecy happened in the past, and this particular scripture even interpreted in this manner is perfectly compatible with futurist views and well as some spiritualistic views. In prewrath, there is a focus on talking abut "near/far" fulfillments and how there are precursors, even spiritual ones, for ultimate physical realities.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Guys,

Cameron wrote:

The view you are expressing is in the preterist direction - prophecy happened in the past, and this particular scripture even interpreted in this manner is perfectly compatible with futurist views and well as some spiritualistic views.

There is one statement in the Olivet Discourse that takes any near/far, dual fulfill, etc out of the prophecy:

21"For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

There is no possible way that there are two of these and the rest of the sequence of events is forever cemented to this timeframe. The use of immediately and THEN and all the rest ties it in and there is no doubt about it.

Then the prophecy states this famous verse:

34"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Noibody has ever shown me any reason to consider that THIS generation of the Olivet Discourse is any different than the THIS generation of Matthew 23.

As you see in Vic's post below, he knows that the THIS generation of Matthew 23 is the generation of Jesus' time. Why do people conside the same phrase a chapter later to be a future generation? Why does Matthew suddenly change the way he uses the term generation in the Olivet from what he used in chapter 1:17. Why does Matthew have a different meaning for THIS generation from one to the next. I contend that He doesn't. I don't think there is any real doubt what this generation is and I laid out all those other verses in another post that tie in.

In the other post I listed 15 or 20 verses that indicate a first century fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.

As I said before I don't follow full preterism because I believe my experience of the second coming is future. I don't follow partial preterism because I see the resurrections of the dead as a past event in the spiritual realm.

Keep in mind the date of 1 Corinthians verses the date of Revelation.

I thought Paul wrote Coprintians in about 52(one of you feels it was 55), but I don't know that for sure. The time of the writing of Revelation is based, for the most part, on one statement by Tertulian. Personally I don't put any credance on when Revelation was written, but only on when it was seen.

Rev 1 says this:

10I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet,

John was in Heaven when he watched this vision. My contention is that John watched the actual event take place. John saw the vision on the DAY OF THE LORD =Lord's day. That is how the words play out. Many take the Lord's Day here to mean Sunday or Saturday, but I do not. I believe John watched the actual happenings on the Day of the Lord. John is obligated to convey precisely what he saw. There is no requirement to ad lib any clarification for readers, he only writes what he saw and heard. Therefore the time of the writing has no relevance as I see it.

I Cor was written around 55 AD. They knew nothing of the book of Revelation.

This is what I mean. These writers have no need to know of Revelation,or anything else. Just like Daniel reported what he was instructed by the angel to say yet Daniel said he didn't understand what he wrote, so does Paul. Paul is instructed by God , inspired by God to write this and Paul doesn't have to even understand what he just said.

There was nobody in the yard with Jesus and Martha, yet John recorded the exact words they both said. Well again if John didn't record the exact words then the bible is useless.

 

[PHIL121]

Hi Guys,

he knows that the THIS generation of Matthew 23 is the generation of Jesus' time. Why do people conside the same phrase a chapter later to be a future generation? .

Maybe because they actually read the whole chapter? :roll:

In Matthew 24:3 the disciples spefically ask how they will know the end of the age is coming.

In Matthew 23:1-4, Jesus specifically says he is talking about the Pharisses.

 

[Vic C.]

Noibody has ever shown me any reason to consider that THIS generation of the Olivet Discourse is any different than the THIS generation of Matthew 23.

There's a first time for everything. :-D

I don't know all the intricacies of the Greek, but in Matthew 23:36, the Greek for the word this is taute; in Matthew 24:34 it is houtos. Taute is used 3 times in Matthew (KJ); houtos is used 48 times! (KJ)

Taute http://arabic.studylight.org/lex/grk/vi ... umber=5026

Houtos http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3778

I could be wrong, but it appears it (this) could be a past, present or future reference.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Phil,

You bring up an interesting point about the deciples asking about the end of the age.

All three writers who record the conversation of the Olivet Discourse have to be correct. They are inspired by God.

The question asked of Jesus is recorded two ways.
Luke and Mark
7"Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

Matthew
"Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

So did two of the writers just miss part of the question or did Matthew embellish meaning or what? Well, this is the word of God so all three have to write the truth.

All three writers list 'things' that will happen and one of the 'things' that all three record exactly the same is:

They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
So even tho Luke and Mark make no reference to the coming in the question, they still include it in the list of things that will happen. Then they all go on to limit the time allotted for ALL these things to happen..

34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

The only possible way that all three writers can be correct in how they phrased the question and listed the 'things' is if the end of the age and the coming occur at the time of the destruction of the temple.

If you can explain it some other way please tell me.

Remeber that the end of the ages is spelled out here:
Hebrews 9

26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Or as the KJV puts it:

26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Jesus had to reign at the right hand until all the enemies were destoyed. I gather that is why the end of the ages covered that amount of time, from the crucifixion to the destruction.

All of the enemies were destroyed by the time Paul wrote this:

2 Tim 1
10But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Has abolished...past tense.

Vic referred to two Greek words meaning THIS. Great, I never saw this before.

I looked it up in Strongs and it gives the same meaning for each so I don't kno what the significance is. Ill inquire at Greek B or whatever it is caled to see what gives.

I could be wrong, but it appears it (this) could be a past, present or future reference.

Well, it can be in English. The people He was talking to were standing in front of Him in 23 and 4 people were there in 24. They had to relay the information??? Both events talked about would be happening in the future biblically speaking.. I don't have a clue what the different wording is about.

Interesting point.

Any comments on my other points.

Justme

 

[Vic C.]

Vic referred to two Greek words meaning THIS. Great, I never saw this before.

I looked it up in Strongs and it gives the same meaning for each so I don't kno what the significance is. Ill inquire at Greek B or whatever it is caled to see what gives.


Quote:
I could be wrong, but it appears it (this) could be a past, present or future reference.


Well, it can be in English. The people He was talking to were standing in front of Him in 23 and 4 people were there in 24. They had to relay the information??? Both events talked about would be happening in the future biblically speaking.. I don't have a clue what the different wording is about.

Interesting point.

Thanks. To ne honest, I was quite surprised at what I found last night. I shouldn' t be though. Take the word 'love' for instance. The Greek has several words to describe the type of love. Context in this case, is not an issue. Hebrew is the same way. We lack that sort of subtlety in the English language. We lose a lot in the translation and have to rely on context and even at that, we don't quite get the full gist of a verse or passage.

 

[PHIL121]

The question asked of Jesus is recorded two ways.
Luke and Mark
7"Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

Matthew
"Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

So did two of the writers just miss part of the question or did Matthew embellish meaning or what? Well, this is the word of God so all three have to write the truth.

Why don't you ask them? :

It seriousness, on must keep in mind that Matthew and Luke were writting to different audiences, so they is bound to be some semantic differences in what they say.

I still don't see what point you're trying to make about their statements conflciting.

If you want to see some statements that REALLY conflict I have a bunch of police reports and court transcripts you should see! 8-)

All three writers list 'things' that will happen and one of the 'things' that all three record exactly the same is:

They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
So even tho Luke and Mark make no reference to the coming in the question, they still include it in the list of things that will happen. Then they all go on to limit the time allotted for ALL these things to happen..

34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

The only possible way that all three writers can be correct in how they phrased the question and listed the 'things' is if the end of the age and the coming occur at the time of the destruction of the temple.

Absolutely inccorrect. There is a wide variety of opinions on what "this generation" means in Matthew 24:34. It could mean the people then living, it could mean the Jewish race, it could mean the eneraton of believers., etc...

The view you take is extremely narrow-minded.

Remeber that the end of the ages is spelled out here:
Hebrews 9

26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Or as the KJV puts it:

26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Jesus had to reign at the right hand until all the enemies were destoyed. I gather that is why the end of the ages covered that amount of time, from the crucifixion to the destruction.

Again you preterism is showing.

The "end of age" in Hebrews 1:2, et al. is felt by most Biblical scholars to denote the end of the current world as shown in Revelations.

All of the enemies were destroyed by the time Paul wrote this:

2 Tim 1
10But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Has abolished...past tense.

Apples and oranges. What Paul is refering to here is the Gift of Eternal Life available to All who believe in Jesus. This scripture has nothing to do with End-times prophecy.

Well, it can be in English. The people He was talking to were standing in front of Him in 23 and 4 people were there in 24. They had to relay the information??? Both events talked about would be happening in the future biblically speaking.. I don't have a clue what the different wording is about.

And I haven't the slightest idea what kinda point you're trying to make here.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Phil,

I still don't see what point you're trying to make about their statements conflciting.

No, I am saying their statements can not conflict with each other.

I am saying that if the 'end' and the 'coming' are at the same time as the destruction of the temple in 70 AD then all writers are correct in how they worded their comments on the Olivet Discourse.

I'll explain further. Luke doesn't say anything about any end or coming in the question asked of Jesus yet Luke tells us Jesus will come in glory on the clouds. Therefore Jesus coming is one of the things that people will see at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

Absolutely inccorrect. There is a wide variety of opinions on what "this generation" means in Matthew 24:34. It could mean the people then living, it could mean the Jewish race, it could mean the eneraton of believers., etc...

Ther are many opinions I agree, but not all will agree with every other verse in the bible. There is only one answer that will.

Read my post in the end times forum about the great trib-today or tommorrow. I list a number of verses there that line up with the 70 AD idea.

The "end of age" in Hebrews 1:2, et al. is felt by most Biblical scholars to denote the end of the current world as shown in Revelations.

2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

The author of Hebrews, an inspired writer, called that time the last days, in chapter 9, as I quoted they called those days the end of the age/world.
In Acts 2, Luke referred to the last days....it is endless really.

If any scholar anywhere calls Hebrews 9:26 the end of the present world I would think they should be demoted to something other than scholar.

Apples and oranges. What Paul is refering to here is the Gift of Eternal Life available to All who believe in Jesus. This scripture has nothing to do with End-times prophecy

10but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

There is the verse. Does it say that Jesus has destroyed death or not?

Well, actually I know that it says that of course, so I'll just ask you to show me verses that would change the obvious meaning of this one.

So Luke only mentions the destruction of the temple in the question but Luke tells us that Jesus ill come in His glory. Luke tells us that Jerusalem will be surrounded by an army and includes that Jesu will come in His glory and after all of this Luke uses the all in this generation line.

Let's look at what generation that is in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13.

We know that the coming of the son of man is just after the great tribulation.

Her are some verses that show that Jesus would come in the first century.

Matthew 10
23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

John 21
23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

Rev 2
25Only hold on to what you have until I come.

There is a canned answer for the first two, but I personally brought out the last one here about three months ago. It still produces blank screens, no one has developed an explanation for this yet.

noble6

 

[PHIL121]

I am saying that if the 'end' and the 'coming' are at the same time as the destruction of the temple in 70 AD then all writers are correct in how they worded their comments on the Olivet Discourse.

I'll explain further. Luke doesn't say anything about any end or coming in the question asked of Jesus yet Luke tells us Jesus will come in glory on the clouds. Therefore Jesus coming is one of the things that people will see at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

And that's all a bunch of preterist nonsense.

As a matter of fact, the host of The King is Coming (Dr. Roy Hanson) spoke precisely on this topic on tonights show. It's clear that Jesus was talking about the Second Coming, NOT the destruction of the Temple.

Absolutely inccorrect. There is a wide variety of opinions on what "this generation" means in Matthew 24:34. It could mean the people then living, it could mean the Jewish race, it could mean the eneraton of believers., etc...

Ther are many opinions I agree, but not all will agree with every other verse in the bible. There is only one answer that will.

Read my post in the end times forum about the great trib-today or tommorrow. I list a number of verses there that line up with the 70 AD idea.

And I'm sure it contains more preterists nonsense.

The "end of age" in Hebrews 1:2, et al. is felt by most Biblical scholars to denote the end of the current world as shown in Revelations.

2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

The author of Hebrews, an inspired writer, called that time the last days, in chapter 9, as I quoted they called those days the end of the age/world.
In Acts 2, Luke referred to the last days....it is endless really.

And again you just don't get it. The "end of age" does NOT mean the time when the Gospels and Epistles were written , but when the Son of Man returns.

If any scholar anywhere calls Hebrews 9:26 the end of the present world I would think they should be demoted to something other than scholar.

And what exactly are your credentials??

Rather than response to the rest of your remarks, I'll simply put you on ignore.

 

[Vic C.]

Two things... I don't think it wise to refer to anyone's views here as nonsense . Also, ignoring someone who is just expressing their beliefs or opinions without personal insults isn't a good option either.

Let's try and keep the peace here in the End Times Forums. I'd like to see more post here, not drive them away.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Vic,

Thanks for your comments.

What I try to do is get feedback on those personal opinions of biblical meaning to see if they hold water or not. No matter how convimced one becomes of their biblical interpretation there is alsways something to learn.

I think I must come across as appearing to be trying to convert people to preterism. I really couldn't care less what someone else wants to believe, I am, however, very interestied in whether they can back up what they do believe. It is always the same, if we can't back up what we are saying biblically then it is time to grab some help from the one who can.

Once again I will say I am not a card carrying preterist anyway because I disagree with certain points in both of the categories. I am a common Protestant who supports the largest Protestant denomination in Canada. It is a non-evangelical denomination, I guess you would say, no rapture, Heaven for believers at death etc.

noble6