I believe Brother Jim is correct in this. If the seven letters to the seven Churches are not meant for all of us we might as well sell our Bibles on ebay and go out and party hardy.

In Christ,
George

Jim,

I think that you missed the word "seem" in my post. Perhaps if I said "seems to me" it would have removed some heat. I wasn't "asserting" anything, I was merely stating that that was how they appeared to me.

My statement about the muslims wiping out the seven chruches, was that Christ made good on his threat to remove the Ephesian church's "...remove thy candlestick out of his place..." (Rev 2:5), and not only that, but the rest of the church.

This doesn't take away the relevance of the letters to us today, as there are principles for living contained and the promises made and exhortations the repent are universal. What I am saying is that if the statements Christ made to the church at Philadelphia were alluding to the fact that if severe persecution wouldn't break out in their lifetime, then that offers a plausible alternative to the rapture theory being described in Rev 3:10 (Consider Methuselah and the flood, and Josiah and the captivity).

OK, OK, I will definitely give you that.

I should have taken that into consideration before posting in force.

Sorry about that.

Love in Christ,

Jim

No biggy

I am going to switch gears here a little bit if you folks will allow:

This epistle from Paul to the church of the Thessalonians is about faith during persecutions and tribulations.

In verse 6 we read that God will "recompense tribulation to them that trouble you".

Is there anyone who disagrees that the "you" here refers to Christians abroad?

If you do agree, then when is this "tribulation" that the Lord recompenses against them going to occur?


And another thing,

Who are these people who will be sent this delusion, and for what purpose is it?

They obviously are those who "believed not the truth", and are all going to "be damned". But why the delusion? What purpose does it serve?

My conviction is that they are the Gentile people who rejected the Gospel of Christ, and were left behind at the rapture.

Let me know your thoughts,

Love in Christ,

Jim

Okay, this is one consideration. Again allow me to present another one. The people who will (future tense at the time of Paul's writing of the epistle) be sent a strong delusion from God are people who are pronfessing believers who who refuse to bow their knee to the sovereignity of God (consider how God dealt with Ahab in 2 Kings 1. Why would God do this?

Allow me to put this into context, as it lies:

First I'll set the stage. In v3, we learn of a "man of sin" who had not been revealed, at the time of Christ, who is described with a title used to describe Judas Escariot, "son of perdition". Consider in 2 Tim 3:17 where Paul wrote of a "..man of God..." Who was the individual the he was refering to? Of course he wasn't refering to a specific man, but more a type of man. In the same way, the "man of sin" isn't necessarily a man but could be a type of man.

Considering the Judas Aescariot description, he could be a man who stands amongst "apostles" and would be consider by his peers to be one.

v4 - "...sitteth in the temple.." could hold a place of leadership in the church (remember the Paul constantly refered to the chruch as God's temple, built with living stones).
"exalting himself above all that is worshipped...shewing himself to be God..." he would reject all other modes of worship, demanding that he be considered to be God.

v6 - "..that witholdeth that he might be revealed in his time." There was something resisting the spread of the gospel, that's removal was to be a sign for them that this "man of sin" in the church was soon to be revealed. What was the thing that tried to "withold" the spread of the gospel? At the time of authorship it was Nero, and would continue through the following emperors.

v7 - "...mystery of iniquity.." How can it be that God would allow iniquity into His church? This question has dogged the church since it's begining. Considering the parable of the tares, we see that God allows the infiltration of false converts into the chruch until the judgement when they will all be harvested together. Now how's that for a "mystery". Corruption was already creeping into the ranks of the church, however their would come a time when it was widescale.

v8 - "..shall that Wicked be revealed, who the Lord shall comsume.." this "man of sin" shall remain until the "brightness of his coming", when he shall be consumed.

v9 - "...all power and signs and lying wonders." - the "man of sin" will be chacterised by illusions of miraculous power.

v10 - seesm to inply that those who have moved beyond knowing the truth, into loving it (consider Paris Reidhead's experience in Africa, as recalled in his sermon Ten Shekels and a Shirt. He knew of heaven, hell, and God's justice and mercy, but he thought that he could "improve on the injustice of God", all the while ignorant of this condition in his life).

v11 - Consider in the light of Rom 1:24, although here the lust is for independance of mind and will from God, instead of consecrated submission, as described in Gal 2:20.

Consider that the world doesn't need to have sent a "strong delusion" because it is already under one. It is only by the mercy of God that they will ever see his salvation, and I believe that he gives everyone a moment of decision, after which He pulls the curtain closed again.

It makes more sense that this is the professing church that it is refering to, and that the true church are suffering alongside of them (in the light of the parable of the tares), as the "man of sin" sitteth in the temple.

I'm not completely sure, but I think I'm following you. But let me ask you a question.

Where in God's Word does it say that the bride of Christ will suffer 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.
Revelation 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Returning to something you said earlier, Jim.regarding the papcay. You said it is an Eclesiastical Power. It never was only and eclesiastical power. It has always also been a Political Power. The Pope has ALWAYS claimed power over kings, in fact calls himself King of Kings. He has a civil service, the Curia, he has cardinals who are ministers. the Vatican is a state. Until 1870 the papal states covered most of Italy. Then they were laost to the king of Itlay. For 56 years, the Pope had no domain but the Vatican palace, until Mussolini returned the vatican state to the Pope, when the vatican became a state again. It has its own postage stamps and issues its own Euros. What eclesiastical power alone issues Euros?

http://www.samandra.freeserve.co.uk/euro.html



Love in Christ

I was talking in the line of context with the tribulation. e.g. the 70th week of Daniel.

So, where does it state that the bride of Christ will go through the tribulation?

It took many centuries to develop a political stance, which has waxed and waned. It was never ALWAYS a political power.

And I can claim just about anything I want about myself, does that make it true? Queen Elizabeth of England didn't think so. The pope cannot "give" power to a King, but you will find many, even your invoked Benito, who constantly used the RCC as it's puppet and benefit, which one more figure will do again one day.

You can take entities with similarities described in scripture all day long but that doesn't mean anything, it is always conjecture. And I will even admit, that there are certain things about eschatology that will always be conjecture until that glorious day.

Where does it say that the tribulation is during the 70th week of Daniel, or for that matter that the 70th week was seperate fron the other 69?

The tribulation that the Church has passed through was far longer and fiercer than any 3 1/2 year tribulation. It went on for hundreds of years, untill a few years before the reformation, the church was all but wiped out. The Pope and the King of Spain actually exchanged gifts on the occasion.

You state that this is the interpretation of it's fullfillment:

Yet just 5 verses before that we see the following:

I am almost afraid to ask you.....who do you think the two witnesses were? You just stated that verse 11:10 has come to pass.

But then again, you also stated that the exchange of the gifts was because:

So, you don't even believe in the two witnesses?

David, I believe you to have a seriously flawed interpretation of prophecy. This is not said with any malice whatsoever, just my faithful true conviction on this matter.

Jim

Don't have much time, so will have to keep this extremely. I will back up with scripture at later date.

The two witnesses are to be interperated according to Zechariah's Lampstand and Olive Tree. Historicists hold that this is a representation of the Protestant Reformers message of the "Sola Scritura (Lampstand)" and the "Priesthood of believers (Olive Tree)", over the RC message of "Church Tradition" and "Ordained Priests".

How about 2 Tim 3:13? "Yea, and all who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

Can I recomend Keith Daniel as someone who describes the concept of persecution, affliction and tribulation of the believer excellently and biblically (reciting whole books of the Bible at times).
(Note that 2 Tim 3:1 puts this in the context of the "last days" while accurately describing the corrupt church leaders of the RCC in the dark ages, and describing the differences between them and Paul as an example of a godly leader, and an exhortation for Timothy to disregard their ways and to remember his mother and grandmother's teaching of the OT scriptures).

How about you tell us where it says that the bride doesn't go through the tribulation?

Jim,

It seems to me that you are more than happy for forceful assertions, as long as they come from your fingers. When I first came here, you and others pulled me with accusations of dogamtism and leaning on man's opinions over scripture. What I was actually doing was giving man's opinions about what scripture says (which incidently is what you are doing, except that you are quoting yourself). You have continually asserted that your stance is correct, because you have "received it from the Holy Spirit, direct", through your study times. Well sir, each of the people I have quoted and referred to would claim the same thing, only they have the humility to admit that they could be wrong.

I have only tried to present a different point of view, which I believe is plausable when weighed with scripture. As long as I have been a Christian, I have been looking for one person who will present the "pre" or "mid-trib" viewpoints that will stand up to scritpural scrutiny, and alas I still haven't found one who can, without either ignoring whole chucks of scripture, or over allegorising. One thing that I have learned in my studying of eschatology, is that many an error in the twenty-twentyfirst century church, stem back to dispensational theology, which is the "siamese-twin" of pre-trib rapture teaching.

So far every scripture that you have quoted, I could contextually prove do not cut out a post-trib or historicist viewpoint.

The funny thing is, Post-Tribbers and Historicists tend to dodge the whole issue as irrelevant, leaning on the Millenium as their focus. Personally, I can't make sence of how a rapture could occur before the first resurrection, which occurs after the tribulation and before the return of Christ (where we will reign with him), if "the dead arise first" in 2 Thess. Whether the "great tribulation" is great as in duration (Historicist) or great as in intensity (Post Trib), the rapture obivously comes after it, and results in the uniting of Christ with his bride, fulfilling Enoch's vision (as described in Jude).

Show me one verse that proves otherwise, and I'll consider a difference. But with all due respect, know has done so yet. I hope you can, because for me, I would rather be able to mis suffering. However I for one am also content to "know him, in the fellowship of his sufferings".

In Christ,

Az

PS - May I request a respectful reply to this challenge, as I have endeavoured to do so to you, in spite of seeing a continual arrogance proceeding from your keyboard.