Christian Readers discussion

I would like to know your thoughts on the subject and what scriptures you have to support it.

Mark 13:24-27

24 But in those days, after that tribulation , the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

I see the scripture, but I do not see your position on the subject. Will believers go through the Great Tribulation?

Robert wrote: "I see the scripture, but I do not see your position on the subject. Will believers go through the Great Tribulation?"

My position is in complete agreement with the Bible. Which part of the quoted passage do you find to be unclear?

Robert, the question is will believers go through the Tribulation Period. Your responses affirm that there will be a Tribulation Period.

Having said that, no, I do not believe that Christians who are alive when the Tribulation Period begins will go through it. Admittedly, no verses that I am aware of state this position specifically. However, there are verses which suggest Christians will not go through it because of how God dealt with believers in the past.

The first is in Genesis 18:20-33 during a conversation between Abraham and the Lord, when the Lord revealed His plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham ask God if He would destroy the righteous with the wicked (v. 23). Then he asked if the Judge of all the earth do right (v. 25). God granted that He would not. God then sent angels to tell Lot to remove his family from Sodom before its destruction (Genesis 19:12-14). Another indication is found in Ezekiel 9 when God judged Jerusalem for their idolatry. However, before God did so, He marked those who who remained faithful to prevent them from judgment and spared them from the avengers. There are other passages which demonstrate how God spared those who were faithful before punishing the guilty.

Robert wrote: "Robert wrote: "I see the scripture, but I do not see your position on the subject. Will believers go through the Great Tribulation?"

My position is in complete agreement with the Bible. Which part..."

The first part of my question states, I want to know your thoughts. You simply listed a scripture without comment and I wanted you to make it absolutely clear to anyone reading what you think about the subject. It is not meant to be a prickly subject, I just want to know what people think about the topic.

Tyrone, please note there are two Robert's in the thread, myself and the moderator.

I like the scriptures you gave in support of no tribulation and the thinking is inline with the nature of God. I believe where we get some confusion on the issue is with the terms in the Bible. The Great Tribulation and the Wrath of God are actually two separate events.

Observe what the scriptures have to say about the Day of the Lord and the Great Tribulation.

Day of the Lord (the Wrath of God)
St. Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

1 Thessalonians 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

As we can see from the preceding scriptures believers will not experience the wrath of God, also known as the Lord’s Day. However, are they also exempt from the Great Tribulation?


The Great Tribulation
St. 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.

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

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The Great Tribulation is an event that all believers will share. We must understand that tribulation or persecution is a normal part of the Christian experience. The kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of God are diametrically opposed to each other. The tribulations we suffer are because of the war of the flesh, but thanks to Christ, we have the ultimate victory.

Thanks, but I did note that there are two Roberts. The first part of my comment was directed to the moderator who provided the scriptures.

I'm aware that there is a difference between the Great Tribulation (which is the last 3.5 years of the Tribulation Period) versus the wrath of God which has been demonstrated at various times in the past.

That being said, those Christians who come to Christ during the Tribulation Period will or may experience the Great Tribulation if they survive the judgments. No Christian who is a believer prior to the Rapture of the Church will enter the Tribulation Period, and therefore will not experience the Great Tribulation. Obviously many Christians have different opinions and interpretation on this subject, which is ok.

Tyrone wrote: "Robert, the question is will believers go through the Tribulation Period. Your responses affirm that there will be a Tribulation Period. Having said that, no, I do not believe that Christians who ..."

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."

Robert wrote: "The first part of my question states, I want to know your thoughts. You simply..."

Why do you value my opinions over the Bible?

My thoughts are exactly what the Scripture states. Why do I need to add my commentary?

Robert wrote: "As we can see from the preceding scriptures believers will not experience the wrath of God, also known as the Lord’s Day. However, are they also exempt from the Great Tribulation?"

Where does the Bible say that the "Day of the Lord" equals the "wrath of God"?

Tyrone wrote: "Thanks, but I did note that there are two Roberts. The first part of my comment was directed to the moderator who provided the scriptures. I'm aware that there is a difference between the Great Tr..."

Matthew 10:22 - "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved ."

I started this discussion for a friendly discussion about Revelation. I am hoping we all follow the group rules, so that people feel free to share.

Robert, the Day of the Lord goes by many names in scripture, but it always equates to the Wrath of God. You have to read the surrounding verses for context. I will list just a few.

Day of the Lord’s Wrath - Zephaniah 1:18
Day of the Lord’s Anger - Zephaniah 2:3
Day of the Lord - Zechariah 14:1
Day of the Lord - Malachi 4:5
Day of the Lord - 2 Peter 3:10
Day of God - 2 Peter 3:12
Day of God Almighty - Revelation 16:14

Tyrone wrote: "Thanks, but I did note that there are two Roberts. The first part of my comment was directed to the moderator who provided the scriptures.

I'm aware that there is a difference between the Great Tr..."

You are putting the Great Tribulation off into the future and I understand that belief, but I would have to ask do you have any scriptural support for it?

The key to Revelation is in chapter one verse 19. It states, that book of Revelation or the visions inside represent the past (Old Testament), present (Church Age) and the future (Wrath of God). If we do not use the key to interpret the book, then how can we interpret correctly?

“Revelation is one of those books that have the key (the outline) right in the door, in Rev. 1:19.”
The Life Plan Study Bible (NKJV) 2004

“Three major divisions of Revelation must be recognized. John was commanded to write concerning (1) things past … (2) things present … and (3) things future …”
The Scofield Study Bible (NKJV) 2002

“This is the key verse of the book; it indicates the threefold plan of the prophecy; and it is the only safe guide to its correct interpretation.”
King James Bible Commentary 1999

Robert wrote: "I started this discussion for a friendly discussion about Revelation. I am hoping we all follow the group rules, so that people feel free to share."

What is unfriendly about asking for Scripture or asking why my opinions are viewed as necessary when the Bible says exactly what I agree with?

Group rules "...adherence to the Bible is NOT "being mean-spirited"

Robert wrote: "Robert, the Day of the Lord goes by many names in scripture, but it always equates to the Wrath of God. You have to read the surrounding verses for context. I will list just a few.

Day of the Lord..."

It is your opinion that these all refer to the same thing. Is there Scripture that says they are?

Robert wrote: "Robert wrote: "I started this discussion for a friendly discussion about Revelation. I am hoping we all follow the group rules, so that people feel free to share."

What is unfriendly about asking ..."

I asked for an opinion and scripture to backup the opinion. You are participating, but only with half of what I asked, then you want to know why you need to give your opinion. The tone lacks humility and refusing to adhere to the question, but persisting in participating demonstrates a lack of respect.

Robert wrote: "Robert wrote: "Robert, the Day of the Lord goes by many names in scripture, but it always equates to the Wrath of God. You have to read the surrounding verses for context. I will list just a few.

..."

I did list scriptures for you. If you don't believe the scriptures or do not believe they pertain to the same thing, that is okay. I am not here to argue the Bible.

You are putting the Great Tribulation off into the future and I understand that belief, but I would have to ask do you have any scriptural support for it?

Christ speaks about the last days in Matthew 24 in response to a question about it from his disciples. He begins in v. 3 to discuss the things that will begin to happen, including the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Daniel 9), but in v. 21 Christ introduces the Great Tribulation. This period is culminated by His return, which He also spoke about in Matthew 24:30-31.

Allow me to make a comment about Bible commentary and interpretation.

I'm not trying to offend anyone. I have learned that some people believe the Bible and scriptures speak for themselves and need no commentary. Others believe that the Bible and scriptures are made clearer by commentary and experience.

We must learn to accept and respect how people choose to present the Word of God (presuming the truth is being spoken). We have our preference with regard to the methodology we prefer. I have yet to see uniformity in how the Bible is taught and interpreted, and doubt if I'll see it in my lifetime. However, when it is taught or presented in a manner that is not consistent with how I prefer it, I still listen hoping to learn something.

Robert wrote: "I asked for an opinion and scripture to backup the opinion..."

OK, here is my opinion. Quoted Scripture is correct!

Robert wrote: "The tone lacks humility and refusing to adhere to the question, but persisting in participating demonstrates a lack of respect..."

This appears to be a diversionary tactic in an effort to deflect from the fact that you have a problem with me agreeing with the Bible.

Robert wrote: "I did list scriptures for you. If you don't believe the scriptures or do not believe they pertain to the same thing, that is okay. I am not here to argue the Bible..."

Not one of the verses you referenced says anything like the Day of the Lord = the day of God's wrath.

Your private interpretation arrives at that conclusion.

Tyrone wrote: "Allow me to make a comment about Bible commentary and interpretation.

I'm not trying to offend anyone. I have learned that some people believe the Bible and scriptures speak for themselves and need no commentary..."

2 Peter 1:20 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation."

Proper interpretation is critical... but if one's interpretation opposes the clear statements of the quoted passage... it is a wrong understanding and should be rejected.

Do you really believe that the Bible cannot stand on it's own???

Robert wrote: "Robert wrote: "I did list scriptures for you. If you don't believe the scriptures or do not believe they pertain to the same thing, that is okay. I am not here to argue the Bible..."

Not one of th..."

If I listed all of the names we ascribe to Christ and you came back with where does it say in the Bible these are the names of Christ. That would simply be a nonsensical argument. Yet, this is how you have approached the Day of the Lord. You have to read the context of scriptures and derive its meaning. This is clear with the names of Christ and it should be just as clear with the Day of the Lord. To think of either of these as a private interpretation is ridiculous.

This is my last comment on the subject, you can have the last word. The purpose of the question was to stir up interest in the book and to really see what different people thought about the subject.

Tyrone wrote: "You are putting the Great Tribulation off into the future and I understand that belief, but I would have to ask do you have any scriptural support for it?

Christ speaks about the last days in Mat..."

This is a great scripture for us to look at closely. Jesus stated the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed, not one stone would be left on another. In response, His disciples asked three questions.

1. When will this happen (the destruction of the temple)?
2. What will be the sign of your coming?
3. What will be the sign of the end of the age?

We know that Jesus has not returned (Second Coming) and the temple has already been destroyed. We must clearly delineate Jesus’ response to know what scriptures pertain to a specific question. Unfortunately, He did not answer the questions in the order asked. Therefore, we need to look at the wording carefully to determine what question Jesus is answering. For brevity sake, I will put the associated scripture next to the question.

Question 1 When will this happen (the destruction of the temple)? St. Matthew 24:15-25

Question 2 What will be the sign of your coming? St. Matthew 24:26-31

Question 3 What will be the sign of the end of the age? St. Matthew 24:4-14

The abomination of desolation causes the temple to be destroyed. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, which would mean the abomination has already occurred and is not a future event. Notice everything is before the rapture of the Church described in verses 30-31.

Robert wrote: "If I listed all of the names we ascribe to Christ and you came back with where does it say in the Bible these are the names of Christ..."

I suggest you quote the Bible rather than divert attention with ad hominem attacks.

You falsely claimed that the Day of the Lord equals the day of God's wrath. But no Scripture says anything like that.

Robert wrote: Do you really believe that the Bible cannot stand on it's own???

There is a reason Bible colleges and Bible study exists.

Robert wrote: "Tyrone wrote: "You are putting the Great Tribulation off into the future and I understand that belief, but I would have to ask do you have any scriptural support for it?

Christ speaks about the l..."

I'm not sure what you're getting at? However, did you know there is to be a 3rd temple? In many instances, prophecy addresses an immediate situation, but it also tells us about a future spiritual fulfillment.

Tyrone wrote: "Robert wrote: Do you really believe that the Bible cannot stand on it's own???

There is a reason Bible colleges and Bible study exists."

So, you don't believe that God can communicate clearly in His Word.

Hmmm... OK?????

Robert wrote: So, you don't believe that God can communicate clearly in His Word."

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that studying the Bible to fully understand its meaning ... context and intent ... is necessary.

Tyrone wrote: "Robert wrote: So, you don't believe that God can communicate clearly in His Word."

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that studying the Bible to fully understand its meaning ... context and in..."
__________

What is superior?

1) what the Bible says (no commentary or private interpretation)?

or

2) someone's interpretation of what the Bible says?

Robert wrote: "Tyrone wrote: "Robert wrote: So, you don't believe that God can communicate clearly in His Word."

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that studying the Bible to fully understand its meaning ......"

I tend to agree with you; most people don't bother to study scripture. I love studying God's word. However, that verse you quoted from 2 Peter reads differently in other translations, and is a bit ambiguous in the Greek. Most translations assume Peter meant that no prophecy was written that wasn't inspired by God. no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. Which supports your belief that the Bible is the authority and inspired by God, but I don't think it supports the idea that no one should need scripture explained.

One reason we have to read all scripture is so we can understand it in context with other scriptures. So, individual verses can not necessarily stand on their own. On top of that, God says that
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:9
To assume we can read the scripture on our own and completely understand every word is, in my opinion, a bit arrogant. The Christian faith was meant to be lived in community, partly so we could get together and discuss those verses that go beyond our understanding and learn from one another. But that's why we need the entire scripture, so we never take any verse beyond what scripture says.

To give my opinion on the original question: I'm not sure this is something God wants us to worry about (although I lean toward a pre-tribulation rapture of the saints). I've read books by several theologians, men and women who know Greek as well as they know their native language, and they can't seem to agree on the timing of the rapture. There are many things in scripture God makes crystal clear. So, the fact that this, and the entire book of Revelation, is so cryptic makes me believe it's not something we should focus on right now. Christ was very clear that I'm supposed to go make disciples. (Matthew 28:19-20) He was very clear that I'm to demonstrate my faith by my love. (John 13:35) So, I'll focus on the things He was clear about. The things of Revelation will happen just the way God planned whether I understand His plan perfectly or not. Sometimes I wonder if He wrote it that way so we'd just have to trust Him to have the best planned for us. At any rate, I'll focus on disciples and let the professional theologians hash out Revelations.

Lynne wrote: "Robert wrote: "Tyrone wrote: "Robert wrote: So, you don't believe that God can communicate clearly in His Word."

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that studying the Bible to fully understand ..."

Lynne, thanks for joining the discussion. Do you have any scriptures to support the pre-tribulation rapture interpretation? As far as Revelation goes it can be a whole lot clearer if we put the visions in their proper dispensation. I believe God does want us to understand this last book of the Bible. Observe what Revelation 1:3 has to say about it.

3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Rev 1:1-3 (KJV)

I wrote the Final Message: Understanding the Book of Revelation to clarify the visions in the enigmatic book. I am confident it will give you a much clearer understanding of Revelation. Check it out for yourself and compare it to any other book on the subject.

Be blessed.

My only references for my pre-trib hope are Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20 where Jesus says those days will be shortened for the elect. I also respect the studies of Tim LaHaye who was considered by all to be an expert on the book of Revelation and believed in a pre-trib rapture. I don't believe the verse you cited means that the book of Revelation will be clear. I believe it means we should read it and we'll be blessed when we hear the prophecy. The NIV for verse three actually says "take to heart" and the Greek word used there can mean to keep watch over or ponder carefully. So I'm still not convinced anyone can interpret those visions entirely accurately yet. I've read books by Dr. David Jeremiah and commentaries by Matthew Henry and Barclay - none agree. These, along with LaHaye, have a deep understanding of the Greek and a close relationship with our Savior, yet they differ on their interpretations. And whose to say they aren't all correct. Perhaps God will do it all and He's given snippets of the interpretation to several of His followers because they don't necessarily contradict one another, they're just all different. I believe we should read the book of Revelation, and know it well enough that when we begin to see the signs we recognize them; however, if I'm more worried about when I'll go to heaven than taking others with me, I'm worthless to the Kingdom.

I think if you look carefully at Matthew 24, you will see the shortening of days is referring to the Great Tribulation. So, if God didn't shorten the tribulation no flesh would be saved.

Also, I didn't cited Revelation 1:3 to implied the book is clear, but to say it was meant for all believers to read and study it.

On one hand, you seem to believe no one can properly interpret Revelation and on the other, you believe we can know it well enough to see and recognize the signs. I don't know if both can be true at the same time, but maybe they can. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Be blessed.

Hi Robert (the modulator):

Correct me if I’m misinterpreting your posts.
You seem to think that biblical verses are self-evident and don't need an explanation.
For example, in your message 4 you asked,
“Which part of the quoted passage do you find to be unclear?” referring to your message 2.
Your version of Mark 13:25–26 has,
“And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.”

I think you know that stars are roughly the size of the sun—some are bigger and some are smaller—but all are humungous. If a SINGLE star were to fall on earth, it would incinerate the earth before it arrives. There would be nothing left of the earth. So how could people, afterward, “see the Son of man coming in the clouds”? They would be dead, no?
Don’t you think such a verse needs an explanation?

A similar passage would be,
"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. … And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains." (Revelation 6: 13, 15, KJV)

Best regards.
Carmel.

I’ve been following this thread for quite some time, and I thought I’d give my two-cents’ worth.

Following the Old Testament book of Daniel, Jesus believed that the ‘kingdom of God’ would transform the world, as we know it, and start a ‘new age’:
“I [Daniel] saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days [God], and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13–14, KJV)

This kingdom of God is a kingdom on earth, not in heaven. In fact, we still pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH ….” The kingdom of God is a kingdom of justice, sharing, love, truth, and peace where God ‘rules’ in our mind or ‘heart.’ Jesus also thought that the coming of this kingdom on earth was imminent—it was going to happen within his generation; for example:
“He [Jesus] said unto them [his disciples], ‘Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.’” (Mark 9:1, KJV)

Jesus jump-started this kingdom and, indeed, it took some roots:
“All that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat [food] with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:44–47, KJV)
However, it stalled: it didn’t happen in Jesus’s generation. Unfortunately, Jesus was wrong by two millennia and counting.

Jesus also thought that the new kingdom would be inaugurated by the (Daniel’s) ‘Son of Man’—suddenly, in one fell swoop:
“For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matthew 24:27, KJV)
Whether he would use violence or not is unclear, but probably the sight of God’s angels accompanying him would be enough to tame us humans:
“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory ….” (Matthew 25:31, KJV)

With this background in mind, we are set to tackle the “great tribulation.”
Right after the great tribulation account in chapter 24:1–31, Matthew portrays Jesus saying,
“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34, KJV)
In other words, Jesus thought the great tribulation would also happen within his generation, prior to 100 CE, say. But it didn’t happen: same as the kingdom of God didn’t materialize in his generation.
Similarly, Mark portrays Jesus saying the same thing after his great tribulation account in chapter 13:1–27.
“Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.” (Mark 13:30, KJV)
As if twice were not enough evidence, Luke says the same thing after his great tribulation account in chapter 21:5–28; he writes,
“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:32)

Conclusion: There’s not going to be any great tribulation anytime for anybody (Christian or non-Christian). Jesus was simply wrong as he was wrong about the coming of the kingdom of God within his generation.

Now, one might argue that it will happen anyway, sometime in the future. But that wouldn’t be biblical because the ‘prophecy’ SPECIFICALLY had a time limit: to be valid it had to happen within Jesus’s generation. In other words, all bets are off by now. One must admit it looks like a failed biblical prophecy.

Best regards.
Carmel.

Carmel wrote: "I’ve been following this thread for quite some time, and I thought I’d give my two-cents’ worth.

Following the Old Testament book of Daniel, Jesus believed that the ‘kingdom of God’ would transfor..."

Carmel,

Thanks for your thoughts. Jesus did believed that the ‘kingdom of God’ would transform the world, as we know it, and start a ‘new age’ and I believe it did just that. The impact of Christianity continues to be visible in Western civilization today. Historians have noted that “by the Middle Ages, Christianity had shaped Western culture, and it continued to influence culture wherever [its teachings] spread”. The charity encouraged by biblical teachings (e.g., Luke 10:30-37) eventually blossomed into hospitals, orphanages, homes for the elderly and care for the poor, the hungry and the homeless. Even many of the greatest and most prominent universities of our day were originally founded for “Christian” purposes. Not to mention, many of our current laws are based on Christian precepts.

Jesus said, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21 (KJV) This is why we still pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH ….” Therefore, the kingdom did come imminently and many that stood there with Him, did not taste of death, till they saw the kingdom of God come with power (Mark 9:1, KJV). The power He spoke of was the Holy Spirit, which was given on the day of Pentecost. (see Acts 1:8)

Your references to St. Matthew chapters 24 and 25, both speak of the second coming of Christ, not his first Advent. The same is true of your references to the Great Tribulation, Jesus is referring to His Second Coming.

I disagree with the conclusion that Jesus was simply wrong on the Great Tribulation and the coming of his kingdom. Jesus is part of the Trinity, as such He is God. "This mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Phil 2:5-6 (KJV) If this statement is true, then Jesus cannot be wrong. God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:4 (KJV) Therefore, it is our interpretation that is wrong and not the words of Jesus.

Thanks for sharing, it forced me to look at things differently for a minute and that is always good.

Be blessed.

Hi Robert (Davis), regarding your message 40:

In his book ‘Did Jesus Exist?’ New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman states, “This future kingdom [of God] would be brought by a cosmic judge whom Jesus called the Son of Man.” (p. 305)
So the kingdom of God comes AFTER the coming of the Son of Man. In other words, unlike what you contend, Matthew 25:31–46 does refer to the inauguration of the kingdom of God.

I’m afraid you’re clutching at straws stating that the ‘kingdom of God’ has actually come to earth and has transformed the whole world.
“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered ALL NATIONS: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats ….” (Matthew 25:31–32, KJV, emphasis mine)
Notice the phrase “all nations”: you can’t say that Christianity has spread worldwide. Currently, there are only 2.4 billion Christians worldwide and the world’s population is 7.9 billion: we’re not even a majority after two millennia.

Moreover, the concept of the kingdom of God is not just the Christian acts of mercy, or education, or legal system—far from it. According to the ‘Acts of the Apostles’:
“All that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat [food] with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:44–47, KJV)
THIS was Jesus’s concept of the kingdom of God: a kingdom of justice, sharing, love, truth, and peace WORLDWIDE, in which God ‘rules’ in humanity’s mind and ‘heart’: where there wouldn’t even be any need for policemen. Had the kingdom of God really come to earth, it stands to reason that we wouldn’t still be praying for it to come: we would be praying for God to sustain it, no? So, all the various Christian churches do not recognize your hypothesis.

Furthermore, while admitting that Christianity performs many acts of mercy it has also committed many atrocities, even after Jesus’s generation expired: for example, the crusades, the inquisition, and forced proselytizing.

I agree with you that the kingdom of God is an internal attitude since God only ‘rules’ in our mind and ‘heart,’ but I don’t agree that that’s why we still pray for it to come on earth. According Matthew 25:31–46, Jesus thought it would be a worldwide thing and that it would be inaugurated PUBLICLY by the Son of Man.
He also thought it would be a physical place.
“There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.” (Luke 13:28, KJV) I'm not aware of any patriarchs in your alleged kingdom of God.
And again:
“But the children of the kingdom [i.e., the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:12, KJV)
To confirm what I’m saying here, in his book ‘Did Jesus Exist?’ New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman writes,
“When people today hear the term kingdom of God, they typically think of heaven, as the place where souls go once they die. But that is not what [is] meant …. For Jesus the kingdom was an actual place, here on earth, where God would rule supreme. … The kingdom [of God] was a real tangible place, where love, peace, and justice would prevail.” (p. 305)
So, I must disagree with you that the kingdom of God came imminently within Jesus’s generation. Look at the mess we are still in.
May I also suggest that the phrase “with power” only means ‘in full bloom,’ or something similar”: there’s no mention of the Holy Spirit; that’s your interpretation of Mark 9:1.

Now, regarding Matthew 24 and parallel gospel passages.
I suggest your reading the following three passages WITHOUT INTERRUPTION: Matthew 24:1–36 (don’t stop at verse 31), Mark 13:1–32 (don’t stop at verse 27), and Luke 21:5–33 (don’t stop at verse 28). In ALL the three synoptic gospels we have an account of (1) the destruction of the temple, (2) the ‘great tribulation’ before the end of ‘this age,’ (3) the coming of the Son of Man, followed by (4) the parable of the fig tree. In every version of the parable of the fig tree we have, “this generation shall not pass till ALL these things be fulfilled,” or something similar; here they are:
“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till ALL these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34, KJV, emphasis mine)
“Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till ALL these things be done.” (Mark 13:30, KJV, emphasis mine)
“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till ALL be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:32, KJV, emphasis mine)
One must be practically blind or hopelessly biased to miss this statement THREE times.
Even the biblical scholars of the (Catholic) ‘New American Bible’ reluctantly admit, “The difficulty raised by this verse cannot be satisfactorily removed.” (Matthew 24:34n)

Finally, assuming Jesus’s dual nature (i.e., both divine and human), there’s not much we know about it. Presumably, God cannot die, but Jesus did die. Presumably, God cannot suffer physical pain because he is a spirit, but Jesus did suffer physical pain on the cross.
Similarly, although God is omniscient, it doesn’t look like Jesus knew everything while he was alive. In fact, in the gospels, we read,
“But concerning that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of the heavens, nor the Son, except the Father only.” (Matthew 24:36, Berean Literal Bible)
And again,
“And concerning that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32, Berean Literal Bible)
Luke had a problem with this verse, so he conveniently omitted it.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that Jesus went wrong, when TWO evangelists portray him saying that he himself didn’t know? Jesus must have GUESSED that the kingdom of God would surely be established by 100 CE, say. I don’t see where I’m misinterpreting it.
Besides, keep in mind that these words are only the evangelists’ words, they’re not exactly Jesus’s words; Jesus never wrote a word in Scriptures. They were first written about forty years after Jesus’s death—in other words, they’re only hearsay.

Summary and Conclusion:
According to the gospels, what Jesus thought was going to happen was: (1) the destruction of the temple, (2) the great tribulation (with great cosmic cataclysms), (3) the coming of the Son of Man (“immediately after the tribulation”—Matthew 24:29, KJV), followed by (4) the kingdom of God (a new world order). According to THREE evangelists, Jesus predicted ALL this would happen WITHIN HIS GENERATION, by 100 CE, say. Apart from the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, they didn’t. Will it ever happen? I don’t think the great tribulation as described in the gospels will ever happen: it didn’t happen within the time SPECIFIED in the gospels, so all bets are off.

In my opinion, God is WAITING FOR US before he starts the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth; and that’s why we still pray for it in the ‘Lord’s Prayer.’ God works through conviction and conversion, not by imposing himself on us.
We figured out that (for the benefit of everyone) we must drive on one side of the road: TRUSTING the other person will do likewise. I think this is a great human achievement. But we still haven’t figured out what to do in a burning building, say: we step over one another resulting in hardly anyone getting out. When we decide to be more considerate of others than ourselves, then Jesus will be present among us—mystically—not physically, of course. When humanity is all ready to follow Jesus’s teachings, we will probably still need God’s help to overcome the global ‘powers of evil’ we have created for ourselves—the ‘sin (singular) of the world.’
“The next day John [the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin [singular] of the world!’” (John 1:29, NKJV)

Best regards,
Carmel.

Carmel wrote: "Hi Robert (Davis), regarding your message 40:

In his book ‘Did Jesus Exist?’ New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman states, “This future kingdom [of God] would be brought by a cosmic judge whom Jesu..."

In every version of the parable of the fig tree we have, “this generation shall not pass till ALL these things be fulfilled,” or something similar. All of these things are as you stated, the destruction of the temple, the Great Tribulation and the sign of His second coming. When you see all of these things happen (destruction of the temple and the Great Tribulation and the Rapture - Jesus in the clouds), then His coming is near. This generation (the generation that sees these things) will not pass before the second coming of Christ, which signals the end of the world. This answers the disciples questions in St. Matthew 24:3.

We have seen the destruction of the temple. If you will accept it, we are already experiencing the Great Tribulation. The tribulation is what allows the Gospel to be spread. It is my belief, that we are now waiting on the rapture, which is the last sign. Then and only then will the generational clock start ticking, so to speak. I realize you belief system is totally different, so I do not expect you to agree. However, I cannot adopt a theory that makes Jesus wrong in His predictions.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I am curious, if Jesus is wrong about so many things, why believe at all?

Hi Robert:
I respect your opinion and it's not my intention to try to shove my opinion down your throat; so I'll say no more.
As you put it, let's "agree to disagree."
Let me just add that I greatly appreciate your honest reply: most people take the cowardly route and leave you hanging in limbo when they have nothing else to say.
Should you change your mind and wish to discuss things further you can e-mail me at attardcarmel@rogers.com.
God bless you.
Carmel.

Carmel wrote: "Hi Robert:
I respect your opinion and it's not my intention to try to shove my opinion down your throat; so I'll say no more.
As you put it, let's "agree to disagree."
Let me just add that I greatl..."

Carmel:

Thanks, I enjoyed seeing a different perspective. I have always liked looking at things from as many viewpoints as possible.

Be blessed.

Carmel wrote: "I’ve been following this thread for quite some time, and I thought I’d give my two-cents’ worth.

Following the Old Testament book of Daniel, Jesus believed that the ‘kingdom of God’ would transfor..."

I have to agree with Robert on this one. We can differ on our interpretation of what Jesus said about the end times. As I said earlier, I sometimes wonder if God didn't leave that a bit ambiguous because it isn't pertinent to salvation and the present Kingdom. On the other hand, my personal opinion is as a Christian, we either believe Jesus is who He says He is or we don't believe any of the scripture. C.S. Lewis said it best. ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse…. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

If Jesus was Lord and God as He said He was, He could not be wrong. God made it very clear in Job and most of the prophets - He can not be wrong. We might interpret His message in a faulty manner, but that's not on Him, that's on us.

I appreciate you bringing another view into the conversation. I like to know what people are thinking so I can hone my apologetics skills.

Hi Lynne, regarding your message 45:

It’s always a pleasure discussing with a well-versed person like you, but you’re putting me in an awkward position with respect to the rules of this group: I must be very careful. I’m sorry, but I don’t think you have an apologetic leg to stand on. While I respect your opinion, I can’t see how you can take that position.

Let’s deal with one thing at a time: let’s leave Jesus’s divinity aside for a moment and deal with what the gospels say.
Two of the synoptic evangelists portray Jesus admitting:
(1) “Concerning that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of the heavens, NOR THE SON, except the Father only” (Matthew 24:36, Berean Literal Bible (BLB), emphasis mine).
(2) “Concerning that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32, BLB, emphasis mine).
These two gospel verses clearly admit that while Jesus was still alive on earth, he was NOT omniscient: in other words he could make mistakes, especially in things involving scientific knowledge (see the next section).
Luke, ‘conveniently,’ omits this verse: because (probably like you) he did not think it was right.
Although some biblical verses have become obscure because we have lost the then-current paradigms associated with them, however, as Robert Dallmann (the moderator of this group) also points out, many times biblical verses are crystal clear—as is this case.
Are we to suppose that, in his biblical texts, God is like some kind of sleazy lawyer or shady politician? I think you will agree with me that God is always on the side of truth; he doesn’t need our ‘manipulating’ the truth to make him ‘look better’: he can hold his own under any circumstances.

In fact, two synoptic evangelists portray Jesus saying,
(1) “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. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn. And THEY WILL SEE the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory’” (Matthew 24:29–30, BLB, emphasis mine).
(2) “But in those days, those after the tribulation, 'The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; THE STARS WILL BE FALLING OUT OF THE HEAVEN, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken.' And THEN WILL THEY SEE the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory” (Mark 13:24–26, BLB, emphasis mine).
Luke is more subtle on this verse: he probably figured out that there are so many stars that even if they were only the size of figs, they would bury the earth; so he ‘wisely’ modified the verse to:
“There will be signs in sun and moon and stars; and upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity, sea roaring and surge rolling” (Luke 21:25, BLB).
Now, as you probably know, if a SINGLE star were to fall on the earth, it would incinerate the earth—nothing would be left of it—and there wouldn’t be anybody left alive to “see” anything. Can we then insist that Jesus was scientifically right as well here? Jesus, or rather the evangelist went by the paradigms of his time. But, technically, that makes Jesus wrong in what he supposedly ‘said.’

Now, despite Jesus supposedly admitting not knowing when the great tribulation would happen, all three synoptic evangelists portray him still venturing to predict:
(1) “Truly I say to you that this generation will not have passed away until ALL these things shall have taken place” (Matthew 24: 34, BLB, emphasis mine)
(2) “Truly I say to you that this generation will not have passed away until ALL these things shall have taken place” (Mark 13:30, BLB, emphasis mine).
(3) “Truly I say to you that this generation will not have passed away until ALL shall have taken place” (Luke 21:32, BLB, emphasis mine).
As far as we know there have never been any cosmic cataclysms in Jesus’s generation (i.e., prior to 100 CE, say): certainly no star has EVER fallen on the earth. So, I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you can convince yourself that Jesus was still right and that I am misinterpreting the gospel texts. Would I be too bold were I to suggest that YOU are the one who is misinterpreting these verses because of your preconceived notions? Even the biblical scholars of the (Catholic) ‘New American Bible’ reluctantly admit, “The difficulty raised by this verse cannot be satisfactorily removed” (Matthew 24:34n). If you believe in the infallibility of the Bible, why don’t you accept what it says so clearly?
How’s that for your ‘apologetic skills’? Listen, if you can make a GOOD point, I’ll be happy to acknowledge it; but please refrain from clutching at straws: give me an honest reply as Robert Davis did in his message 42.

I must confess I don’t really understand what you mean by the phrase “the present Kingdom”: I don’t think we presently have a ‘kingdom of God’ at all. I don’t see God ‘ruling’ anywhere: that will the day when we need no policemen. If we had no policemen, there would be murders, rapes, and lootings in every street corner—in any place you like to think of. God might be ‘ruling’ in some people’s mind and ‘heart,’ but that is not what the gospels mean by the ‘kingdom of God’: see Acts 2:44–47.

Now I come to your quote from C.S. Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity.’
I don’t blame you because you accepted his words without questioning them; I did too, for decades. The flaw with this quote is “His [Jesus’s] claim to be God” and “the sort of things Jesus said.”
Let me first point out that Jesus never wrote a word in Scriptures. All we have is what the evangelists and the apostles wrote about him. If I write a book about Jesus and I put words in his mouth, it doesn’t mean he actually said those words: it is only my opinion. I didn’t really want to enter into the subject of the Trinity because it is hardly related to the subject of this thread; so I’m going to be as brief as possible.

The evangelists were strongly influenced by the paradigms of their time and wrote accordingly:
(1) First, the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, & Luke, written around 70CE, 80CE & 90CE, respectively) do NOT claim the divinity of Jesus. It is only the latest gospel written, John (written around 100CE), that claims his divinity. By that time Jesus had been mythologized by his admirers, like Robin Hood or Zorro, say.
(2) Second, the gospels were written in Greek, and copulation between divine and human beings (thus creating demigods) was very common in Greek mythology.
(3) Third, the gospels were written in the Roman Empire where the emperor Octavian (Caesar Augustus, 63BCE–14CE) was declared divine even while still alive. The evangelist John wanted to make Jesus even greater than the Roman emperor.
Consequently, first century ‘divinity’ was not exactly what we understand by ‘God’ nowadays.

I’m not denying that Jesus is the ‘Son of God,’ nor the virgin birth. If you like, you can refer to my article “Mary’s Virginity” in my website: https://wordpress.com/post/faith-or-r..., to see that I truly believe it. Moreover, there’s enough evidence in the gospels (not to mention the contemporary Jewish-Roman historian Josephus) that Jesus had ‘divine’ qualities, like the power of performing miracles, a certain teaching authority, an eloquence like no other, and being the only person ‘resurrected’ (as opposed to ‘resuscitated’). But that’s not exactly being God!
When it comes to Jesus’s divinity, there are many Christians who, although they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, yet they do not believe in Jesus’s divinity (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians). You read the Bible twenty-five times, so you must know that the word ‘Trinity’ NEVER appears in the Bible, not even once.

There’s a very good book regarding the promulgation of the Trinity in 381CE: it’s entitled ‘AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State’ by ancient Greece and Rome historian Charles P. Freeman (ISBN 9781845950071). He introduces his book,
“The story, as this book hopes to show, is well documented, but an alternative narrative, that the Church itself came to a consensus on the nature of the Godhead, is still the dominant one in histories of Christianity. The ‘consensus’ approach glosses over the violent antagonisms the debates over doctrine aroused and the pre-eminent role the [Roman] emperors played in their resolution” (p. 2).
Notice the phrase “well documented”; he concludes this book with,
“The Church was forced by sheer weight of imperial power to acquiesce in a doctrine that had not come to fruition and that, if debate had been allowed to continue, might never have. … The aim of this book has been to reveal what has been concealed (p. 204).
Notice the phrase “what has been concealed.”
Of course, one needs to read the whole book to be convinced of what Freeman says above. However, there was no ecumenical council convened and it was more of a political enforcement than an ecclesiastical agreement: Emperor Theodosius I wanted to unite the whole Roman Empire (both east and west) because of impending threats; in those days, there was practically no separation of church and state.

Best regards.
Carmel.

Robert wrote: "I see the scripture, but I do not see your position on the subject. Will believers go through the Great Tribulation?"
Yes, they will.

Robert wrote: "Robert wrote: "I asked for an opinion and scripture to backup the opinion..."

OK, here is my opinion. Quoted Scripture is correct!"
LOLOL. I love this. you're absolutely right too, EXCEPT in the case of a messed up bible version, or shall I say per-version.

For the record, C.S. Lewis is a quack, and a false Christian. The fact that he's so WILDLY popular with the majority of Christians today is telling in itself.
In his book, MERE CHRISTIANITY, C.S. Lewis claims that Christ-rejecting Buddhists are really saved because they gravitate toward the commonly shared virtues of Christianity and Buddhism. Lewis even makes the bizarre claim that Buddhists can be saved WITHOUT knowing it...

“There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position.”

SOURCE: C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York, Macmillian Publishing Company, 1960), pp. 176-177.

It might be worth noting, that like the arrogant .... JK Rowling, Mr. Lewis wrote children's fantasy stories complete with magic and talking animals, compeltly against scripture!

How it is that Concerned Women for America still allow Narnia in libraries, I will never know!

Taken from an online forum, discussing Lewis.