Extremist!

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

Timothy Litteral wrote:
 
> Hey!  Where does this school of thought come from that if
> the Chruch is not going through THE tribualtion that
> they/we aren't
> going to have ANY tribualtion.  Don't worry we will have
> PLENTY!

Actually a good question would be, as I have been trying to
tackle, where did the school of thought come from that there is
a period called a "Great Tribulation" in the future?

You took it for granted there is a future time callsed so,
without any proofs.  And you started making statements which
force the reader to think there is, also.  I began tackling that
issue and explaining where it came from and why it is not true.

In Matthew, the reference to "great tribulation" simply denotes
a more severe increase of hardships we already go through.  

Richard Masoner mentioned that one time a long while back.

There is no warrant for that term to be made into a label
of a future space of specific time.  Sooooo....  I contend
that the Church has always gone through the tribulations of this
world.  Most references to tribulation in the Word of God referred
to God's people experiencing hardships.  Tribulation simply goes
up and down in scale of hardship through the years.  Why should the
church escape any more intensified tribulation?  The Bible actually
teaches the opposite.

If you can take Matthew 24's reference to "great tribulation"
(when Matthew did not even say "THE" great tribulation, as so many say
today), then I can take Acts 14:22 and begin promoting a label 
called "THE MUCH TRIBULATION" which the church will go through, according
to taht verse.  Sounds silly, I know, but that is only due to the 
fact that there has been no paradigm formed around it like there has
been with Mathhew 24:21.  "THE GREAT TRIBULATION" would sound as
silly to the apostles' minds also.

In fact, Revelation says those out of "great tribulation"
are part of the church!

Rev 7:9  After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which 
no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, 
and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, 
clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Rev 7:13  And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, 
What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence 
came they?
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.

Only one group of people can be called blood washed!  The Church.

There is no warrant at all for saying these are saints saved after the
church is raptured.  There is one plan and one plan only to be in the
church - Acts 2:38.  And when the Church is gone, no more Acts 2:38.  
So the only way these people can be saved by the blood of the lamb
is if the church is here during "the tribulation".  Which I don't
think is a future period, but has been since the Church began.

Are peopel in the CHURCH called "saints"?  Yes. Sounds like the 
"elect" argument.  You said the elecet always refers to the Jews.
We proved that is not true.  You said "The Temple of God" always
refers to the building.  We proved that was not true.  What about
the "saints"?

Rom 1:7  To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be 
saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the 
Lord Jesus Christ.

You see that you fail to notice that every reference to a people
who are here in the tribulation uses titles that describe church 
members in other parts of the New Testament.  NEVER is a title given
to a person on God's side in the tribulation which is not used
to describe a church member elsewhere.  If there was, then your
argument would clearly be correct.  But there is not.

You speak about a rapture before Revelation chapter so and so.  Yet
show me one clear reference to a rapture in Revelation and I will
show you the clearest reference to denote saints raptured away
after tribulation.

AFter the Bible mentions people whose patience in Christ kept them from
the mark fo the beast, we read about the rapture.

Rev 14:11  And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever 
and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the 
beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Rev 14:12  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they 
that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 14:13  And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, 
Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, 
saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and 
their works do follow them.
Rev 14:14  And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the 
cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a 
golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
Rev 14:15  And another angel came out of the temple, crying with 
a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, 
and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest 
of the earth is ripe.
Rev 14:16  And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on 
the earth; and the earth was reaped.

How is He coming?  In the clouds????

> As to who is refered to in the book of Revelation as the
> Elect it is the Church and then 144,000.  It can indeed be
> both.  We get too wraped up into this "either/or"
> mentality; the Chruch will go through the Tribulation OR it

In my opinion, this is another label that was never intended to 
be thought about in this manner.

The only time "the Tribulation" is mentioned as that is in:

Mat 24:29  Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall 
the sun be darkened,...

I could say the same thing about the church in China during communism's
take-over.  "In the tribulation of those days...."  But I cannot
truna round and take that term and make it a label that denotes
a specific time frame which can be applied ot no other day.

Never was "GREAT TRIBULATION" used in such manner as denote a specific
time as though it is similar to saying THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.
It was uised casually in a sentence simply describing increased trouble.

I contend that Tradition has accomplished this problem.

> will have NO tribulation, the term "Elect" refers to the
> Church OR the Jews but NOT to both, 

Elect refers to Church AND the Jews.  BOTH.  In God's mind all
is going to wind up ONE people in glory.

> The angel is ALWAYS
> Jesus OR it is NEVER Jesus...   

Look at the description of the mighty angel in Rev. 10, and
notice also that ANGEL simply means "messenger".  It refers
to the pastor in Revelation 2 through 3.  ANGEL simply
does not always mean what you think.  Sort of like the word 
"prophecy".  "Prophecy" is only futuristic when it is
"predicitive prophecy".  Prophecy simply means the giving of a 
word from God.  Preachers prophesy everytime they preach God's Word. 
Preaching Acts 2:38 is prophecy.  But that term has been pulled
out of original intent, like "angel" has in modern culture - 
in the "North Americanization" of the Gospel here little
tribulation ever occurred compared to the rest of the world.

> Where does this stuff come
> from?  I know that much of what I have said has had no
> proof but this is not because there is none but that the
> proper ground work hasn't yet been laid.  If we are to
> CHOKE on a couple of points then this will truly go
> nowhere.  If we ALL have to agree on a couple of these
> points (the book/the angel/post trib rapture...) we will go
> NOWHERE!  The "proof" is in the step by step "analysis"
> from the beginning.  We keep jumping ahead and stalling!

You got it all wrong.  We must first seek the reason we BASE
our understanding on the truibulation period, for example.
You cannot simply take it for granted that there will be 
a future "Great Tribulation" period and throw out statements
such as "during this time the church will be gone", because
inside of that maneuver is a forcing of an idea to the reader 
that he/she must accept the supposed fact that there is a future
time period called "THE GREAT TRIBULATION".  To solve that 
dillemma BEFORE one walks through Revelation is to lay a
good basis.  If there is no future tribulation period as you say
there is, then all of Revelation is solved right there!!!

But you have continued to make statements that force the reader 
to believe there is that period without any basis for your assertions.
That is the reason I brought oup tribulation aspects.

You say 3.5 and 3.5 are mentioned.  Prove that they are not talking 
about the same 3.5 years rather than two consecutive time periods
of 3.5 years.

Try to think of the reader as one who never heard of the Bible before
as you explain your predicitve prophecy interpretations.  That will
make you prove every statement you make to be true.  Including a future
"tribulation" period.  AND THEN we will go somehewhere.
 
> As far as PROOF anyway, NO ONE can support any of their
> claims to the level of proof, not even salvation!

You can do it much better than you have been, at least.  But you 
supplied absolutely no proof for saying "the tribulation" is future.

> I will wait to discuss Matt ch 24 until we get to Rev. ch
> 6.  It will become clear why, Lord willing!

How do you want to study Revelation?  First you started going through
chapter one, and then you said you will keep it so that I make
details and you respond.  And now you say we are hopping back and forth
and "stalling".

-- 
In Christ,
Mike Blume
mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm