Pre Wrath overview

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

The CEV translation
Daniel 12
1 Michael, the chief of the angels, is the protector of your people, and he will come at a time of terrible suffering, the worst in all of history.

I checked out the word 'worst' and found it occurs once in the KJV of the OT and it sure isn't in Daniel. The NIV has the word 'worst' in the OT 4 times and in is not in Daniel 12 either. The translators of the CEV have added bias to the word of God,a terrible translation almost to the sad state of the Message bnook. It doesn't say the Great tribulation was the worst it says in hadn't happened before and won't again. If you want to say it is the worst, I would consider it is the worst because it is the wrath of God, but we need only know it hadn't happened before and won't happen again....it was a one time event.

However, this CEV is gonna come back to haunt you when you read Rev 2:25:
25But until I come, you must hold firmly to the teaching you have.

Boy, they slept at the switch there didn't they?

This Rev 2:25 thing is one of my personal obsevations and has been around the net about three months. There has been no canned answer made yet so it catches futurists a bit off stride. Obviously the writers of the CEV didn't pick up on the importance of the verse either.

You see at some point in time the people of that church of Thyatira had to read that letter. In that letter, the CEV says, they should hold on to the teaching they have until Jesus comes. Thyatira has been non-existant for a very long time. Those people are dead and gone. Did Jesus mislead them or did He come to them? Or are they still holding on firmly to the teaching as they lay dead in the grave?

noble6

 

[Cameron]

Noble,

I think one of the issues you’re dealing with is your approach to understanding the Bible. You do not treat the OT with the same courtesy as the NT. I have already shown you how references in the NT to scripture are primarily referring to the OT. I’ve got to encourage you to take more time to understand the OT. It can only enhance your understanding of the NT. It is all God’s Word.

However, you continue to air the same tired old arguments that have already been addressed. We’ve already provided good answers to your objects and it is obvious that you don’t like them or want to understand them and feel more secure calling them unbiblical.

The problem with preterism, OK one of the many problems, is demonstrated quite well by how you approach the Bible. You have a heavy reliance upon extra biblical sources in the form of Josephus, a non-Christian. I believe the oldest extant Josephus manuscript is from the 10th Century. Besides that, preterists virtually ignore what the early Church leaders and pastors wrote on the subject. Why do they ignore these fine Christian men in favor of a non-Christian? Because they can use what Josephus said to make their case. Complete disregard is given to the 2nd generation of Christians by preterists on the topic of eschatology for they know that the Church never poured into 70 AD the same significance that modern day pretersist our in. It’s a raw truth of history and denying it is not helpful. The early church continued to look for a future Antichrist and debated 666 and discussed the day = 1,000 years scenario. When they wrote, they were pre-millennialists up until amillennialism took over after the Creeds.

You can keep try to say Rome this and Rome that, but your assertions change nothing. There is no direct correspondence between 70 AD event and the abomination of the Temple or setting up of an image to be worshipped. Jerusalem was never trampled either if you want to be literal. It was surrounded but never trampled, except for a few weeks whiles the burned the place down and turned it into farm land. The reason why we find so many 1st Century Jewish artifacts is because the city was turned into farm land by the Romans when they finally breached the wall. So these times and dates find no correspondence. You wish to insist upon a literal reading as you understand it but then you make all kinds of allegorical concessions to make it all work in your mind.

 

[Cameron]

CEV is one of many English translations. We could pick on the NIV and the KJV too. The point that is being ignored is that Daniel 12:1 says there will a time of great distress that is unparalleled since there was a nation up to that time of the great distress. So yes, it will be the worst ever. Most translations translate the Hebrew into English like the JPS:

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

The HCSB (the newest English translation that I’m aware of translates it like this:

Dan 12:1 At that time Michael the great prince who stands watch over your people will rise up. There will be a time of distress such as never has occurred since nations came into being until that time. But at that time all your people who are found written in the book will escape.

I think the HCSB captures it well.

You continue to miss that God is still trying to restore Israel and all the nations to Him. Here’s another passage that will get you thinking:

Jer 30:7 How awful that day will be! There will be none like it! It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be delivered out of it.
Jer 30:8 "On that day"--this is the declaration of the LORD of Hosts--"I will break his yoke from your neck and snap your fetters so strangers will never again enslave him.
The Romans and Babylonians enslaved the Jews, but God is speaking of a time when that yoke of the Gentiles will be thrown off.

The context is about restoration.

Jer 30:3 for the days are certainly coming"--this is the LORD's declaration--"when I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah"--the LORD's declaration. "I will restore them to the land I gave to their ancestors and they will possess it."

Also your questions about Jesus misleading people are fallacious questions that are loaded with presumption and choices that don’t exist. There is no ignoring the reality of the symbolic and complete nature of seven.

Clearly you are focused on raising the same questions over and over again and I can keep giving you the same answers over and over again. In the end, futurism can remain futurism and amalgamate preterist perspectives and spirtualist perspectives while remaining futurism at the core. I've even spoke with another Prewrath futurist who has been amalgamating historicist ideas too. However, full preterism as you are espousing is just that. It's an all or nothing. Partial preterism at least sees the potential for future components. In the end it is futurism that has been around since the beginning of the Church,is around now and is the most pliable.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

I think one of the issues you’re dealing with is your approach to understanding the Bible. You do not treat the OT with the same courtesy as the NT.

Does it come across looking like that to you guys? Sorry, I'm not being clear, maybe.
I consider the entire bible to be God inspired and correct. What I don't put much weight on is man's interpretation of the OT. I consider Jesus' words to be easier to understand and therefore I let the words of Him trump anything that man say about the OT.

Also because I find everything I need from the teaching of Jesus Christ I only go back to the OT for clarity on things. I have read the OT in it's entirety many times, but I haven't committed much of it to memory.

However, you continue to air the same tired old arguments that have already been addressed.

Yes, I repeat the same thing over and over. It is my experience that when discussing religious topics the mindset of people (me included) is such that we have to read things many time before we actually see them.

We’ve already provided good answers to your objects and it is obvious that you don’t like them or want to understand them and feel more secure calling them unbiblical.

Actually at some point I will accumulate all those 'good' ansswers into one document and then you can see that you have an array of rationalizations explaining away the obvious meaning of a great many biblical verses that agree with each other if you simply read them word for word off the page.

Ex. Hebrews 9:26, Matthew 24:14 and Col 1:23 along with Daniel 12:13.

Because they can use what Josephus said to make their case.

Yes, I can use Josephus to make my case. What would be wrong with that.? He was there in that rebellion of Judea and was takien prisnor from it.

I don't read early church fathers much as per Tertulien and such. I stick mostly with the real teacher, Jeus John 15:15 will explain why.

You can keep try to say Rome this and Rome that, but your assertions change nothing.

Did their armies surround Jerusalem> Yes, they did. Did the Roman army detroy the temle ? Yes, they did.

Did the Roman army kill or take prisoner those vipers that Jesus was talking to in Matthew 23? Yes, they did.

Did Rome persecute and execute promoters of the gospel? Yes, they did. Was that the 'you' of the Olivet who were killed or martyred? Yes, it was.

You'll be awhile showing me that Rome of that day doesn't fit rather nicely.

I haven't got answers to key areas yet, but I'll add another one anyway.

Who was it that saw the coming of the son of man on the clouds in the Olivet Discourse. Was it the 'you' that Jesus addressed the conversation to? Like the four on the hill that day? Or was it someone else?

noble6

 

[Cameron]

What I don't put much weight on is man's interpretation of the OT. I consider Jesus' words to be easier to understand and therefore I let the words of Him trump anything that man say about the OT.

But this is still your issue for Paul, the disciples, Luke and the author of Hebrews who was likely a companion of Paul and John all interpreted the OT and considered the OT quite authoritative and convincing. They were men. What is the difference between the author of Hebrews or Luke and a Christian today. He author of Hebrews interpreted the OT in a Jewish commentary style where he would say things like “some one once saidâ€Â… or “somewhere it saysâ€Â…

I understand that you are concerned about man’s bias in understanding and the tendency to distort or self-deceive. It is true of all people including ourselves. One should focus on being pleasing to God at all times walking in the Spirit and being a servant of all extending that even to the point of being teachable.

…if you simply read them word for word off the page.

This is what we are trying to get you to do. But if you only focus on the black and white words on the page without considering the mechanics of language and hermeneutics you will be a victim of our own cultural paradigm. Origien was a great example of that, he took things very literally and castrated himself as early church tradition holds. Black and white is what Jesus’ disciples in trouble when He told them to eat His flesh. They did not understand the symbolic nature of what He said and turned away. The disciples were utterly clueless when Jesus told them to watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and they argued among themselves about who brought the bread.

Your accumulation of good answers have already been answered and you continue to look for bread in the boat. Hebrews 9:26 has already been answered in Daniel 1 and 3.
Matthew 24:14 is clearly not the same as Col 1:23 and has already been demonstrated with Col 1:16.

Dan 12:13 is a new one that I suppose you want to employ into the Col 1:23 service.

Dan 12:13 But as for you, go on your way to the end; you will rest, then rise to your destiny at the end of the days."
Dan 12:13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days."

Clearly this passage says what it simply says. That Daniel is going to die (“restâ€Â) and (“riseâ€Â) to his heavenly reward. Let’s not take this out of its native context.

Yes, I can use Josephus to make my case. What would be wrong with that.? He was there in that rebellion of Judea and was takien prisnor from it.

I don't read early church fathers much as per Tertulien and such. I stick mostly with the real teacher, Jeus John 15:15 will explain why.

I hope you reread this. You make my point. You will use a non-Christian extra-biblical source to make your case and ignore Christian extra-biblical sources; Christians who even knew those who lived through 70 AD.

Did their armies surround Jerusalem> Yes, they did. Did the Roman army detroy the temle ? Yes, they did.

Did Roman armies surround Jerusalem? Yes – we both agree. Did they destroy the Temple? Yes, we both agree.

The Romans did not abominate the temple. They burned and ripped it apart to get the gold.

Did the Roman army kill or take prisoner those vipers that Jesus was talking to in Matthew 23? Yes, they did.

The Romans did not give anyone choice to worship an image or get a mark. They simply killed and sold people into slavery. So we agree again on the prisoners at least. You seem to think Matthew 23 makes a big point for you and I don’t really see much we disagree about in Matthew 23. We’ve already discussed how it is clearly about 70 AD. Remember? This is the man who is accused vs. watch out for this man when you see him?

Mat 23:31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
Mat 23:34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,
Mat 23:35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
Mat 23:38 See, your house is left to you desolate.
Mat 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

What does Matthew 23:39 mean to you?

Did Rome persecute and execute promoters of the gospel? Yes, they did. Was that the 'you' of the Olivet who were killed or martyred? Yes, it was.

It looks like we continue to agree. But you fail to acknowledge that the persecutions grew worse and worse as Rome’s power and might continued to grow up to 200 AD.

Who was it that saw the coming of the son of man on the clouds in the Olivet Discourse. Was it the 'you' that Jesus addressed the conversation to? Like the four on the hill that day? Or was it someone else?

Again, the way you mix up who “we†is in 1Cor. 15:52 and fail to see it as applicable to all Christians of all eras like in Romans 12:4-5 is just like how you approach the “you†of the Olivet Discourse. The Great Commission extends the “you†to all Christians of any era. And this is where understand hermeneutics is important. For you would recognize that the audiences do shift from the four in private to the public in the Temple.

Preterist continue to mix up the coming in the clouds with references to coming in clouds to meet with the righteous or elect. Any time that the OT describes God coming in the clouds, whirlwind, etc to meet with the righteous, it is always literal. There are a couple of places where “just coming in the clouds†or “whirlwinds of the South†implies a judgment. But in those passage that you're thinking of without considering the larger body of references will give you tunnel vision. Acts 1:9-11, Ezekiel 1:3-4, Exodus 19:9, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 31:14-16, Exodus 16:10, Exodus 34:5, Leviticus 16:1-2, Numbers 12:4-5, 1 Kings 8:10-13, 2 Kings 2:11, Job 38:1. And in any case, we can go though all these details but the near/far principle already demonstrated gives us choices in how to appraoch it. That is why there are some futurist who will see Luke's reference as a near/far or others where it shifts to far or others put 70 AD as a type of the whole thing being far, which is who I think you've been exposed to the most by the form your arguments take.

 

[Vic C.]

Does it come across looking like that to you guys? Sorry, I'm not being clear, maybe.

I consider the entire bible to be God inspired and correct. What I don't put much weight on is man's interpretation of the OT. I consider Jesus' words to be easier to understand and therefore I let the words of Him trump anything that man say about the OT.

Also because I find everything I need from the teaching of Jesus Christ I only go back to the OT for clarity on things. I have read the OT in it's entirety many times, but I haven't committed much of it to memory.

Hi noble,

Concerning End Times, you can't develop a proper understanding of End Times events with Jesus' words only. The OT Prophets go into great detail concerning persecutions and wrath against Israel, The Day of the Lord, the timing, etc., etc. Oh, Ezekiel's latter chapters too. Plus you couldn't possibly put it all together without John's visions and revealings in Revelation.

Forget about "man's' interpretation of the OT. That is no reason to ignore it. Best case senario would be you have go and do some research yourself and break out the Lexicon. I know you said in another thread it is because of laziness. What I have discovered (i.e. learned the hard way-lol) is laziness is no excuse for ignorance.

Hosea 4:6
6 ¶ My people are cut off for lack of knowledge. Because you rejected the knowledge, I also rejected you from being priest to Me. Since you have forgotten the Law of your God, I will forget your sons, even I.
(LITV)

 

[noblej6]

Hi Guys,

Clearly this passage says what it simply says. That Daniel is going to die (“restâ€Â) and (“riseâ€Â) to his heavenly reward. Let’s not take this out of its native context.

Exactly. The thing here is that it is at the YIME of the END, not the END of TIME as the CEV puts it. AND the end of the ages are at the time of the crucixion according to Hebrews 9:26.

It is fine to have a canned answer for what these verses say, but the word for word as written is always one of the possibilities.

Hebrews 9:26 says this:
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.

Did Jesus sacrifice Himself twice? If not the timeframe of this verse and the time of the end of the world(aion) was first century.

Once again I will list verses that agree with that.

Hebrews 1:2
but 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.

James talks or writes to these people:
1James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:
Greetings.

And says this:

3Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.

Here is a vision of the time of the end:

Daniel 8
17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."

18 While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet.

19 He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

I don't have to look up history to see if that matches things going on in the fuirst century do I?

I hope you reread this. You make my point. You will use a non-Christian extra-biblical source to make your case and ignore Christian extra-biblical sources; Christians who even knew those who lived through 70 AD.

Josephus wasn't in the loop with the apostles yet Joephus wrote of many things which agree with the bible. As you say Josephus wasn't a follower of Christ, not would anyone think he would be,as followers of Christ fled from Judea to the mountains.

Concerning End Times, you can't develop a proper understanding of End Times events with Jesus' words only. The OT Prophets go into great detail concerning persecutions and wrath against Israel, The Day of the Lord, the timing, etc., etc. Oh, Ezekiel's latter chapters too. Plus you couldn't possibly put it all together without John's visions and revealings in Revelation.

I have read many verses predicting the coming of the Christ( first advent) and many stories of the destrucion of Jerusalem, but what verses show the RETURN of Jesus to earth in the OT?

The Romans did not abominate the temple. They burned and ripped it apart to get the gold.

Now there is a case for the hyper-literal. Jesus predicted thwere would not be one stone on another wherever He spoke of that sday as He made the prophecy, Did that happen? Yes, it did. AND you have not responded to this:

Luke said:

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

Was the surrounding of Jerusalem one of the 'things'?

Was nation rising against nation one of the things?

Was the coming of the son of man one of the things?

Yes, they all were the 'things' meaning that the destruction of the temple and the coming of the son of man were in the same generation.

The point about Matthew 23 is that you know and understand that THIS generation there means the generation He was talking to. Move up a chapter and THIS generation is thousands of years away.

It looks like we continue to agree. But you fail to acknowledge that the persecutions grew worse and worse as Rome’s power and might continued to grow up to 200 AD.

NO, I agree that the followers were martyred for years to come after the speach of the Olivet.

Again, the way you mix up who “we†is in 1Cor. 15:52 and fail to see it as applicable to all Christians of all eras like in Romans 12:4-5 is just like how you approach the “you†of the Olivet Discourse. The Great Commission extends the “you†to all Christians of any era.

The WE in 1 Thess 4 and 1 COr 15 as I describe it is as good as any other interpretation I've ever seen and is the way any one of us would take that sentence if it was spoken to us.
There will be an explosion at the building and We who are alive and remain at the train station must buy a new ticket.

Oh.no, that doesn't mean us, that is for the people who will come here 2000 years from now. I don't think so, Tim.

And this is where understand hermeneutics is important. For you would recognize that the audiences do shift from the four in private to the public in the Temple.

You have not showed me there are two conversations that day sparked by one identical question. Nor does it specifically say the conversation was in public at the temple.

Just answer what the 'things' are.

Preterist continue to mix up the coming in the clouds with references to coming in clouds to meet with the righteous or elect.

Well, let me un-mix it. The coming on the clouds as I use the term is the parousia or the return of Jesus Christ IMMEDIATELY after the Great tribulation. That event only happens once in all creation, there is no near/far to the Great Tribulation, there is no dual prophecy here, no nothing except the great tribulation followed by the parousia. It is at this time that the separation of the sheep and goats take place which is the Great White throne judgment. It is at/near this time when there is a resurrection of the dead. It is at this time that mankind no longer has to sleep in the dust aware of nothing. Jesus says He wil or His angels will gather His elect at that time.

31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

We have to crawl this fence here.....
there is no near/far to the great tribulation PERIOD. It only happens once in all of creation. It follows that any biblical statement which is connected to that event only happens once also. One parousia, one flight of the people from Judea that matters, one surrounding of Jerusalem that matters, one fullfilling of all that is written that matters, one generation.....that is involved.
Which generation saw the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem?

noble6

 

[Cameron]

Exactly. The thing here is that it is at the YIME of the END, not the END of TIME as the CEV puts it. AND the end of the ages are at the time of the crucixion according to Hebrews 9:26.

Why are you so focused on the CEV? I’ve only used it once or twice with many others. And here you are taking a Hebrew phrase and equating it to a Greek phrase to suit you own purposed. You might have a case if you had context, which you don’t, and if you could show similarity in phrase in the LXX, from which Hebrews quotes heavily.
Dan 12:13

(ALT)

(AMP) But you [Daniel, who was now over ninety years of age], go your way until the end; for you shall rest and shall stand [fast] in your allotted place at the end of the days. [Heb. 11:32-40.]

(ASV) But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest, and shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days.

(BBE) But you, go on your way and take your rest: for you will be in your place at the end of the days.

(CEV) So, Daniel, be faithful until the end! You will rest, and at the end of time, you will rise from death to receive your reward.

(Darby) But do thou go thy way until the end; and thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

(DRB) But go thou thy ways until the time appointed: and thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot unto the end of the days.

(ESV) But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days."

(GEB) Du aber gehe hin bis zum Ende; und du wirst ruhen, und wirst auferstehen zu deinem Lose am Ende der Tage.

(Geneva) But go thou thy way til ye end be: for thou shalt rest & stand vp in thy lot, at ye end of ye daies.

(GNB) "And you, Daniel, be faithful to the end. Then you will die, but you will rise to receive your reward at the end of time."

(GW) But go on until the end. You will rest, and you will rise for your inheritance at the end of time."

(HCSB) But as for you, go on your way to the end; you will rest, then rise to your destiny at the end of the days."

(HNV) But go you your way until the end be; for you shall rest, and shall stand in your lot, at the end of the days.

(JPS) But go thou thy way till the end be; and thou shalt rest, and shalt stand up to thy lot, at the end of the days.'

(KJV-1611) But goe thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in the lot at the end of the dayes.

(LITV) But you go on to the end, for you shall rest and stand for your lot at the end of the days.

(KJV+) But go thou thy way859, 1980 till the end7093 be: for thou shalt rest,5117 and stand5975 in thy lot1486 at the end7093 of the days.3117

(LXX) καὶ σὺ δεῦρο καὶ ἀναπαύου· ἔτι γὰρ ἡμέραι εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν συντελείας, καὶ ἀναστήσῃ εἰς τὸν κλῆρόν σου εἰς συντέλειαν ἡμερῶν.

Heb 9:26 επει1893 CONJ εδει1163 V-IQI-3S αυτον846 P-ASM πολλακις4178 ADV παθειν3958 V-2AAN απο575 PREP καταβολης2602 N-GSF κοσμου2889 N-GSM νυνι3570 ADV δε1161 CONJ απαξ530 ADV επι1909 PREP συντελεια4930 N-DSF των3588 T-GPM αιωνων165 N-GPM εις1519 PREP αθετησιν115 N-ASF | της3588 T-GSF | [της]3588 T-GSF | αμαρτιας266 N-GSF δια1223 PREP της3588 T-GSF θυσιας2378 N-GSF αυτου846 P-GSM πεφανερωται5319 V-RPI-3S

(KJV+) Heb 9:26 For then1893 must1163 he846 often4178 have suffered3958 since575 the foundation2602 of the world:2889 but1161 now3568 once530 in1909 the end4930 of the3588 world165 hath he appeared5319 to put away1519, 115 sin266 by1223 the3588 sacrifice2378 of himself.84

You continue to make my point of misapplication of what appear to be similar phrases translated into English from different languages that are about different topics and in different contexts. Anybody can ram together verses and make what ever they want the Bible to say. In my judgment, I do not see your connection.

Did Jesus sacrifice Himself twice? If not the timeframe of this verse and the time of the end of the world(aion) was first century.

3Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.

We are living in the last days.

Here is a vision of the time of the end:

Daniel 8
17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."

18 While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet.

19 He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

I don't have to look up history to see if that matches things going on in the fuirst century do I?

Apparently you do because Daniel 8 is about 168 BC top to bottom. It is 2C BC when Greece was still the current empire. The context even says so. Read verse 21-22 again. After Alexander the Great died his kingdom split into four and Antichious Epiphanes eventually controlled Jerusalem and sought to secularize the Jews by killing them if the practiced the Sabbath and didn’t worship the pantheon like other good, cultured Greeks. 1 & 2 Macabees may not be in most protestant Bibles, but they do describe historical events.

I have read many verses predicting the coming of the Christ( first advent) and many stories of the destrucion of Jerusalem, but what verses show the RETURN of Jesus to earth in the OT?

The writers of the New Testament undertood parts of certain passages in the OT to apply to the first coming, but not all. There are many passages and I’ll name a few.
Psa 110 , Isaiah 2, Isaiah 61

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this

AND you have not responded to this:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Luke said:

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

Was the surrounding of Jerusalem one of the 'things'? for Luke, obviously for the gazzillionth time in the near sense

Was nation rising against nation one of the things? ‘ questionable in 70 AD

Was the coming of the son of man one of the things? only in the sense of God’s vindication in a foreshadowed sense

Once again you are myopic regarding this. No explanation is good enough. Let’s see if you can answer any questions:

How is the Roman army an abomination?

How did the Roman army trample Jerusalem for 3 ½ years when they only surrounded it until the end?

When was an image set up in the temple to worship?

When were people given the choice to reject taking a mark that would prevent them from buying and selling?

Which nations rose against which nations? Did Rome fight themselves?

Like I said and said and said, it depends on your view, there are a couple of ways as a futurist to respond. I already told you that Luke deals with 70 AD for the most part, while Mark and Matthew do not.

Yes, they all were the 'things' meaning that the destruction of the temple and the coming of the son of man were in the same generation.

What does Luke 21:37-38 mean? You still ignore it.

The point about Matthew 23 is that you know and understand that THIS generation there means the generation He was talking to. Move up a chapter and THIS generation is thousands of years away.

This doesn’t mean a thing…nada. Context changes quickly many Bible books. Is this really an argument?

NO, I agree that the followers were martyred for years to come
after the speach of the Olivet.

There were more martyrs for Christ in the 20th Century than all previous history of the Church combined.

The WE in 1 Thess 4 and 1 COr 15 as I describe it is as good as any other interpretation I've ever seen and is the way any one of us would take that sentence if it was spoken to us.

It is pointless to continue if you do not agree on basic language construction. You are absolutely wrong, period. Romans 12:4-5 and the Great Commission all point to a collective understanding. Your logic taken to extreme means that “we†is only for Paul and the Corinthian Church ,etc.

You have not showed me there are two conversations that day sparked by one identical question. Nor does it specifically say the conversation was in public at the temple.

Luke 21:37-38 not good enough for you? Please find the verse in Luke 20 -21 that even hints at Jesus leaving the temple. Please find the parallel to Luke 21:37-38 in Matthew and Mark.

Well, let me un-mix it. The coming on the clouds as I use the term is the parousia or the return of Jesus Christ IMMEDIATELY after the Great tribulation. That event only happens once in all creation, there is no near/far to the Great Tribulation, there is no dual prophecy here, no nothing except the great tribulation followed by the parousia. It is at this time that the separation of the sheep and goats take place which is the Great White throne judgment. It is at/near this time when there is a resurrection of the dead. It is at this time that mankind no longer has to sleep in the dust aware of nothing. Jesus says He wil or His angels will gather His elect at that time.

This is full-preterism and I understand its position. In my judgment it is not right. This thread is about the Prewrath overview. Yes 70 AD was important, but not as important as you make it out. Full-preterism is a modern idea fought by people who are far from those events in time and space. It doesn’t answer any of the basic questions nor does it properly reconcile Matthew 24 and Luke 21, nor does it deal with Revelation accurately.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

Apparently you do because Daniel 8 is about 168 BC top to bottom.

Okay, so explain this.

17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."

So 168 BC was the time of the end......No, it wasn't.

Why are you so focused on the CEV?

Because it is a horribly biased translation, however, you use a lot in your quotes that aren't any better.

We are living in the last days.

Our last days maybe.

Again you never dealt with:

Did Jesus sacrifice Himself twice?

How did the guy in James save money in the LAST DAYS if the last days are now?

You showed me a couple of verses in Isaiah. As I said I know of verses tha predict a coming Messiah, O know of verses that predict the mess in Jerusalem. What I wonder about is verses from the OT that show the RETURN of Jesus, not the first coming of Christ to earth, but His return afte that.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I've seen that before and it tells me a lot more that you might think.

Once again you are myopic regarding this. No explanation is good enough. Let’s see if you can answer any questions:

If I see an explanation based on biblical evidence it will be good enough. SO far I haven't seen that. I have seen things like :
1) there is a 2000 year gap...based on your opinion.

2) the word WE just can't possibly mean Paul....because I can't read.

3) This generation is THAT generation.

4)And you won't/can't deal with all the 'things' in Luke.

How did the Roman army trample Jerusalem for 3 ½ years when they only surrounded it until the end?

Huh? The Roman army destroyed a good portion of Jerusalem and the temple. Josephus said that and he was there.

When was an image set up in the temple to worship?

Late 60's. The temple was gone in 70 so it had to be before that.

When were people given the choice to reject taking a mark that would prevent them from buying and selling?

When they rejected Jesus. How could they buy and sell when there was nothing in the city to buy and sell?

Which nations rose against which nations? Did Rome fight themselves?

Acts 2
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

Show me a time in history when EVERY nation under heaven of any array of humans was/wil be present to fight against each other.

Like I said and said and said, it depends on your view, there are a couple of ways as a futurist to respond. I already told you that Luke deals with 70 AD for the most part, while Mark and Matthew do not.

So why does Luke list the son of man coming ion the clouds as one of the things. If Luke is about 70 AD then the generation Jeus was talking to saw those things. YThe coming of the son of man in glory after all that iwas written was fullfilled had to be one of them.

Matthew and Mark deal with the exact same conversation becaiuse they include the coming also.

What does Luke 21:37-38 mean? You still ignore it.

37Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, 38and all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple.

Jesus spoke at the temple every day and people came to hear Him speak. They came early in the morning.

That is what it means. When you try to force the Olivet into a public speach using that bit I have to wonder. Nothing in Lukes record of the conversation says he was talking to any audience different that the others.

The question is asked according to Luke and HE replied. It doesn't say He jumped on a soapbox and yelled it out to the masses in the temple They were out of the temple when the prophecy was made.

This doesn’t mean a thing…nada. Context changes quickly many Bible books. Is this really an argument?

I don't think context retains a meaning in religious or biblical discussions. I have never seen a person state that another has read a verse in context. However, after you have read the story of the bible the first 20 times, context isn't a probl;em.

There were more martyrs for Christ in the 20th Century than all previous history of the Church combined.

Really, I didn't know that. However, was it these guys:

9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

Because that is who Jesus was talking directly to.

It is pointless to continue if you do not agree on basic language construction. You are absolutely wrong, period. Romans 12:4-5 and the Great Commission all point to a collective understanding. Your logic taken to extreme means that “we†is only for Paul and the Corinthian Church ,etc.

You are getting there. Yes some of those verses only apply to Pauls time. In our time nobody has to sleep but in Pauls time some did because some tha Paul wrote to DID die before the parousia.

Then you cn read the word WE as we always read the word WE.

Luke 21:37-38 not good enough for you? Please find the verse in Luke 20 -21 that even hints at Jesus leaving the temple. Please find the parallel to Luke 21:37-38 in Matthew and Mark.

Please find a hint that shows He didn't.

Who needs a parallel to verses 37 and 8 when we have the biggee of ...they will see Him coming and the ALL THESE things verse? Jesus preaching in the temple is mentioned enough times.
Basically you are groping for straws trying to fit something together to show Luke couldnt be destroying your theory.

BUT you still haven't dealt with IS the coming of the son one of the 'things' in Luke?

This is full-preterism and I understand its position. In my judgment it is not right.

That is of course, up to you. What I am doing is providing biblical details of why the prewrath scenario would be biblically incorect.

We have made a lot of wide circkles here wher this vverse alone ends the pre wrath idea,

29"But immediately after the )tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

The wrath is either part of the tribulation or it doesn't fit in to the IMMEDIATELY part.

Yes 70 AD was important, but not as important as you make it out.

You do realize that the parousia is a very important biblical story don't you. Right up there with the birth and the cross.

So if it is 70 AD. we have an important event.

How many verses have I shown you now that word for word as written indicate a first cntury event?

Full preterism considers the second coming to be over with in the first century a well I think. I don't. I consider that each persn that ever lives and ever has lived will experience this second coming for themselves because the bible says every eye will see Him even those who pierced Him. I know of His first coming b reading abiout it, but I haven't seen Him the second time and the bible says I will.

I can't speak for Full preterism, but I only know of a handful of verses that I have to stumble over in the new testament.

noble6

 

[Cameron]

nobel6

So 168 BC was the time of the end......No, it wasn't.

When was an image set up in the temple to worship?

Late 60's. The temple was gone in 70 so it had to be before that.

Acts 2
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

Show me a time in history when EVERY nation under heaven of any array of humans was/wil be present to fight against each other.

Look regarding Daniel 8, we’re not here to embarrass you, but to encourage you. If you are going to make outrageous claims like this, then we cannot have a profitable conversation. I can only encourage you to study the Bible. Daniel 8 is about 168 BC, my friend. And there was no image set up to worship in the temple near 70 AD either. And that you don’t recognize hyperbole in Acts 2 is also amazing. I can understand why people give up as you claim. I’ve been more than generous with you in my time, but I can no longer carry on this unintelligible conversation. May Christ's love be evident to all in your life.

Best wishes for you.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

I’ve been more than generous with you in my time, but I can no longer carry on this unintelligible conversation.

NO, that's not quite it Cameron. What has happened is that I have not allowed you to back out and deflect atention away from the truth. I have constantly provided biblical verses to back my statements and you are unable to deal with the biblical truth I present.

When this happens to people who promote a false religious doctrine they belittle the adversary or simply just run and hide. They have to save face somehow and there are a few ways to do that they think. One is to hopefully convince listeners(readers) that the other guy is the one confused.

You never used any biblical evidence to explain the two verses in Luke I kept bringing up, you only got more insistant that your interpretation is the right one.

You had nothing to say of substance to the Rev 2:25 verse and you only explained some way to understand a verse other that what was written word for word. Actually what you tried to explain to me is that Jesu didn't reallyknow what He was talking about and here is my interpretation of OT scripture that Jesus should have said.

All these things will hapopen before this generation passes.............

Actually you never got as far as many others have, but no futurist has ever stuck it out...ever.

Thank you
noble6

 

[Geo]

"All these things will happen before this generation passes............."


The question we should actually be asking is this one:

"How long is a generation?"


Is it perhaps 14.000 days long, and the days of the Gentiles
will be over next week?

http://www.rapture2005.com
http://wonderful1.com/wst_page3.html
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eternalhome101/jesus.html

THE GENERATION OF JESUS LASTED EXACTLY 14,000 DAYS
THE GENERATION OF MOSES LASTED EXACTLY 14,000 DAYS.

Rosh HaShanah (or Feast of Trumpets) is the Jewish new year.
According to Jewish writings, It is believed to be the day that God
created the world. It is also taught that the dead will be raised
on this day and the wedding of the Messiah will take place. This is
also the day that many believe the "catching away of the saints"
or Rapture will occur. This day is also known as the "Last Trump"
because rams horn trumpets were joyfully blown throughout the
land on this day.

Remember what the Apostle Paul wrote:

"...We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment,
in the blinking of an eye, at the Last Trump: for the trumpet shall
sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality... Then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."
I corinthians 15:51

Noah was told that a flood was coming, and as the time approached
God gave him seven days notice. "Seven days from now I will send
rain on the earth..."

Both Abraham and Lot were told in advance of the destruction of Sodom.

Noah was told that a flood was coming, and as the time approached God gave him seven days notice. "Seven days from now I will send rain on
the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face
of the earth every living creature I have made. And after the seven
days the floodwaters came on the earth. " Genesis 7:4 Jesus said that
His coming would be like the days of Noah:

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,up to the day Noah entered the ark;
and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and
took them all away. Matthew 24:37

 

[noblej6]

Hi Geo,

Is it perhaps 14.000 days long, and the days of the Gentiles
will be over next week?

14000 years is about 38 years the link calculates. Here is Matthews generation.

Matthew 1
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

I read that Matthews generation here calculates to something around 41 years.....close.

Justme

 

[noblej6]

Hi Forum,

I would appreciate reading how the pre-wrath theory deals with this. Nothing explained it to me in the previous posts.

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.

29"But immediately after the )tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

30"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky

We know there is wrath of God in this deal somewhere and this thread talks about a pre-wrath rapture which comes before the 3.5 years of wrth after the tribulation........................(there are so many theories of this,,I hope I haven't mixed a couple together here) so where in this time of IMMEDIATELY can we squeeze in 3.5 years of wrath?

My answer is that the wrath of God is the same as the Great Tribulation.

noble6

 

[Vic C.]

Noble, no offense, but this has been explained several times in the End Times Forum. Maybe you have read them and you didn't understand or maybe you missed them. Dunno, but lets look at some key, parallel verses...

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

pretty much matches...

Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

It's safe to assume the events in Revelation 6 are sequential and it's believed the events prior to Rev. 6:12 are part of the Tribulation. Jesus even tells us that much in Matthew 24:29... "Immediately after the tribulation of those days". Then He goes on to tell of the events that follow, which I pointed out match up with the events in Rev.6:12

Now here's the kicker... notice it comes after 6:12...

Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

The Wrath comes after the Great Tribulation, making them two seperate events. Isaiah seems to confirm this...

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Isaiah 13:11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
Isaiah 13:12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.
Isaiah 13:13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Even Ezekiel gets into the action here...

Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
Ezekiel 32:8 All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD.
Ezekiel 32:9 I will also vex the hearts of many people, when I shall bring thy destruction among the nations, into the countries which thou hast not known.

Ooh, Joel too...

Joel 2:10 The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
Joel 2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Wherever you read The Day of The Lord, know it is speaking of God's 'day' of Wrath, not 'tribulation'. Tribulation is upon all people, for God is the respector of none. When tribulation is centered on God's elect, it WILL become "Great". Here's David displaying his desire for God to deliver him from tribulation...

1 Samuel 26:24 And, behold, as thy life was much set by this day in mine eyes, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the LORD, and let him deliver me out of all tribulation.

Here is Jesus relating tribulation to persecution...

Matthew 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Here's Jesus talking about Tribulation...

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Here's Luke...

Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Here's Paul...

Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

2 Cor 1:4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

1 Th 3:4 For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know.

Finally, there is...

Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

This is right after it is announced the wrath is coming and just prior to it starting.

In all case above, we see many warnings we all will suffer tribulation and persecution, culminating in what is called The Great Tribulation; a direct attack against God's saints. Nowhere are we promised to be spared (except for those in Rev 3:10) BUT, we ARE promised this...

1 Thess 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

By reading these verses and passages above, I have to conclude the Great Tribulation and The Day of the Lord (God's Wrath) are two seperate events.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Vic,

Thanks for responding.


Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken

Okay, I usually refer to this a the celestial display which INCLUDES the coming...........

This verse is after the above in the Olivet.

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming.........

Si immediately after the tribulation is the celestial display and AT THAT TIME (vese 39) the coming.

THis is what I say about Jesus words trump man's interpretation of OT prophecies, interpretations of Revelation, etc.

Now here is the point I want to make. You have listed a quite a few verses from all over that show the , can I just call it the celestial display, the sun and the moon stuff, etc. However, IF the wrath is the same as the TRIB it still all fits. Rev 14 definately talks about the wrath of God, yet it fits with the harvest at Matthew 13.

As I read chapter 6 of Revelation I see a heavenly scene being described to John by an angel. Here the book discusses the coming wrath of the Lamb. When I approch that with the mindset of "the wrath is the TRIB" it all fits for me too. The only thing is that it still fits with the OLivet as well.

So my question to you now becomes, how do you reconcile this statement that Jesus made.

29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory

That says at the time of the celestial events the son of man coms and that is immediately after the distress of those days or as this translation says the TRIBULATION.

29"But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

I can never get around thinking that when this denominational doctrine is trying to negate the actual sentences which Jesus Himself spoke. It looks to me that it trys to cast doubt on the obvious meaning of the thoughts of Jesus Christ.

So again how do you reconcile the 'immediately' and 'at that time" of Matthew 24:29 and 30.

I'm going to read thru your post a few more times and see if I can get a glimpse of the meaning thru your eyes. I can see mindset making it work for you because mindset makes it fit for me too, but I want to get deeper than that.

noble6

 

[noblej6]

Hi Vic,

I've been going over your post.

I assume you see this as the 'Christians' have no need to fear the wrath of God, but it is Christians' involved in the Great tribulation.

I think we have to keep the GREAT tribulation separate and apart from just plain tribulation. Plain tribulation or daily problems will be with us forever on this planet as we know it today. The great tribulation only occurs once and is before the parousia.

If I am correct in this assumption, I have found one of the differences in our understanding. I don't feel believers have anything to fear from the GREAT tribulation either. Even Jesus asks for prayers for people to flee to avoid that.

Anyway my first step toward understanding your view is..do you feel Christians will be killed in the GREAT tribulation and the wicked will die during the wrath of God?
Thanks

noble6

 

[Judy]

Anyway my first step toward understanding your view is..do you feel Christians will be killed in the GREAT tribulation and the wicked will die during the wrath of God?

I would say yes... the "Great tribulation" is when the Antichrist reveals who he really is... and will persecute and kills all who will not worship him and receive his mark. That will included christians and nor christians.

The wrath of God is for Satan and the rest of the fallen angels and on an unbelieving, unrepentant people.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Judy,

Thanks for stopping by.

the "Great tribulation" is when the Antichrist reveals who he really is... and will persecute and kills all who will not worship him and receive his mark. That will included christians and nor christians.

The wrath of God is for Satan and the rest of the fallen angels and on an unbelieving, unrepentant people.

Yes, I thought that is how it was taken. Except I hadn't thought about the Satan part.

So in this theology God has the wicked killed and the antichrist is responsible for deaths of Christians.

So this is how Vic pieces this together using these verses.

In all case above, we see many warnings we all will suffer tribulation and persecution, culminating in what is called The Great Tribulation; a direct attack against God's saints. Nowhere are we promised to be spared (except for those in Rev 3:10) BUT, we ARE promised this...

1 Thess 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

noble6

 

[Vic C.]

Anyway my first step toward understanding your view is..do you feel Christians will be killed in the GREAT tribulation and the wicked will die during the wrath of God?

Judy answered it quite well. :D

Judy, Cameron and myself pretty much base our understanding on Robert Van Kampen's book, "The Sign" with each of us drawing on how we understand scripture as well. Cameron goes as far as doing his own add'l research and writing his own works. A good lexicon and dictionary like Vine's has helped me a lot.