Will Trump seek asylum in Israel and Build the 3rd Temple?

[The Light]

There's a difference between watching and making predictions. Jesus never told you to make predictions.

Would it be ok if I borrowed a page from your playbook? Let's see, you said.............

"I didn't say those currently alive are symbolic. I didn't say paradise is symbolic. I said the clouds are symbolic. Now that we're clear on that, do you want to ask a different question?"

I didn't say the day. I didn't say the hour. I said very, very likely. Now that we're clear on that, Do you want to ask a different question?

 

[Freedm]

Would it be ok if I borrowed a page from your playbook? Let's see, you said.............

"I didn't say those currently alive are symbolic. I didn't say paradise is symbolic. I said the clouds are symbolic. Now that we're clear on that, do you want to ask a different question?"

I didn't say the day. I didn't say the hour. I said very, very likely. Now that we're clear on that, Do you want to ask a different question?

Weak. Your assertion of a rapture before the 2024 election, is still a very specific prediction. And I wasn't asking a question. I was making a statement, and I stand by that statement. It's very bold (and foolish) to try to predict the timing of a rapture event.

 

[The Light]

Weak. Your assertion of a rapture before the 2024 election, is still a very specific prediction. And I wasn't asking a question. I was making a statement, and I stand by that statement. It's very bold (and foolish) to try to predict the timing of a rapture event.

Not as bold and foolish as you think. If you understood Ezekiel 4 that would give you a starting point. If you know the asteroid Apophis is coming in 2029 that would give you a confirming point, if you understood the how long recompense was. Why are we told to watch?

 

[TLHKAJ]

To say none of them are perfect, is agreeable, but to say they all serve lucifer? That's a bit much.

It isn't when you realize people don't rise to these positions without being specific cult bloodlines, as well as a member of freemasonry, knights of malts, etc.

 

[TLHKAJ]

Trump was an MK Ultra handler in the CIA? And a human trafficker too? Gee, I'm learning a lot today.

As a survivor myself, I have a lot of experience with high level handlers, including presidents. I can't change what I know. From here, I have no more need for further exchanges.

 

[ewq1938]

Riddle me this. If we will never experience death, as Jesus told us, then how can we be resurrected from it?

He was speaking of the second death which is death of body, soul and spirit.

He was not speaking of death of the mortal human body because everyone has died since he spoke those words including himself. You are just misunderstanding what he said.

How is it you can deny the resurrection of the dead despite it being written about so many times in scripture?

 

[ewq1938]

Revelation 3
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

That applies to those who are foolish and don't watch. Do you not read what you post?

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

 

[The Light]

That applies to those who are foolish and don't watch. Do you not read what you post?

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

That's the whole point.

 

[ewq1938]

That's the whole point.

Except you quote scripture speaking of those who do not watch and therefore are surprised by the return of Christ. Those aren't the ones who shall be raptured. In otherwords, you are posting scripture that proves your belief wrong.

 

[BlessedPeace]

It's very, very likely that the Church will be raptured before the election in 2024, so I don't suspect I will be voting for any of them either.

Only the Father knows.

 

[Timtofly]

I didn't say those currently alive are symbolic. I didn't say paradise is symbolic. I said the clouds are symbolic. Now that we're clear on that, do you want to ask a different question?

So how do literal people from literal places meet together in a symbolic place?

Would they not meet in a literal place, the clouds, as everything else is literal, but this meeting place you claim is not literal?

The point being made by both Paul and Jesus is both literal places are emptied for the briefest moment in time to join each other in a third location for this very literal event. The total restoration of the soul with body and spirit.

This event does not take place on earth. It does not take place in Paradise. It takes place in the clouds between earth and Paradise.

The point is not whether clouds are literal or symbolic. The point is this place is where both groups meet each other. When you state clouds are only symbolic, you imply this meeting is symbolic and never literally happens. Clouds are literal and the place of meeting is a literal place. This is not symbolic of judgment. This is about literal clouds and where they exist. That is where both groups meet.

 

[PinSeeker]

So how do literal people from literal places meet together in a symbolic place?

Would they not meet in a literal place, the clouds, as everything else is literal, but this meeting place you claim is not literal?

The point being made by both Paul and Jesus is both literal places are emptied for the briefest moment in time to join each other in a third location for this very literal event. The total restoration of the soul with body and spirit.

This event does not take place on earth. It does not take place in Paradise. It takes place in the clouds between earth and Paradise.

The point is not whether clouds are literal or symbolic. The point is this place is where both groups meet each other. When you state clouds are only symbolic, you imply this meeting is symbolic and never literally happens. Clouds are literal and the place of meeting is a literal place. This is not symbolic of judgment. This is about literal clouds and where they exist. That is where both groups meet.

I'll answer this... :) So I think this is what's in question:

"Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..." (1 Thessalonians 4:17)​

What Paul is saying here, Timtofly, is that yes, those who are alive, who are left (at the time of Christ's return) will literally go out to meet the Lord (in the manner of, as I have said previously, loyal subjects going out to meet royalty, the King, in the return to his kingdom after being away for some reason, usually in battle) in the air. That is very real and tangible, and not merely symbolic. But the "in the clouds" part is symbolic ~ we will be joining Him in His final return, "caught up" with Him in His descent to earth in judgment, the final Judgment that He will execute upon His return. This is what is meant by the prepositional phrase "in the clouds." It is not about literal clouds. "In the air" is literal. Those who are alive will join Him... and all the saints who have physically died and joined Him in spirit in heaven coming with Him, but "in the clouds" is meant in the sense that He is coming in final judgment, to execute the final Judgment, which is what previous references to clouds ~ especially in the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, like here in Ezekiel 30:3..."For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near; it will be a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations" ~ are, to God's coming and sitting in judgment.

Not sure if Freedm agrees with me here, buuuuut... this is the clarification. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm not changing scripture. Please don't accuse me like that. We all accept what is written (well, most of us) but we understand it differently. I can tell you why I think the clouds are symbolic, but you never asked.

I think people like to say that a thousand years is a day, because it's a convenient way to interpret something that they otherwise can't explain. It's what happens when a puzzle baffles us, and we realize that this verse here could be used to solve the puzzle. And so that's what we do. I've done it. We've all done it. There's nothing wrong with that, when that's the best we can do at the time. We just need to acknowledge that we're doing it, so that we can remain open to other explanations when they inevitably come around.

The fact is, Peter never said that the day of the Lord would last a thousand years. So I'm not denying anything that was written. I'm only denying that which was not written. I think the day of the Lord was one day, because it is called a "day", not a "millennium", and also because I believe the return of Jesus happened during 70 AD. So my understanding of the prophecy fits into a single day. Yours does not, which is why you need 2 Peter 3:8 to help you out.

I don't need any help.

I am explaining why Scripture declares certain facts that many posters ignore. They ignore these facts to form their own opinions. You admitted that you don't need Peter, because you have your own personal opinion. I don't need Peter either. I am just pointing out what Peter said, and you don't agree with Peter.

You claim the word "cloud" always seems to be used as symbolism.

I don't say the word "day" should always symbolize 1,000. That would be nonsense like claiming the word "cloud" should always be used symbolically in Scripture.

Peter was using the term "Day of the Lord" as symbolism.

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night."

Besides, the term "millennium" as used in eschatology is just symbolic of the point "a thousand years". No one is expecting the word to be found in Scripture as it comes from the Latin meaning 1,000. To state the word is not found in Scripture is being disingenuous. The word thousand is found in 2 Peter 3. You just choose to ignore that word.

BTW. 70AD is not a single day. You have symbolically turned your "day" into a year long or at least a nine month event, so why the hypocritical judgment against 2 Peter 3?

Since Peter uses the "day of the Lord" symbolically how long is symbolism without a hint of length? Did Peter leave us guessing at the length?

The Second Coming won't take 24 hours so is not a day long event either. It is over in a twinkling of an eye. So is your "day" only a few seconds in length? Do you have the historical proof of this twinkling of an eye? Or did no one see it to witness it, thus you only claim it happened with no proof at all? Obviously you ignore what Peter said, and what is mentioned in 2 Peter 3 did not happen at any point in 70AD.

 

[Timtofly]

Christ's resurrection was on the first day of the new week (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). With Christ's resurrection, the Lord's Day took the place of the Sabbath Day, as Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28: Luke 6:5). This day of rest was moved from the seventh day of the week to the first. The practice of the early church reflected this, as we see in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2.

There are not eight days in a week, Timtofly. :)

Grace and peace to you.

Have you studied the Roman Calendar used while Christ walked on the earth?

That first day of the week was the 8th day from Palm Sunday to Resurrection Sunday. Can you not count?

Did you think that week started on a Friday, that year?

 

[Timtofly]

Thanks for using scriptural references. This gives us a starting point. Let's begin with Matthew 24:14.

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Two important points I want to make here which will completely destroy your point that Matthew 24:14 proves that Jesus can not yet have returned.

1. Jesus was not speaking of the entire globe. The word he used "oikoumené" means the Roman world, not the entire globe. From Strong's : 3625 (oikouménē) literally means "the inhabited (land)." It was "originally used by the Greeks to denote the land inhabited by themselves, in contrast with barbarian countries; afterward, when the Greeks became subject to the Romans, 'the entire Roman world;' still later, for 'the whole inhabited world' " (WS, 140,141).]

2. Paul told us that the gospel had already been preached to the entire "oikoumene" in his time. So here we have scriptural proof that this requirement before Jesus' return had been fulfilled, years before 70 AD.

Here are five examples of Paul proclaiming that the gospel has already gone through the whole world.

1 Thessalonians 1:8
The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it,

Romans 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

Romans 10:18
But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”[c]

Colossians 1:6
In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world

Colossians 1:23
This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

It can not be denied that this requirement was fulfilled in Paul's time.

So the gospel ended before Paul died? It has only been heretical theology from that point on? If you say so.

 

[PinSeeker]

I don't need any help.

That's what most people who need help say. :)

Really, we all need help... the help of the Holy Spirit, our Helper, and those who have been given by the Spirit spiritual gifts, including (but certainly not limited to) prophecy, teaching, and wisdom.

I am explaining why Scripture declares certain facts that many posters ignore.

And I, along with others, am explaining that many of your "facts" are made up. :) Certainly, they seem to be facts in your view, but... :)

They ignore these facts to form their own opinions.

In... your opinion. :)

You claim the word "cloud" always seems to be used as symbolism.

No we don't. Not always. The context is different from time to time.

I don't say the word "day" should always symbolize 1,000.

Neither do I. Peter's point is that the passage of time for us may seem agonizingly slow, and that the Lord is tarrying. But this is not the case. God is outside of time; every moment, past, present, and future to us ~ is now to Him. He is ~ is ~ present over all of His creation, and time is a part of that creation. Some have said that He is always present in the "eternal now." It is impossible, really, for us to wrap our finite minds around the infinite, but it is what it is.

...the term "millennium" as used in eschatology is just symbolic of the point "a thousand years"...

No, both are symbolic of God's time in bringing all of His elect into His Israel, and thus an indeterminate amount of our time, to us.

The word thousand is found in 2 Peter 3. You just choose to ignore that word.

No one ignores it, but rather takes it in its proper ~ Peter's ~ context.

70AD is not a single day.

Don't think anyone is asserting otherwise... Not me, anyway.

You have symbolically turned your "day" into a year long or at least a nine month event, so why the hypocritical judgment against 2 Peter 3? Since Peter uses the "day of the Lord" symbolically how long is symbolism without a hint of length?

I think everyone here understands Peter to mean the time of the Lord's return. Maybe there are some who don't, but...

Did Peter leave us guessing at the length?

The Second Coming won't take 24 hours so is not a day long event either. It is over in a twinkling of an eye.

Agreed.

...what is mentioned in 2 Peter 3 did not happen at any point in 70AD.

Agreed.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Riddle me this. If we will never experience death, as Jesus told us, then how can we be resurrected from it?

That has nothing to do with the Second Coming.

That was available because of the Cross, when Jesus declared, "It is finished".

From that point on, those in Christ did not experience death. Not even Stephen as he was being stoned. They thought they could kill him, but he already saw heaven opened and Jesus waiting to receive him into eternal life. That made them even more angry. They knew they could not kill him, and destroy his body as they did with those who disobeyed the Law of Moses. All their authority was gone, taken away by the Cross.

You can look up the passages and discuss if you want to. It is all there in Scripture.

 

[PinSeeker]

That first day of the week was the 8th day from Palm Sunday to Resurrection Sunday.

That's exactly what I have said, several times.

But you were the one who said, "...there are only 2 Days of the Lord. The middle 6 days were about dead corruptible human flesh...", which is really a nonsensical statement... :) ...and seemed to indicate you "thinking" that there were eight days in a week. Maybe it could have been less clumsily stated, and thus clearer, as to what you actually meant. There never were ~ and are not, and never will be ~ two "Days of the Lord." If what you meant to say was that there were two consecutive Sabbath Days (seventh weekdays) immediately prior to Christ's resurrection, or between Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, then... good. :) Even so, I'm not really sure why that ever seemed to you a really important point to make... and don't really care, to be honest with you.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Weak. Your assertion of a rapture before the 2024 election, is still a very specific prediction. And I wasn't asking a question. I was making a statement, and I stand by that statement. It's very bold (and foolish) to try to predict the timing of a rapture event.

Paul gave us that "weak assertion". Paul claimed he would be alive at the Second Coming. Was Paul being foolish or hopeful?

 

[Freedm]

Not as bold and foolish as you think. If you understood Ezekiel 4 that would give you a starting point. If you know the asteroid Apophis is coming in 2029 that would give you a confirming point, if you understood the how long recompense was. Why are we told to watch?

I get it. You're looking forward to the rapture. My mother is also a member of the church of Hal Lindsay and she's been telling me about raptures and anti-christs and asteroids and lunar eclipses and blood moons since I was a child, and nothing ever comes from it. At a certain point you have to ask yourself why that is.