Revelation discussion - 2 of 2

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Rev. Blume:
> Mat 24:15  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of

> desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the

> holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
> Mat 24:16  Then let them which be in Judaea flee into 
> the mountains:
> 
> But that occurred in 70 AD.  People actually fled Judaea
> then in response to this very command.

Me:
Why then does that mean that they CANNOT flee AGAIN in the
near future.  

Let's look at some things that we agree upon.

1. We are in the "age of the gentiles" since Jerusalem is
still "trodden under foot."

2. The age of the gentiles will end.

3. The Jews will be tried. (Jacobs trouble)

4. Paul spoke of a MAN of perdition that will stand in A
temple.

5. The Jews are READY to build a temple as SOON as
Jerusalem is no longer "trodden under foot" by the
Gentiles.

6. Jesus is coming for His Bride (gentiles) at the end of
the age of the gentiles.  

7. There will be a literal rapture or catching away of the
Bride.

8. God NEVER has and NEVER will pour out his WRATH upon His
children.

9. The book of Revelation speaks of the out pouring of
God's wrath upon "THE EARTH."

10. There hasn't been a rapture yet.

I could go on but let's deal with these first.  First let's
see if we agree upon these and then we can build from here.
 
Rev. Blume
> Agreed.  But due to the similarity of wording in 1 Cor 6,
used by the
> SAME AUTHOR who wrote 2 Thess, it seems pretty strong an
argument
> when no similar wording is as close to 2 Thess 2
regarding a 
> building.
> 
> Again, I feel Paul would not call a building THE TEMPLE
after
> the age of the shadows of ritualism has passed away.

Me:
Why not?  If this is what the Temple will be called by
those that are about to build it at the FIRST opportunity,
then to call it anything else would be an error, right?

Rev. Blume:
> BAck to my point concerning a future trib period.  This
keeps cropping
> up and we must address the issue upon which basis you
believe there
> to be a future trib period.  

Me:
If I am not mistaken, that is the direction that the list
above will take us.  I have never sat down and orginized
the support for the pre-trib 
rapture of the Church and the subsequent trial of the Jews
and outpouring of the wrath of God upon the unbelievers.  I
thought that all would agree that this was the ONLY WAY it
makes ANY sense.  Let's go with the list however as a means
for the "proof" of a pre-trib (or post-trib) rapture.  Once
this is established I think we will be able to LEAP through
the rest.

Rev. Blume:
You did mention, though too briefly,
> taht Revelation's reference to 3.5 years points that way.
 And I indicated
> rather detailingly that the ORIGINAL idea of a 7 year
trib comes from
> an incorrect interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27.   

Me:
1. This is not the bases for MY tally of 7 years.  It comes
from the account of two three and a half year periods.  We
will get there but let's clear up the rapture first.

2. If there are two 3 1/2 year periods then the
interpretation of Daniel would be dead on.  I have heard an
interpretation of this now that you mention it (from my
dear departed Elder friend) and he said that his
interpretation wasn't a per the norm and all I can remember
is that I agreed with his (pretty much) which by definition

would set me at odds with the accepted thought of the day.

Rev. Blume:
> If there is NO future trib period then all the thoughts
about a temple
> to be built according to "prophecy" is incorrect.  

Me:
You, or no one else I have EVER heard, saved or otherwise
have EVER offered anything more than SPECULATION that the
post-trib interpretation MAY be correct and have not one
bit of evidence that would make the pre-trib interpretation
IMPOSSIBLE.  I believe, if I read the way that list is
presented, that we will indeed arrive at the "proof" that
the post-trib is unscriptural.  Mid-trib never made any
sense but I guess we could entertain that too.

I CERTAINLY will be interested to see.

Rev. Blume:
"Except the Lord build the house, they
> labour in vain."  

Me:
This Temple WILL be in vain.  Won't change the name
however.

Me B4:
> > I think they (prophecies/visions) are interwoven but as
I said a little earlier that the salvation aspect is the
most inportant.

 Rev. Blume:
> Perhaps that is spot-on the money!!!  May the Lord lead
us to all truth!

Me:
> I think Oneness people can preach salvation from
Revelation
> better than anybody, since we Know who the ONE is on the
throne!!!

Me:
(this is not a breach of protocol and if it is, well....)
Brother, Oneness people can preach salvation in ANY
situation because we know who sits on the throne!!!!!

Timothy Litteral
472 Grant St.
Marion Ohio 43302
trlitteral@usa.net
http://members.tripod.com/~trlitteral