M E R R Y

C H R I S T M A S!

The Lunar Eclipse, the Winter Solstice, and the Meaning of Christmas

Apparently various pagan groups make a lot out of the coincidence of the lunar eclipse with the Winter Solstice. A High Priestess of something or other calls it the "transformation of darkness into light." Well, yeah, it's the shortest darkest day of the year, right before the days start lengthening -- in the northern hemisphere anyway -- so the symbolism is pretty straightforward.

This time of year the question of the pagan underpinnings of Christmas also comes up. "The traditions of men make the traditions of God of none effect," is how some think of it. But is that really what happens at Christmas? The Pharisaical traditions made the traditions of God of none effect, but does replacing a pagan holiday with the truths of Christ do that? Seems to me it's the other way around, more like Christ overcoming the world.

I do have to acknowledge that I too went through a period of being overly impressed with the fact that our Christian holidays were originally pagan and ambivalent about whether to celebrate them or not. I never went wholly against celebrating them, I was simply unresolved about the whole thing and it made it difficult to enjoy the holiday. But now I'm all for celebrating. Here's how I think of it now:

First I'd make that point again: The Pharisees replaced God's Law with their own laws but taking over a pagan holiday for the celebration of Christ does the reverse, replacing paganism with God's truth. Second, God looks at the heart: And what does he see in most hearts at Christmas time? Well, I'll grant that in MOST hearts he isn't seeing the celebration of Jesus Christ except in the most superficial way as Christmas carols are in the air and manger scenes are on display. But He ISN'T seeing Tammuz worship either. Except maybe in those overtly pagan celebrations that the season draws out as well.

Most of us in the West, even unbelievers, view Christmas as a time of special beauty with a magical feeling -- no, not pagan Magick, just a magical feeling, a glittering shining time of prettiness, presents, sparkling things, festive foods, parties, visitors, family, even the good will that is so lavishly declared and wished, yes it is there too. This feeling is there even if you have no clue to the reason for it, and many have none. I think this glittering festivity manages to evoke something like a yearning for heaven. I think that's how I felt it as a child before I was a Christian.

Yes, I know Christmas gets awfully commercialized, and I know lots of people get depressed at this time of year too and feel lonely and left out, and all that is sad, but this is a fallen world so what else is new? Christians should, and many do, try to include those without family at this time and this is when the Christian community goes all out to feed the homeless and make sure they get in on the celebrations.

And Yes, I know Christmas was originally pagan, but what it is now is something else. It's become HIS, it's become OURS. It is no longer Tammuz's birthday, it is no longer Saturnalia, not even a smidgen!

No, it isn't the Lord's birthday either of course: Shepherds don't watch their flocks outside by night in winter. But nevertheless Christians DO make it a Christian holiday, a celebration of HIM. YES THEY DO!

Some find Christian symbolism even in the Christmas tree -- symbolism of the Tree of Life which the death of Christ has made available to us, even a symbolism of the blossoming, the leafing out, the fruiting of the Cross of Christ itself, like the blossoming of Aaron's rod. The story of the birth of Christ in Matthew and Luke establishes the theme of the holiday and unbelievers may also hear that story at this time of year. The manger scenes illustrate it. The Christmas carols raise our thought to Him. We celebrate Him, we adore Him, we worship HIM.

NOT TAMMUZ!!!!

JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON!

NOT TAMMUZ!!!!

THIS WORLD BELONGS TO JESUS CHRIST. HE NOW OWNS IT. HE EARNED IT. THE DEVIL NO LONGER OWNS IT.

Re 11:15 THE KINGDOMS OF THIS WORLD ARE BECOME THE KINGDOMS OF OUR LORD, AND OF HIS CHRIST; AND HE SHALL REIGN FOR EVER AND EVER . . .

EVER SINCE THE CROSS!!!! Not fully until He comes again, but nevertheless it is already fact -- HE REIGNS NOW! Tammuz's birthday now bows to Christ, all the pagan holidays bow to Christ.

So let the pagans dance and howl at the Blood Moon if they want. Their time is short. The Blood Moon also belongs to the Lord Jesus, and it's probably going to be a Blood Moon shortly following a total Solar Eclipse that will herald His return to reclaim this planet.

HE EVEN OWNS THE COMMERCIAL WORLD:

Blood Moon / Lunar Eclipse Tonight

So I wasn't much paying attention and here came a pretty dramatic Blood Moon event and took me by surprise. I'd seen headlines about an upcoming eclipse but they aren't terribly rare and I didn't pay much attention.

Then I was checking the local weather and saw this link on it:

For 72 minutes of eerie totality, an amber light will play across the snows of North America, throwing landscapes into an unusual state of ruddy shadow.

The eclipse begins on Tuesday morning, Dec. 21st, at 1:33 am EST (Monday, Dec. 20th, at 10:33 pm PST).

...If you're planning to dash out for only one quick look it is December, after all ­ choose this moment: 3:17 am EST (17 minutes past midnight PST). That's when the Moon will be in deepest shadow, displaying the most fantastic shades of coppery red.

Total lunar eclipse on the Winter Solstice, how dramatic can you get? The last one on the same date was in 1638. And we in the western hemisphere get the most drama out of this one.

On the same page is a picture of a big red moon. That sort of startled me. Supposedly I know that a lunar eclipse creates a red moon, known also as a "blood moon" and that that is probably what the Biblical passages are referring to that talk about the moon turning to Blood before the Day of the Lord, but I wasn't expecting it nevertheless.

Here's an animation of the expected event.

I was first made aware of the significance of the Blood Moon with reference to the Day of the Lord through the interesting presentation, The Star of Bethlehem, but most of that focuses on the birth of Jesus.

There's probably way too much cloud cover in my area to see any of tonight's eclipse, but maybe the clouds will thin a bit and some of the red glow will come through. I'll go out and see what can be seen outside my door anyway. It may be too cold to walk around the apartment building for a fuller view of the sky.

Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

===============

Well, I did go out and look at the moon. Turns out we had a glitteringly clear night for viewing. Saw it in various stages. A bit disappointing. Really too far away, too small to appreciate it. A telescope would have helped a great deal. Yes it did turn orangeish at its fullest but very dark. Oh well, at least I saw it.

And Earthquakes in Divers Places

Kind of interesting:

Earthquakes dog Clinton on overseas trips

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Matthew Lee, Associated Press – 12 mins ago
CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand –

What is it about Hillary Rodham Clinton and earthquakes? Seems the secretary of state rarely takes an overseas trip that is not in some way affected by a temblor. Clinton and her staff were jolted from sleep in their hotel rooms in New Zealand early Saturday by a strong aftershock from a 7-magnitude quake that struck in September. It was the second aftershock since she arrived here Friday.

Three days earlier, she may not have felt the earth move under her feet, but a 6.0-magnitude quake rattled villages in Papua New Guinea as she was wrapping up a visit there.

Those seismic events were at least the third, fourth and fifth to have hit countries while Clinton was visiting. On her first trip abroad as America's top diplomat in February 2009, Clinton was shaken awake by a minor quake in Japan. Four months later, she felt a 5.0 quake in Honduras. Then, in October 2009, tremors struck Pakistan while Clinton was there.

And those are just the ones she's been present for.

Days before Clinton was to visit Chile in March of this year, an 8.8-magnitude earthquake caused severe damage in the South American country, forcing her to cancel plans to spend a night in Santiago. But she still made a brief stop in Chile to get a look at relief efforts, much as she did in January after Haiti was devastated by a powerful quake.

Of course, the reason Clinton was in Papua New Guinea and New Zealand this week and travels to Australia on Saturday is the Haiti quake. She was in Hawaii en route to the three countries when Haiti was struck on Jan. 12, causing her to return to Washington to oversee U.S. relief efforts.

Caught my attention so I prayed about it for a few minutes. It's hard to know for sure if an impression comes from God or not in such a brief prayer time of course, but what occurred to me as I prayed was that we wouldn't have known about all these various earthquakes if they hadn't occurred in conjunction with Hillary's travels, which caught the eye of a reporter who then posted on the odd coincidence at Yahoo.

There being so many of them does bring to mind Jesus' reference to earthquakes as one of the signs that the very end is very near, a warning that three of the four gospels reported, suggesting its special importance:

Mt 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Mr 13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

Lu 21:11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

Something to consider.

The Raelian Cult part of the plot to Discredit the Bible and Lead those who reject God into Demon Worship in the Last Days

Since I just made a comment at the evolution blog about Scott Johnson's confusion of the scientific idea of Intelligent Design with the occultic idea that an alien race from another planet were the designers of life on Earth, I thought I should go and listen to his earlier talks on this subject which I hadn't heard before. So here's one of them, The “Ancient Astronaut” Lie: The Shocking Origin of the “Intelligent Design” Theory from December 2007.

It's quite an interesting talk and fits right into my end times blog. This is his coverage of the doctrine of the Raelian cult, about which I've known a little, but this information is good to have. They are very much a typical cult, and this particular talk brings out the commonalities of these cults in what seems to me to be an even more pointed way than I was already aware of.

That is, these cults ALWAYS attack, what? the BIBLE! They ALL have a fascination with Jesus Christ and put out a great deal of energy denying what the Bible says about Him and giving their own version of who he is and what his mission was. You can bet they take pains to insist it had nothing to do with saving humanity from sin by dying for us. No, that, along with everything else we learn from the Bible, is just some way we "misunderstood" the truth about him, OR it's the result of a "mistranslation" of the Bible. Both are common ways the Biblical revelation is debunked these days, by the cults, by "science" and increasingly from many other directions in these last days.

Anyway, the Raelian cult is very much like all the others. Someone was "chosen" to be the recipient of a revelation from "celestial beings" of one sort or another -- all demons under various guises. Sometimes the chosen one is actively possessed by the being/demon, sometimes spoken to -- usually dictated to, some bombastic lying message being imparted as if it were revealed truth from a much higher place. There's always a religious teaching that contradicts the Bible and substitutes some other way of understanding it. The cult of Urantia which got started in the early part of the 20th century, has this pattern. So does A Course in Miracles which captivated Oprah Winfrey. The Seth Books are also similar, although in this case there's more of an occultic general spiritual teaching. But it includes the idea of "Christ Consciousness" which in itself denies the truth about Jesus Christ.

The older cults have the same pattern. Mormonism was created the same way, through a visitation of a chosen one, Joseph Smith in this case, by, in his case supposedly an angel, called Moroni, who revealed to him that Christianity has everything all wrong and gave Smith the Book of Mormon. Islam too is the same sort of cult, having been inaugurated by the visitation of Mohammed by what he believed was the angel Gabriel, who supposedly came to correct Christian misunderstandings and give a revelation that was to transcend the Bible. It's perhaps worth mentioning that one of Mohammed's relatives thought he was demon-possessed, an astute observation I'd say.

Now the Raelian revelation, also given to a chosen one, Rael, by in this case a supposed alien from another planet, goes on at length about the supposed errors in the Bible and gives a very detailed reinterpretation of a great deal of it. It's very much worth listening to this to get a sense of how the disinformation of these cults operates. Apparently this is a video that is viewable at the Raelian website, though we only hear it as Johnson goes through it.

Of course all this is going to come together when the End Times start rolling in earnest, and all the similarities are only going to convince those who reject the true God that it must be the truth and they will fall for it and be destroyed by it. Unless they wake up in time!

As for Scott Johnson's confusion of the Ancient Astronaut doctrine with the scientific version of "intelligent design", as his own title to his talk clearly says, yes, he certainly does confuse these. Because the Raelians use the term to describe their demon-originated doctrine of how visitors from space are the creators of life on earth, Johnson jumps to the false conclusion that this is the "origin" of the concept. Well, I don't know who used the term first but it doesn't matter, it's a mistake to confuse them -- although it probably serves the purposes of those demonic entities to do so. There is quite definitely a scientific theory called Intelligent Design that has a scientific basis and has absolutely nothing to do with the vaporings of demons. [Here's Wikipedia on Intelligent Design, and Wikipedia on Michael Behe, intelligent design theorist.]

A False Rapture scenario?

Listening to Scott Johnson's latest (10-17-10) tonight, just the first two parts. Recent UFO sightings. New York, but also China where it is claimed that a huge UFO hovered over a small Chinese town which then completely disappeared.

I haven't checked it out, but it doesn't hit me as unlikely. Still, of course it helps to have some documentation. Maybe I'll dig some up eventually.

But it sounds to me like it could be a practice run for a fake Rapture.

Mullings on the Rapture

I'm still not completely convinced that there is to be a two-stage Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the first stage being a rapture of the church before some of the end times events -- whether before the great tribulation or in the middle of it or whatever.

So far I have at least become convinced that much of the reasoning AROUND the Rapture claims IS true, however. That is, I do believe there is yet to come a seven-year period that will fulfill the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. I'm pretty convinced that in the middle of that "week" there will be the appearance of something called the "abomination of desolation" and that the great tribulation will immediately follow that. I believe also that there will be a restored temple in Jerusalem in which this event will occur. So I reject most of the thinking that comes from the ANTI-Rapturists.

But none of this proves whether there is to be a Rapture previous to any of these things. These things could all be true, as I MOSTLY believe they are, and the Rapture occur when Jesus returns for the final time.

It could occur that way, but there are still some scriptural indications that a pre-trib Rapture -- or pre-wrath Rapture, or pre-Second Coming Rapture --- COULD occur. I'm not completely convinced one way or the other yet.

Logical (not scriptural) considerations are:

FOR THE RAPTURE: The full flowering of evil on earth, which is what the last days are going to be all about, would be interfered with by the presence of God's people who pray against it and preach against it. This evil will certainly center on the Antichrist, and in all kinds of signs and wonders, including very likely "alien" (demonic) UFO "visitors" to the planet. Demons manifesting, supernatural powers being exhibited.

AGAINST THE RAPTURE: On the other hand, there would be no hope at all for people to be saved during such a period of time if there WEREN'T God's people around to preach to them and show the true nature of all the evil going on and lead them to Christ, people of true and deep faith who trust in God's providence and protection against the greatest manifestation of evil and eventually tremendous suffering ever seen on earth.

This could be an argument for a "mid-trib" Rapture scenario, the first half of the 70th week being a time of manifested signs and wonders against which God's people stand and millions are saved, and the last half being the outpouring of God's wrath, before which the Rapture comes and removes all believers. COULD be. I'm just mulling things.

An Example of Inept Criticism of the Pre-Second-Coming Rapture

I merely kvetched about the ineptness of criticism of the pre-tribbers (or to be most precise, "pre-second-coming Rapturists") in my last post, but here's an example of what I mean:

DANIEL'S 70TH WEEK 490 YEARS
The Bible says, "He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Daniel 9:27.

Have you ever heard of the "seven-year period of great tribulation"? The whole idea is rooted in two words of the above sentence! The two words are "one week." Supposedly, that period of "one week" applies to the final seven-year period of great tribulation at the end of time. Right now, all over planet Earth, in books, in magazines, in videos, on the radio, in seminaries, on the Internet, and at Bible prophecy conferences, Christians are talking about events that they firmly believe will occur during a final seven years of tribulation.

This is typical of the critics of the Pre-trib rapture as I've been encountering them. They misrepresent the argument and they carry on at great length about the supposed foolishness of the popularity of it. I can't claim to be particularly knowledgeable of the many versions of the pre-trib position myself as I'm mostly trying to understand what the Bible says, but I think it is completely false to reduce the idea of an as-yet-unfulfilled 70th Week of Daniel to this particular verse.

First I should point out that while there has been confusion on this point, most pre-tribbers don't claim the entire 70th week is a time of tribulation but only the last half of it, after the major event of the "midst of the week" (causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease). This event is considered to be synonymous with the appearance of the "abomination of desolation" that Jesus says in Matthew 24 will be the trigger for the most terrible time of tribulation ever to occur in this world.

The idea of the 70th week comes from the calculations of the seventy weeks as given by the angel to Daniel, which show that 69 of the prophesied 70 weeks, or 483 of the total 490 years, were clearly fulfilled by Jesus' first coming, but that the 70th week has no fulfillment in that time period. It just doesn't. There is no coherent period of seven years counting from the end of the 69 at Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on the donkey. If the 69 had counted to the beginning of His ministry then there might be an argument that HALF the week was fulfilled, as His ministry lasted about 3-1/2 years, but you'd still have another 3-1/2 years left from the prophecy that has no fulfillment in that time period and has to be regarded as future anyway. But the count goes to the entry into Jerusalem, not the beginning of His ministry, and that's shortly before He is crucified, and that leaves seven years yet unfulfilled. THIS is the main source of the concept. The covenant of Daniel 9:27 simply suggests some content for the yet-to-come week.

According to the popular interpretation of Daniel 9:27, the "he" refers to a future Antichrist who will eventually make a covenant, or peace treaty, with the Jews during the final seven years of tribulation. In the "midst" of this tribulation, this Antichrist will cause "the sacrifice … to cease." In order for the sacrifices to cease, they must have been restarted. Therefore, according to countless modern interpreters, there must be a rebuilt third Jewish temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

He makes it sound as if the idea of the rebuilt temple were invented to accommodate a pre-existing theory, but this rests on Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 about the "man of sin" who will present himself as God in the temple, as I argued in a previous post:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

A popular Christian magazine called Endtime reflects this current view: "Three and one-half years after the confirming of the covenant [by the Antichrist] the Jews’ Third Temple must be completed and sacrifice and oblation be in progress. We know this because Daniel 9:27 states that in the middle of the seven years the Antichrist will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to stop." Much of the Christian world is now locked in a fierce debate about whether Jesus will return for His church before the 7 years (the pre-tribulation view), in the midst of the 7 years (the mid-tribulation view), or at the end of the 7 years (the post-tribulation view). Yet by far the most explosive question, which few seem to be asking, should be "Is and end-time ‘seven-year period of great tribulation’ really the correct interpretation of Daniel 9:27 in the first place?"

Since that verse is not the only source of the interpretation the question is misleading. To make sense of this, the whole Bible passage needs to be considered, not just verse 27:

Daniel 9:24-27 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Historically, Protestant scholars have not applied Daniel 9:27 to a future period of tribulation at all! Neither have they applied the "he" to the Antichrist! Rather, they applied it to Jesus Christ. Notice what the world-famous Bible commentary written by Matthew Henry says about Daniel 9:27: "By offering himself a sacrifice once and for all he [Jesus] shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices." Another famous Bible commentary, written by Adam Clarke, says that during the "term of seven years," Jesus would "confirm or ratify the new covenant with mankind." Finally, another well-respected old commentary declares: "He shall confirm the covenant—Christ. The confirmation of the covenant is assigned to Him."

It is true that the pre-trib Rapture is a relatively new interpretation of scripture, but as I've studied the passages in question I've had to conclude that the older interpretations do quite a bit of stretching to bring about a fit and fail completely to make a fit at some points:

Grammatically the verse is NOT referring to the Messiah but to the "prince who shall come" whose people will destroy the temple and the city. THAT "he" is the nearest previous referent grammatically speaking, not the Messiah.

It also takes some stretching or word-fudging to claim that Jesus Christ "confirmed" a covenant, because in fact He established a NEW covenant.

But the most telling problem with this interpretation is that His covenant was not for "one week" in any sense of the phrase that I can think of, but forever.

The following 10 points provide logical and convincing evidence that the "one week" spoken of in Daniel 9:27 does not apply to any future seven-year period of tribulation at all. Rather, this great prophetic period has already been definitely fulfilled in the past!

OK, I'm listening.

1) The entire prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 covers a period of "seventy weeks." This period applies to one complete, sequential block of time. This prophecy would start during the Persian period and would end during the time of the Messiah.

Uh huh, but why be so vague about it when those who have done the calculations have found that EXACTLY 69 weeks of years, or 483 years, can be counted from the relevant decree to Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, leaving one week of the prophecy unaccounted for? According to these calculations, the entire 70 weeks would go beyond the crucifixion almost but not quite seven years, and that number simply does not connect with anything historical at all, leading to the idea that this week is as yet unfulfilled and yet future. If you want to answer the Pre-tribbers you are going to have to show that the amazingly precise calculation of the 69 weeks is in fact wrong. Why don't the critics ever do this? Why do they rely on such vague statements as that quoted here when the scriptural numbers so clearly imply precision and it has been demonstrated that they ARE precise?

Off to a bad start with this list it seems to me.

2) Logic requires that the 70th week follow immediately after the 69th week. If it does not, then it cannot properly be called the 70th week!

Yes, that would be the logical expectation, but the fact of the matter is that there is no full 70 weeks between the decree and the ministry of Jesus. We can count a very specific 69 weeks in fulfillment of the prophecy but there is a very specific one week left out at the end. The integrity of the prophecy REQUIRES that we put that one week off to the future. This Biblical necessity simply trumps logic.

AND consider how it is worded:

. . . from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

Although as far as I know nobody has been able to account historically for the separating of that first seven weeks or 49 years in the prophecy -- although there have been various guesses -- the 69 weeks are quite clear and have a clear historical fulfillment. This period is FOLLOWED BY the crucifixion, but not followed by the last or 70th week. A few days AFTER the Lord Jesus' entry into Jerusalem at exactly 69 weeks (the 7 plus 62 weeks), He WAS "cut off," that is, He was crucified, and not for Himself but for the sins of everyone who believes in Him. Again, this 69-week period is an EXACT count according to the prophecy given to Daniel. Since it is so exact we have to expect that there will be a seventieth week and that it will be just as exact, and it is very clear that it did not occur during the time of the Lord's first coming or immediately afterward either.

As a matter of fact there is a clue in the wording of the relevant passage that the last week is to be separated by some time period from the first 69. The last week is mentioned in the passage AFTER the fulfillment of the Messiah's mission, in the context of the destruction of the city and the temple that is to follow:

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

We know that historically the temple was destroyed in 70AD, almost forty years after the crucifixion and not in any time frame by which we could eke out a last seven years to fulfill the prophecy. And we seem now to be catapulted into a different time frame altogether with the reference to a "flood" that had no historical fulfillment in the first destructions of the temple or the city by the Romans. The "end of the war" now seems to apply to a yet-future war. And it is only after these apparently unrelated insertions after the crucifixion that there is a mention of "one week" which most logically must be the so-far-unfulfilled 70th week, in a position rather removed from the 69 weeks. The "he" that shall confirm the covenant for one week now appears to be separated from the Messiah not only by grammar and factual incidentals but by time.

The crucifixion made the temple sacrifices forever unnecessary, but to say that "he" as the Messiah "caused" them to cease with the 70AD destruction is stretching language. And there also just happens to be ANOTHER reference in Daniel to another "prince" who DOES remove the sacrifice:

Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

As I also pointed out in my previous post about the 70th week, this prophecy WAS fulfilled, by Antiochus Epiphanes a few centuries after Daniel (175-163 BC), whose desecration of the Jerusalem temple was the cause of the Maccabean revolt, now commemorated in the celebration of Hannukah.

So it isn't just the Messiah's death that ends the sacrifice, but at least one antichrist figure who was yet future to Daniel, the Greek Antioches Epiphanes. With this clear preceding reference to a political-military leader who desecrates the temple, and a fulfilled prophecy at that, along with all the other differences I've pointed to, it's hard to see how anyone can insist that the reference in Daniel 9 MUST refer to the Messiah and not a yet-future representative of the Roman empire.

3) It is illogical to insert a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and the 70th week. No hint of this gap is found in the prophecy itself. There is no gap between the first 7 weeks and the following 62 weeks. Why insert one between the 69th and the 70th week?

I think I must have shown by now that no-one is simply gratuitously inserting "a 2000-year gap" but deriving the necessity of a gap from the scriptural requirements. If this critic had succeeded in showing that the full 70 weeks of the prophecy had indeed been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ as he claims, I could not argue with him, but he failed to show this. He claimed it, he said it was fulfilled between the Persian period and the Messiah, a very vague period of time, denying the specific count that underlies the interpretation that 69 weeks were exactly fulfilled, and that makes his argument rightly not even worth answering. EXCEPT that it's an aggressive argument and it has a following, and that is why it must be answered.

4) Daniel 9:27 says nothing about a seven-year period of tribulation, or about any Antichrist.

No, but by now I've surely shown that the "he" can't be the Messiah but a yet future prince of the people who destroy the city and the temple, that is, the Romans.

5) The focus of this prophecy is the Messiah, not the Antichrist. Modern interpreters have applied "the people of the prince" who would come to "destroy the city and the sanctuary" (verse 26) to the Antichrist. Yet the text does not say this. In the past, that sentence has been applied to the Romans, who under Prince Titus did "destroy the city and the sanctuary" in A.D. 70.

This is rather garbled it seems to me.

Grammatically, it is not even the prince who destroys the temple in 70AD but his people. We know Titus was their leader, but no one speaks of Titus as a prince that I know of. Even if he was a prince, the prince in question is of these same people who destroyed the temple and the city, but is yet future.

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

It is the people who are said to destroy the city and the sanctuary, not the prince that shall come. However, granting that the 70AD destruction is a partial fulfillment of this part of the prophecy doesn't preclude the possibility of a yet future and more perfect fulfillment. But again, it is the PEOPLE, grammatically speaking, who did the destroying, not the prince in question, putting this particular prince off to another time.

6) "He shall confirm the covenant." Jesus Christ came "to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." Romans 15:8.

Confirming PROMISES is not the same thing as confirming a COVENANT. This is playing fast and loose with the language. Jesus Christ did NOT "confirm a covenant," He established a NEW covenant in His own blood.

Nowhere in the Bible is Antichrist ever said to make or confirm a covenant with anyone! The word "covenant" always applies to the Messiah, never to the Antichrist!

If it weren't for all the other discrepancies that show that this part of the passage is not referring to the Messiah but to a "prince that shall come" this might carry some weight. But political leaders make covenants all the time so there is nothing inherently unlikely about the last greatest evil political leader's doing the same.

7) "He shall confirm the covenant with many." Jesus said, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." Matthew 26:28. Jesus used the same words, because He knew that He was fulfilling Daniel 9:27!

There is not as great a similarity here as he is claiming. I see only the similarity between"with many" and "for many," the former referring to a covenant with many and the latter the Lord's blood shed for many. These are not really "the same words." However, as I said in my other post on the 70th week, there is reason to believe there is some intentional ambiguity in the text here, as there often is in prophetic passages, and of course the Antichrist is to imitate Christ in as many ways as he can so confusion between his attributes and doings and Christ's is to be expected.

Again, Jesus did not "confirm" a covenant, He initiated a new covenant, and He certainly did not do it "for one week" but for all eternity. This leaves the covenant in question to be the work of the "prince who shall come" as there is no other possibility.

8) "In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." The 70th week was from A.D. 27 to 34. After three and a half years of ministry, Christ died in A.D. 31, "in the midst [middle] of the week." At the moment of His death, "the veil of the temple was rent [torn] in twain from the top to the bottom." Matthew 27:51. This act of God signified that all animal sacrifices had at that moment ceased to be of value. The Great Sacrifice had been offered!

This would be a reasonable and intriguing interpretation except for the fact that the 69 weeks of the Daniel prophecy don't count to the beginning of the Lord's ministry but to His entry into Jerusalem just a few days before His crucifixion. If the critic wanted to show that this alternative interpretation carries weight he would have to show that the counting of the 69 weeks is wrong and that in fact it counts to the beginning of Christ's ministry. One can only wonder why he doesn't do this.

He would also have to show that there is some significance in relation to the Lord's mission to the year 34 AD three and a half years after the crucifixion, to make it a fitting end point to the prophecy. He mentions no significance whatever here and I know of none. However, he does later suggest such a significance which I'll get to when it comes up.

9) "For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate." Jesus plainly applied this "abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (Matthew 24:15) to the time when His followers were to flee from Jerusalem before the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. Jesus told His 12 disciples, "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies [the Roman armies led by Prince Titus], then know that its desolation is near." Luke 21:20, emphasis added. Those disciples did "see" those very events. Christ’s very last words to the Pharisees from inside the second temple were, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Matthew 23:38. Thus Daniel’s prophecy about Jerusalem becoming "desolate" was exactly fulfilled in A.D. 70! Jesus understood this perfectly.

The problem with this is that there already had been such an experience held in memory and commemorated by the Jews at the time of this prophecy, the "abomination of desolation" having been a pig that was introduced into the temple by Antioches Epiphanes, which is generally considered to be at least the first fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, with another or others yet to come, which makes the abomination of desolation a more specific thing than the desolation brought by war.

Da 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Da 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

I am not clear whether the Romans also placed an "abomination of desolation" in the temple but that would be the more specific fulfillment of the prophecy in 70 AD if so. Still, there appears to be yet a future "abomination of desolation" to come involving a future temple, but I admit to being weak on this part of the scripture and will have to come back to it at some later time.

Also, Jesus in Matthew 24 refers to a time of tribulation so extreme nothing like it has ever occurred before. While the tribulations of the time of the destruction of the temple and later of Jerusalem were very great I don't think they compare to the Holocaust, or to the final time of "Jacob's trouble" as prophesied in Jeremiah, which is yet future.

10) Gabriel said that the 70-week prophecy specifically applied to the Jewish people (Daniel 9:24). From A.D. 27 to A.D. 34, the disciples went only "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 10:6. At the end of the 70 weeks, in the year A.D. 34, Stephen was stoned by the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts chapter 7). Then the gospel began to go to the Gentiles. In Acts chapter 9, Saul became Paul, "the apostle of the Gentiles." Romans 11:13. Then in Acts chapter 10, God gave Peter a vision revealing that it was now time to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-28). Read also Acts 13:46.

Now this is very interesting if so as now he IS showing a significance to the year 34 AD. IF this is correct it would fulfill the 70 weeks as a specifically Jewish dispensation. But he really has an obligation to demonstrate that the stoning of Stephen did occur in 34 AD EXACTLY three and a half years after the crucifixion (or whatever marker of the Lord's ministry he has in mind, which he doesn't identify) and he hasn't done this.

But there is also the question of whether the objectives of the seventy weeks were fulfilled:

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

This would take some pondering but I would guess that the transgression has not been finished, and there has not yet been an end of sins, but it depends on whether you take this to refer to the mission accomplished by Jesus or to actual ongoing history, and I'm not going to get into this here.

But again, he has not shown that the familiar counting of the 69 weeks to the Lord's entry into Jerusalem is wrong and that it actually counts to the beginning of His ministry. This is absolutely necessary if this interpretation is to be taken as a valid possibility.

The explosive evidence is overwhelming! Point by point, the events of the 70th week have already been fulfilled in the past! The following eight words found in Daniel 9:27: "confirm...covenant...many...midst...sacrifice...cease... abominations...desolate": all find a perfect fulfillment in Jesus Christ and in
early Christian history.

As long as the terminology is presented so vaguely and suggestively out of context, while the specific scriptures in question are not examined in detail in context, you can make it seem like the evidence is there although it is not. All those terms take on different applications when examined in context. I'd also point out again that if we are talking about the Antichrist we have to expect that he will mimic Christ in as many ways as possible. In any case, when the specific statements of scripture are examined, even to the small extent I've tried to do above, this claim of an overwhelming case for the fulfillment of the 70th week just falls apart.

One reason why the Jewish nation as a whole failed to receive its Messiah was because its leaders and scholars failed to correctly interpret the 70-week prophecy. They failed to see Jesus Christ as the Messiah who died in the midst of the 70th week. The same thing is happening today! Amazingly, sincere Christian scholars are now misinterpreting the very same prophecy.

I have to agree that SOMEBODY is misinterpreting the very same prophecy but it's not so clear who, or just how it's being misinterpreted, either now or at the time of the Lord's first coming.

The entire "seven-year period of great tribulation" theory is a grand illusion. It may go down in history as the biggest evangelical misinterpretation of the 20th century! It can be compared to a big, fat hot air balloon. Inside, there is no substance, only air. As soon as Daniel 9:27 is understood correctly and the pin of truth is inserted, the balloon will pop. The fact is that no text in the Bible teaches any "seven-year period of great tribulation." If you look for it, you will end up like Ponce de Leon, who tirelessly searched for the famous fountain of youth but never found it.

Again, the 70th week is not considered to be entirely a period of tribulation; the great tribulation is considered to occur in the last half of the 70th week. In any case, it isn't all that difficult to track down this seventieth week, as I hope I've shown above.

============
I thought I'd be back to make changes in this post but I'm leaving it as is after all. 12/08/10

If the Rapture is Biblically unfounded, why are its critics so bad at taking it apart Biblically?

Just a complaint. From time to time I just have to get something off my chest. Maybe the circumstances will change and I can take it back.

Today's complaint: I keep trying to find GOOD criticisms of the pre-Second Coming Rapture interpretation. There is no lack of criticism, but I am not finding much that seriously challenges the BIBLICAL claims.

What they tend to do is carry on and on about IMPLICATIONS of the Rapture idea as they see it (it encourages a desire to escape our problems here for instance), and they ASSERT that it's not Biblical, but they really don't take apart the idea Biblically at all.

I did listen carefully to the Amillennial arguments as presented by Kim Riddlebarger and I couldn't support his Biblical interpretations. He too spent much of his time complaining about the Rapture idea, but then he did at least get into some of the Biblical claims.

I probably need to do a more thorough search than I've done, but it IS frustrating. I'm tried of the assertions and insinuations, I want a REALLY GOOD BIBLICAL ANSWER to the BIBLICAL claims of the Rapturists.

Thank you.

Considering the Amillennial View, Pt. 2: The Seventieth Week of Daniel

This is the second post I'm making on specific Biblical interpretations from the Amillennial viewpoint. I'm trying to stick to the narrow topic and avoid going beyond it into the many related issues. Since from what I've grasped of the relevant scriptures so far I've been leaning toward the idea of the pre-trib Rapture (to my own surprise), my predominant interest at the moment is in seeing whether key scriptures in support of that idea hold up. Amillennialists specifically oppose the pre-trib Rapture so their arguments should be addressed. I looked at the meaning of the "temple" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in the first post in this series and concluded that the Amillennialists have it wrong, so that's one for the pre-tribbers.

Now I'm going to look at the 70th week of Daniel based on Daniel 9:24-27.

Again I'm taking my information from Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's lectures. I haven't listened to all of them, but quite a few at the beginning and end of the Amillennialism 101 series plus the shorter Antichrist series. The following are notes I took from his discussion of the 70th Week of Daniel from the first tape in the Antichrist series. [below the Amil 101 series on the right-hand margin]. They may not be completely accurate so I'm not going to call them quotations.
=========

[The 70 weeks of Daniel, Daniel 9:24-27] which doesn't teach a seven-year tribulation.

It's a messianic prophecy. It's fulfilled by Christ's active and passive obedience. There's no reference in that passage to an antichrist making a treaty with Israel. There is a reference to Christ cutting a covenant on behalf of his people in the middle of the 70th week before he's cut off. Christ confirms his covenant with the many. It's a passage that talks about his death on the cross, not something the antichrist is going to do.

Here is the passage of scripture. The angel Gabriel has come to teach Daniel about things to come:

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

In this passage the angel Gabriel reveals the yet-future period of time in terms of "weeks" or sevens of years, between a specific event, "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" and the coming of the Messiah for whom Daniel's people Israel have been waiting for centuries. Four decrees were made by various of the pagan kings regarding the return of the Jews to Judea after their captivity, but only one of the decrees specifically concerned the rebuilding of Jerusalem, so that is the one taken as the starting point for the calculations based on this passage.

Those who have studied the historical facts have shown that the first 69 weeks of years were literally fulfilled as a specific time period that can be counted precisely from that particular decree up to Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on the donkey, his public revelation of Himself as the Messiah-King. The 69 weeks are exactly fulfilled and there is nothing in the time frame of Jesus' first coming that fits the 70th week of years, leaving that 70th week yet to be fulfilled.

It seems to me that with this kind of precision there is no reasonable doubt that the "weeks" of the prophecy refer to literal time. The Amillennialists apparently explain the 69 weeks in some other way but I haven't been able to find out how, except that they reject the idea that the weeks are an actual time period. This is clear in their explanation of the 70th week at least:

Kim Riddlebarger says:

"The 70th week of Daniel is fulfilled 56:20

It's a messianic prophecy. It's fulfilled by Christ's active and passive obedience."

I listened carefully and heard NO evidence for this claim. He merely asserts it. Somehow, although the first 69 weeks of years can be shown to have been literally fulfilled in a historically identifiable time period, the last week is not to be treated as a literal week of years but as representative of the Lord's obedience? I really did listen for anything that could make sense of this and came up with nothing, no discussion of the reasoning that should lead one to this view, and no offering of a criticism of the calculation of the literal time frame, nothing -- in this particular study anyway, but such an objection should be here if it's anywhere. So the Amil interpretation remains a bald assertion, and an assertion of a peculiarly bizarre and indefensible kind it seems to me.

There's no reference in that passage to an antichrist making a treaty with Israel. There is a reference to Christ cutting a covenant on behalf of his people in the middle of the 70th week before he's cut off. Christ confirms his covenant with the many. It's a passage that talks about his death on the cross, not something the antichrist is going to do.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation

OK, it's possible to read the passage this way as at first it could appear that the "he" refers back to the Messiah rather than to the "prince that shall come." BUT the rest of the passage couldn't possibly refer to the Messiah as He did not "confirm" a covenant, He made a NEW covenant, and He did not make it "for one week" but for eternity. No Biblical defense has been given for the wild notion that the 70th week refers to the obedience of Christ, none, so I just have to dismiss it.

The reference to the ceasing of the sacrifice and the oblation also could indicate the destruction of the temple in 70 AD which was prophesied by Jesus, and which was the necessary demonstration that His sacrifice on the cross ended the need for animal sacrifices for all time. BUT the wording is a bit odd in that case. His death DID in a sense "cause" the destruction of the temple, of course, but the passage describes something this ambiguous "he" directly DOES to cause the temple observances to cease and Jesus didn't do anything like that.

But there is another passage in Daniel where an antichrist figure does remove the sacrifice:

Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

And this prophecy WAS fulfilled, by Antiochus Epiphanes a few centuries after Daniel (175-163 BC) , whose desecration of the Jerusalem temple was the cause of the Maccabean revolt, now commemorated in the celebration of Hannukah. With this clear preceding reference, and a fulfilled prophecy at that, it's hard to see how the A-mils can insist that the reference in Daniel 9 MUST refer to the Messiah and not the Antichrist.

I think the last verses of Daniel 9 may be one of those deliberately ambiguous prophetic passages that are intended to obscure the truth until the time is close for its fulfillment -- or even until the events in question are already underway. I think we are getting near to that time and the passage is becoming bit by bit more intelligible, and it happens to be the pre-trib rapture scenario that is coming into view with its concomitant understanding of God's separate dealings with the Jews. (Also, the ambiguity helps to underscore the fact that the Antichrist is after all an imitation Christ who will imitate as many of the true Christ's attributes as he can. Confusing the two is his aim.)

Furthermore the Book of Revelation takes the last half of the 70th week [56:50], that 1260 days the 3-1/2 years, the times time and half a time and describes the whole interadvental period as the last half of Daniel's 70th week. And in doing that the biblical writers specifically John in the bk of Rev are doing the very thing dispensationalists tell us ought not to be done. It's JOHN -- well actually it's the angel that's revealing this to John -- it's the angel who now tells us that that last 3-01/2 weeks of daniel's final week -- that 7-yr period the last -- is the entire interadvental period.

I listened quite carefully I thought, in order to find out exactly how he thinks this is the case, what evidence he has that the angel is referring to "the entire interadvental period" -- these last 1900-plus years so far -- and not to a specific time period just as the first 69 weeks of years do. The period of 3-1/2 years is so specifically reiterated in scripture in a variety of forms there's something wildly bizarre about insisting it's not a time period. It's referred to as "times, time and half a time" in a few places, it's referred to as 42 months in others, it's referred to as 1260 days.

There's nothing vague about it, nothing that requires allegorizing it, and nothing the angel says that allegorizes it. It seems to me that Riddlebarger merely loudly asserts that John via the angel says so, but I don't see it. He's also asserted, as I quote above, that the whole last "week of years," this 70th week in question, refers to Christ's "active and passive obedience" rather than a literal time period. So he allegorizes the entire week in that way, but then separately stretches out the last half of the week to refer to a time period of almost 2000 years. The two ideas aren't even remotely compatible that I can see.

And finally there is no 7-year tribulation period affirmed anywhere in the new testament. It's not there.

First, the pre-tribbers I've been listening to take care to correct the idea that the entire seven years is a time of tribulation, saying that only the last half is to be tribulation. Second, the iterations of the 1260 days, the 42 months and so on in the Book of Revelation, are pretty specific indicators of a very specific time period that is exactly half of the "week of years" or 70th week of Daniel that is yet unfulfilled.

Rather, the destruction of Jerusalem is spoken of as great tribulation as is the entire interadvental period. We find this in Matt 24:29, John 16:33, Acts 14:22, Romans 8:35, Rev 1:9. The whole interadvental period is spoken of as a time of tribulation and a time of suffering for God's people. And then a great tribulation is mentioned in Rev 7:14. This is the great multitude with the palm branches. These are the ones coming OUT of the great tribulation. The great tribulation in that passage is the interadvental period. The NT never speaks of a seven-year tribulation, the NT speaks of the time between Christ's comings. That entire period is a time of tribulation.

Maybe I'm missing his point but I read all those verse references, all to "tribulation" in some sense or other, most of them to the tribulations all Christians are to expect, so in that general sense they refer to the "entire interadvental period" but I don't see anything that defines the multitude with the palm branches as those who suffered throughout this period -- it's possible but it's not obvious from the context as he claims it is.

Jesus in Matthew 24 refers to a worst tribulation ever, and while that probably does refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 it's one of those prophecies that suggests it has yet a further fulfillment to come. But also I'd point out that it was not believers who specifically suffered that tribulation, but predominantly unbelieving Jews. It was a judgment against the Jewish nation, not about followers of Christ at all. If that event is what Jesus was referring to, then He was talking about His "brethren" in the sense of the Jews rather than in the sense of His disciples. So from there I'd go on to ask whether that event was worse than the Holocaust? If not then something worse is yet to come, and to keep up the parallel this would most likely be the "time of Jacob's trouble" rather than a tribulation suffered by the church.

Jeremiah 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

"Jacob" is clearly unbelieving Jews. And if that is the case then Jesus could very well have been talking to the generation of Jews who would be alive in the very last days, all consistent with the pre-trib point of view. I haven't worked all this out myself, in fact I just now noticed that the fall of Jerusalem was a Jewish disaster, not a Christian one.

I could go over every reference and raise the relevant questions but I didn't want to get too deeply into all this here. I'd just say that it's a big leap to assume that there's no other special time of tribulation to be taken into account, and since he merely asserted his point and gave the references without arguing his case for his understanding of them, leaving me to figure out what he means, all I can say is I don't find whatever he thinks he finds.

What I wanted to address in this post is whether there is a yet-unfulfilled "week" or seven literal years prophesied in this passage and whether the Amillennialists succeed in answering this claim. At least Kim Riddlebarger doesn't succeed at this in my judgment. He insists that Amillennialists do not allegorize the Bible except where the Bible itself allegorizes, but it seems to me there's something awfully disingenuous about that claim as I compare his thinking to the literal-weeks-of-years interpretation. I search in vain for anything that supports his assertion that John himself allegorizes the last half of the 70th week in the Book of Revelation to refer to the entire interadvental period. I don't see it. The best that I can say for his position is that he's failed to prove it.

So I find for the interpretation of a yet-future time period of seven years, a literal 70th week of Daniel that was not fulfilled at the first coming of Christ and is yet to be fulfilled, and since the prophecy of the 70 weeks was a prophecy of the coming of Christ and the ending of sin, then the unfulfilled week must have to do with His second coming. Since the 69 weeks were a precise period of time, so would the 70th week be precise, which means that those alive during that period should be able to calculate when the Lord will appear. And since we are also told that no-one knows the day and to be ready so as not to be taken by surprise, this CAN be taken for evidence that there must be two comings yet future, one that will come suddenly without a clear warning, and one that will be expected at a particular time. But I'm holding this interpretation loosely for now. The point of this post was just to decide if there is yet to come a literal seven-year-period that is to finish up all the unfinished business related to the redemption and the end of the world.

UFOs, False Christs, discrediting Biblical Christianity, setting the stage for some kind of End Times Extravaganza

Again, the link to the 10-2 message mostly on UFOs from Heidi Swandell at Olive Tree Views.

And again the link to the 10-2 radio broadcast also on UFOs hosted by Brannon Howse though Olive Tree Views .

And here's Scott Johnson's PDF to his 10-3 teachings which also cover UFOs among other things.

Lotta stuff on UFOs this week, along with quite a bit on False Christs, which makes sense because the most likely purpose of the UFO demonic deception is to usher in the Antichrist. Could the Antichrist be nonhuman? Well, one major candidate is Maitreya who has claims to supernatural credentials of some sort. He's been more or less underwritten by the U.N. although that fact is played down these days. His website, run by his channeler Benjamin Creme is Share International.

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

(Does Antichrist get revealed before or after the Rapture? But that's another post.)

It ought to be recognized as a sign unto itself that False Christs love to talk in strange pompous religious language. It seems that anyone who is familiar with the straightforward authoritative style of Jesus Christ surely couldn't be deceived by these imposters if only for that reason alone, but apparently it happens. Many who aren't very Biblically knowledgeable certainly are already deceived by fake Christs, as evidenced by the followings of such doctrines of demons as A Course in Miracles, which Oprah Winfrey so strongly promoted a couple years ago, along with another "spiritual" leader whose name I forget, and other demon-imparted drivel such as the Seth Books which were also popular a few decades ago, and the Urantia cult, and now there's the Raelian cult, and might as well point out that the same method of impartation by angels demons was also the basis for the Book of Mormon and the Koran. I'm sure there are dozens more I'm leaving out. They all talk with this artificial bloated pseudospiritual wordiness, and an elitist snobbery that puts down "the ignorant masses" and that sort of thing (see example below), and they ALL try to discredit -- guess what? -- true Biblical Christianity. Imagine that. It's getting so the greatest testimony to the Truth is from its enemies -- if you have ears to hear, that is.

I got the following example of the vaporings of such a false Christ from Scott Johnson's PDF to his 10-3-10 teaching. He discusses it in Part 2 out of five parts.

It's a classic. This demon pretender puts himself above Christ by claiming to be Christ, preaches false doctrine, attacks the apostle Paul (what a glory to Paul that he is so frequently attacked by falsifiers), AND, interestingly, attacks -- all Bibles, but specifically the KING JAMES BIBLE (the "authorized" version.) Now, isn't that something to ponder? I point you to my blog The Great Bible Hoax for more, but you'll also find teachings on the KJV at Scott Johnson's site and at links I've listed at my blog.

(More Lies From Ascended Master Esu Immanuel Sananda AKA “Master Jesus”)

Greetings, precious little Druthea. I AM Sananda. I come in the service of Holy Creator Source, the ONE labeled GOD of Light. I AM the One Who walked your place some 2000 years past in your counting. I was human, as are you ones who now walk this place and journey towards ONENESS with God.

I guess addressing this to a "Druthea" is supposed to mimic some of the epistles of the Bible perhaps? Hm. Holy Creator Source. Hm. "Labeled" -- does that mean "falsely so-called?" Hm. But maybe there's a revelation of the truth here in that we know the devil comes as an "angel of light," and usurps the place of God whenever he can. And get that capitalized "I AM" he uses, the very Name of God claimed only by the God of the Bible and by Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

"who walked your place?" Odd language, what does that mean anyway? "In your counting." Aha, you're an alien, not of "our" system of things. But Jesus Christ never spoke in such a way. And you WERE human? Clever. People do seem to want to believe that Jesus wasn't what the Bible says He is. Let's make him an alien who just pretended to be what the Bible says He is. Oh, and there's your false theology too, that we're all just a-journeying to oneness with God, no rules to be judged by, no punishment for sin to worry about, just a journey. Well, Shirley MacLaine seems to have fallen for it.

I was known by many labels and most will recognize Me by the term Jesus Christ. Much of what you do read in your various editions of the so-called Holy Bible are the misperceptions of the one Pharisee born as Saul of Tarsus and who changed his name to Paul.

Always they demote Jesus Christ one way or another, usually by making him part -- a lesser part -- of a pantheon of enlightened ones. Here he's just one persona of this entity, and SO misunderstood too. Then there's the "so-called" Holy Bible. Yes, let's impugn its claim to that title right off the bat. Get them in a mood to doubt it. And there's that attack on Paul, no better evidence for his righteous authority than a demon impersonator of Christ debunk him for his "misperceptions." The sad thing is that ANYBODY could believe these droolings of Satan, but they do, they do.

Alas, My mission and My purpose for coming to your place in behalf of Our heavenly Father was not only misunderstood by true seekers of truth, but was also purposely altered to serve the needs of the religious zealots who "lead" the ignorant masses through fear and damnation.

This is SO not the personality of Jesus Christ, it's disgusting to think anyone could believe any of it. Oh those "ignorant masses," oh we wouldn't want to be one of THEM now would we? No, we are enlightened seekers of truth. No fear and damnation for us, that's just for the "ignorant" ones, not us superior ones, just happy happy journeys to oneness with God.

For you ones who work closely with The HOSTS of God who assist you at this time of great transition, please KNOW that I experienced the wrath and malicious actions by those who were threatened by the messages of Our Holy Father which I brought to the people.

Kind of a hint there of a horde of demonic "helpers" or "spirit guides" so many New Agers have put themselves in bondage to, "hosts of God" my foot. "Our Holy Father" can only be Satan himself whom Jesus called "the father of lies"

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

And of course, always those who reject lies are characterized as malicious and "threatened" by their bogus "truth" instead. It's a formula that has been tried and apparently works to discredit true believers.

The adversary was nipping at my heals CONSTANTLY, chelas, as many of you are now experiencing as well. Paul, alias Saul of Tarsus, was NO apostle of Mine. HE elected himself authority to interpret My message and it was HE who taught the misteachings of salvation and put ME, Immanuel, ABOVE you, once calling Me the only Son of God to save you from your sins. THESE WERE NOT MY TEACHINGS, EVER, and in fact, if you study the first books which are included in most versions of the Christian Bibles (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John), there remains a REMNANT of the messages which I brought which do often contradict Paul's interpretations. Even still, those four books do not include many things I taught and were actually put to print between 70 and 200 years A.D.! And this is by calculation of YOUR own historical theologians.

"Chelas," hm, a term of endearment to his followers I guess. Something to make them feel special and different and elite and enlightened. Might be interesting to know the translation, if it has one. The whole paragraph is of course just a collection of familiar lies about the Bible to discredit it. It is the word of God, mustn't let THAT be known, must make it out to be the invention of evil men instead, must claim Jesus contradicts Paul etc. etc. etc.

And so on he goes attacking the Bible and its believers and offering a New Age version of God and religion:

So, precious chelas, you must ask yourselves, WHO decided what would be included in each "authorized" version of the Bible? I can assure you GOD was seldom present in those authorizations and decisions. Paul, the self-ordained apostle, corrupted my message and deceived MILLIONS of ignorant seekers over the centuries. I would venture to say he did his job well. For so many of you are transfixed in an illusion of dogma and human power, and the price has been YOUR SOUL.

We of THE HOSTS of GOD are come again to you ones WHO will hear the clarion call of TRUTH, for so many of you are weary of being lied to and used. So many are trapped and you are kept there by the adversary of fear. We come to shake you awake that you may find GOD within you and FREEDOM which only His Holy Presence, acknowledged and accepted, will bring you!

It is time to think for yourselves, for GOD gave you all that you are and you have mostly denied HIM and self. We are giving you a ticket to free your soul from the bondage of false human dogma and ritual which leaves you unfulfilled.

Does this mean I say to question your "beliefs" as you now hold them? YES. If you live a righteous and moral life putting others before self and seeking to give in more ways, then you can label yourself and atheist, Christian, Aborigine, Buddhist, or Muslim and it makes no difference whatsoever.

SOURCE:: The Phoenix Liberator, November 10, 1992, Volume 21, Number 4.
http://www.phoenixarchives.com/liberator/1992/1192/111092.pdf
================

Right. Religion to the cults is just being-a-good-person. They have to deny in one form or another that we're all born sinners, since the Fall of the human race when our first parents disobeyed God and brought death into the world, putting all their descendants under the rule of Satan. They have to deny the reality of Hell although all cultures have affirmed the reality of some such place of punishment after death, where those who reject God and His Law end up. They deny that there is any sort of punishment for disobeying God, so they can deny our need of a perfectly righteous Savior, the merciful God Himself who came in human flesh to die for us, to take our own deserved punishment in our place. Their whole plan is to keep as many as possible from knowing the true way to God and the costly salvation He bought for us.

I also found the following from this same creepy entity elsewhere online:

I AM Sananda. I come in service to our Holy Father of LIGHT, God/Aton and to you, my brethren. Greetings little sister Druthea. Druthea has asked Our Father to please bring understanding and clarification on what is THE CREATION. Our Father God/Aton of Light has sent me to answer this challenge.

Hoo, let me guess, the Creation isn't anything like what is found in Genesis 1.

I call this a challenge because your language of communication has not the "words" for describing this concept of Creation. So in order to put upon you, my precious chela, MORE limitation, I will ask that you close your eyes, call forth THE GREAT SPIRIT OF ONE WITHIN YOU, "listen" and continue reading with The Presence of The Holy Divine ONE WITHIN.

Lemme see, translation: only if you get yourself good and demon-possessed can you poor inferior mortals begin to comprehend our superior language for our superior concepts.

Now imagine a GREAT CIRCLE OF INFINITY with no ending and no beginning in front of you. This will "represent" The Creation. Now image that this circle is a great movie film without ending and without beginning, but moving ever creatively on, constantly unfolding the unlimited potential of the creative "will". What we will do now is PAUSE a frame in the sequence of this ongoing "film" of no-time and no-space, no-ending and no-beginning...

The Creation represents fulfilled and yet unfulfilled Creative Potential. Creation is the Totality of ALL THAT IS, which in your human perspective is ALL THAT HAS BEEN and ALL THAT IS TO BE. Now, keep in mind, the Laws of Balance, of Nature, of God and of The Creation are THE SAME Universal Laws of Order and Logic.

Huh? Well, obviously my inferior "human perspective," my merely mortal intellect, just isn't up to processing this sort of gobbledygook sophisticated revelation. but it appears at least that he's claiming that God is part of Nature rather than outside it as its Creator as the Bible teaches.

So then HOW is the Creative Potential REALIZED and FULFILLED? Through the Great Spiritually Perfected Being, God/Aton, who is Great MIND and INTELLIGENCE which brings THE POTENTIAL of that which represents The Creation into coalescence of matter, such as planets, stars, animals, plants and minerals. Now, you have ONE GREAT SPIRITUALLY PERFECTED BEING which is THE MIND INTELLIGENCE OF YOUR GALAXY...that ONE which we call OUR FATHER/MOTHER CREATOR GOD/ATON. The reason that WE are ONE with, and therefore, called the "children" of God/Aton is that this Great Being has FRAGMENTED Himself, His Great Spirit, to allow HIS UNFOLDING CREATIVE POTENTIAL UNLIMITED varieties of experience. Thus each human, each Angel, each BEING which is created and fragmented of HIM, is a unique creative-potential filled reflection of aspect of THE ONE GREAT MIND INTELLIGENCE, GOD/ATON.

I see, God is one with everything and we're all part of God. The Hinduistic idea basically, the New Age God. Certainly not the God of the Bible. And as if it weren't clear enough already he goes on to emphasize that "God" is a part of the Creation and "we" are a part of God. I'm not sure where the name Aton comes from, which of the satanic false religions.

So, we have The Creation, which represents the Great Sacred Circle of Infinity, without end or beginning, which holds the fulfilled and unfulfilled Creative Potential of the Totality of ALL that is. Then we have God/Aton, which represents the MIND INTELLIGENCE OF THE CREATION FOR THIS GALAXY. God/Aton is as much a PART of The Creation as WE EACH are a PART of God/Aton. Hence the truth...WE ARE ALL ONE.

But we have to ACHIEVE this oneness somehow or other:

I, Sananda, have now reached my state of ONENESS with Our Father, which is the meaning of my name, "One With God". What does this mean to you, my brethren? This means that I am in the state of My Father, God/Aton's will. I am sent now, along with His Hosts of Light, of Our Father to reclaim YOU of his fragments who choose to move into higher realms of Creative Spiritual Awareness. Eventually, many of YOU ones will EARN, as have I, the state of Grace, of Oneness with Our Father of Light/Life Aton. I, and my Brothers of Light come to show the WAY toward ONENESS, which is the Love, the Peace, the Balance, and the Harmony of THE TOTALITY OF ALL THAT IS, THE CREATION. Why come we? Because we, the Hosts of God of Light, LOVE you as our brothers who are also precious beings created of Our Father. Since my will is HIS WILL, it is HIS WILL to bring you HOME and I am come to show you the way.

Oh how exciting. They LOVE us, they come to HELP us realize our true nature. I hate to think how many can be sucked into this kind of delusion. (And a side note, what's with this odd phrasing "you ones?" and the strange form "why come we?" Posturing of some sort, pompous language.)

Now what does it mean to be "Sananda", One With God? Much Responsibility, chelas! Only it is quite a JOYFUL responsibility in that I am AWARE of my Co-Creation with Our Father. I recognize that even the word "responsibility" makes many of you a bit uncomfortable inside, mostly because it is a symbol of discipline, and seriousness and ones even perceive it as "limiting" to their perceived "enjoyment" of life. Eventually, precious ones, "responsibility" will not pose a "threat" to you because you will have developed the INTEGRITY of YOUR SPIRIT WITHIN to the point that you will WELCOME the creative challenges of SELF-Responsibility.

Interesting. Mustn't come down too hard on this responsibility thing, might lose our audience, they feel "threatened" by such burdens on their blithe spirits. We've taught them not to tolerate the idea of Hell for a moment any more and responsibility is also just too much for the dears. Gotta make this FUN.

You see, since most of you (especially those of you who have believed various HUMAN doctrines in your "religious" institutions) have been "programmed" to be dependent and not take responsibility; and since you have also been programmed that you are somehow separate from your Creator, learning to take Personal Responsibility seems "unnatural" and "frightening" to you. WHY? Well, when you recognize the truth that YOU have created ALL within this manifested "illusion", it can be a bit overwhelming to your consciousness to realize that you have also contributed to the DIS-ease upon your plane and upon yourselves. There is NO ONE else to blame anymore.

There's a mouthful. I'm going to have to come back and try to unpack this later.

Personal Responsibility means taking action to balance the unbalance, to bring love where there is hatred, to bring harmony where there is chaos, to bring discipline where there is disorder and to bring peace where there is war. Each ONE of you will open your own door to the SPIRITUAL POWER OF LOVE WITHIN YOU WHEN you start taking Responsibility for ALL of your manifested reality, including your thoughts, words and deeds. Each ONE who harmonizes and balances within brings the LIGHT of Balance and Harmony to your "pool" of mass consciousness, so that it eventually will no longer be the "cesspool" of darkness and despair which it is now.

Ah well, our subject is The Creation and ITS relationship to God/Aton and to YOU. Please recognize, please remember, my precious ones, YOU each represent WITHIN YOU GOD/ATON'S MIND INTELLIGENCE for UNLIMITED SPIRITUAL CREATIVE POTENTIAL. THERE IS SO MUCH JOY TO BE A PART OF. LET GO of your ILLUSIONS of separation from THE ONE and attachment to the "physical" and "emotional" aspects of this LIMITED plane. BE responsible for what is YOUR JOB of clean-up before you, SPREAD THE WORD OF TRUTH written in The Journals about your Earthly circumstances and spread the JOY that GOD WINS in this final confrontation with evil. Will you JOIN GOD, MINESELF and MINE Brothers of LIGHT in this confrontation of evil? OR, will you remain ignorant and apathetic, and therefore, a PART OF THE EVIL ENERGY DESTRUCTIVE "WILL" upon this plane? In Love and Peace, I humbly request that YOU take MINE hand to the path of GOD and ONENESS...the ONLY logical choice is the choice of GOD'S WILL, and MAY GOD'S WILL BE DONE! So Be It.

I AM Sananda, One With God, in service to HIS HOLY PRESENCE, ATON and THE CREATION. Peace be with you. Salu.

More to say about this when I'm up to it.

UFOs again and a Rapture Disinformation Campaign?

Took note of this remark in an article by Heidi Swander for Jan Markell's Olive Tree Views:

Brannon Howse, sitting in for Jan on our Understanding the Times radio broadcast this past Saturday (Oct. 2, 2010), equated the official and increased recognition of UFOs with "religious syncretism" -- the coalescing of the one-world religion by bringing many divergent and seemingly incompatible religions together. Brannon asked his guest, Gary Bates, author of the book Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, if he saw the UFO phenomenon as laying the foundation for the antichrist. "I could not see a better explanation. Because, in fact, most of the UFO writings -- and particularly the writings that claim to have been channeled to receivers here on the Earth -- do have an eschatology, and it seems to strongly, actually, follow the idea that people are going to be whisked away off the Earth into space ships. That sounds like the Rapture . . ." which we know is necessary in order for the antichrist to make his entrance.

Certainly looks like there is likely to be a big disinformation campaign if the Rapture does occur, to explain away the sudden absence of Christians in occultic terms. Well, you know, Christians are the problem, the "bigots" -- "ignorant" / "unevolved" / "unenlightened" -- who only interfere with the grand project of producing an "evolved" or "enlightened" population under the leadership of Ascended Masters or Ancient Astronauts or whatever pompous hooha they come up with -- so let me guess, their story will be how they kindly removed us impediments to progress to some place where we can evolve in a pleasant environment without disturbing the higher things on earth.

Only those who grasp the Christian understanding will know what really happened.

I also tuned into the broadcast on Jan Markell's Understanding the Times (Oct. 2, 2010) , with substitute host Brannon Howse, covering UFOs among other related topics.

Scott Johnson's talks for 10-3-10 also get into UFOs, and the possibility that there will soon be a release of information from world leaders that's been suppressed for decades affirming the reality of UFOs. Also Google UFO Disclosure.

=====================
Just had this question pop into my mind: If there is to be a catching-away of Christian believers before the events of the last days -- the 70th week of Daniel or the last 3-1/2 years or whatever it turns out to be -- what about children who are not old enough to profess Christ? I have to assume that the children of believing parents would be raptured, but would the grandchildren of believing grandparents be raptured although the parents are not (yet) believers for instance?

Ron Rhodes: Problems with Posttribulationism

I was about to turn to arguments for posttribulationism (the position that the rapture will occur only after the tribulation, at the very end of time, and is synonymous with the Second Coming of Christ), and found this discussion by Ron Rhodes of problems with it before I even found the arguments for it. I have been struggling in this direction myself as I've been pursuing this topic but so far hadn't been able to put it all together. Ron Rhodes does a great job of highlighting many of my own objections that I hadn't yet been able to articulate myself. (One thing I have yet to resolve is just where in scripture it's right to think of "Israel" as ONLY the Jews and not the New Israel of Jew and Gentile. I think there's something to this but I'm not ready to agree with Rhodes completely on this, or Missler, or some others I've read).

The main gist is that the coming of Christ is described in the New Testament BOTH as an event that must be preceded by certain signs AND as imminent, to be expected at any time. Both cannot be true of the same event. This suggests TWO comings of Christ. I've heard preaching on imminence, to be ready at any moment for the Lord's return, as if there were no signs to be taken into account at all and wondered what they do with those lists of signs. I don't know. I think they are missing the two comings just as the post-tribulationists do who recognize the warning signs and minimize or explain away the passages that indicate that His coming could be at any moment without any warning at all.

I think this essay is a very strong argument against post-trib and for pre-trib but it still needs a lot of pondering.

Summary of Problems with Posttribulationism [click to go to site]
by Ron Rhodes

The Problem of Imminency

The problem for posttribulationists is that all the Rapture passages seem to indicate an imminent Rapture, while the Second Coming is preceded by specific events. The difficulty is in reconciling these two distinct events into one single event. Posttribs try to solve this problem by redefining imminence as merely indicating that Christ will return soon, and argue against the idea that the Rapture could occur at any moment.

It should be noted that in several instances, Paul exhorted believers on the basis of the imminency of the Lord's return without even the slightest warning of an impending great tribulation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-58). Every passage that clearly refers to the Rapture has this unusual feature of exhortation which is based on the imminency of the rapture and the absence of any warning of an intervening great tribulation.

The Problem of the Comforting Hope

The problem here is in harmonizing the comforting hope of 1 Thessalonians 4 with a literal great tribulation. The hope of the Rapture was extended to the Thessalonian Christians as a comfort. Paul did not warn them of a coming great tribulation.

Obviously, the Thessalonians would not have experienced much 'comfort' or 'hope' if they had to go through the great tribulation before being translated. Posttribulationists generally try to get around this by minimizing the sufferings of the saints, and somehow insulating them from the judgments of the great tribulation.

The Problem of the Restrainer

Posttribs have not adequately dealt with the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2. They usually argue from silence by stating that paul surely would have asserted pretribulationism if it were an established truth. Their logic seems to be: 'Since Paul didn't come right out and say that there would be a pretribulational Rapture, posttribulationism (by the process of elimination) must be correct.' However, if the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, as pretribs believe, then Paul in fact did argue for a pretrib Rapture.

The Problem of the Wheat and the Tares

Posttribulationists support their view by citing Matthew 13:30, where the tares are taken up first before the wheat. However, this contradicts the posttrib sequence of events. In their view, the wicked are not dealt with finally before the rapture. Subsequently, Matthew 13:30 does not support posttribulationism.

The Problem of Intervening Events on Earth

The tribulation is a period of preparation for the Millennium. Since all believers are translated at the Rapture, this period of time is necessary to make possible a new generation of believers who will populate the Millennium in their mortal bodies.

The Problem of the Judgment of the Nations

The unbelievers (goats) are cast into everlasting fire by means of physical death whereas believers (sheep) enter the kingdom prepared for them - the Millennial Kingdom. The judgment of the nations is an individual judgment. It results in the purging of unbelievers out from among believers and leaves believers untouched. (Note that no one is translated or resurrected).

If there had been a posttribulational Rapture, then believers would already be separated from unbelievers. This judgment would then be unnecessary.

The Problem of the "First Resurrection"

Posttribulationists call attention to the expression "first resurrection" in Revelation 20:4-6 in support of their argument. They ask how a posttribulational resurrection could be 'first' if a Rapture had actually taken place before the tribulation? The answer is that the resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:4-6 actually occurs after the second coming of Christ and therefore contradicts the idea that the Rapture (in the posttribulational view) is a part of the second coming of Christ from heaven to earth. Even a posttribulationist would have to recognize that in his order of events, the resurrection of Rev. 20:4-6 is not 'first.'

The Problem of Terminology

Similar terminology is used for the Rapture and the Second Coming. Posttribs thus conclude that these two events must be one. They use nontechnical terms like coming, appearing, and revelation in a technical way.

The answer to this is simply that the context must always be taken unto consideration in determining how these words are to be interpreted. It is faulty logic to assume that a word must always be used in exactly the same way whenever it is used.

The Problem of the Book of Revelation

Posttribulationists have no uniform interpretation of this book. Most posttribs spiritualize the great judgments in Revelation 6-19. The widely conflicting and contradictory interpretations that Posttribs hold to in regard to this book is ample testimony to their inadequate hermeneutics.

The Problem of Transition from the Tribulation to the Millennium

This problem has been touched on earlier. The basic problem is, How can saints go into the Millennium in their natural bodies if, in fact, they were raptured while Christ was coming from heaven to earth? Their bodies would have already been glorified.

Additional Problems which are the Result of an Incorrect and Inconsistent Hermeneutic:

Disagreement on the Millennium

Posttribs do not agree as to whether premillennialism, postmillennialism, or amillennialism is the correct view. Thus posttribulationism does not lend itself to a single eschatological system of interpretation.

Disagreement on the Nature of the Judgments at the Second Coming of Christ

The main disagreement among posttribs is in regard to the time and the order of these judgments. Gundry holds that the judgment of the nations and the judgment seat of Christ take place at the end of the Millennium. However, posttribs usually lump the various judgments together at the Second Coming. If they are premil, they place the judgments before the Millennium.

Disagreement as to a Specific Order of Events at the Time of the Second Coming

Posttribulationists rarely offer a specific sequence of events in connection with the Second Coming of Christ. What little order they do give, they disagree with one another (e.g., compare classic, semiclassic, futurist, and dispensational posttribulational interpretations).

The Problem of Classic Posttribulationism

The problem here is the impossibility of explaining all the predicted events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ as either past or contemporaneous.

The Problems of Semiclassic Posttribulationism

Those who hold to this view are not agreed as to how far to interpret prophecy literally.

Those who hold to this view have failed in attempting to affirm any reasonable sequence of events relating to the Second Coming.

The Problems of Dispensational Posttribulationism

Gundry regards the tribulation as a time of satanic wrath but not a time of divine wrath. However, Rev. 6:16 says it is a time of the "wrath of the lamb."

Gundry places the judgments at the end of the Millennium. The motivation for this seems to be that it is impossible to have a judgment of the sheep and the goats following the Second Coming of Christ if, as a matter of fact, the Rapture has taken place shortly before at the Second Advent itself.

The Problem of the Distinction between the Church and Israel

Most posttribs include in the church the saints of all ages. They must spiritualize scripture to accomplish this. They argue that since "saints" are in the great tribulation, the church must apparently go through it.

Gundry is the exception to this in that he attempts to distinguish between the church and Israel. (Cf. separate handout on Gundry).

The Problem of Daniel

Posttribulationism destroys the unity of Daniel's seventieth week, and also confuses Israel's program with that of the church.

The Problem of Titus 2:13

Posttribulationists have not adequately dealt with this passage where believers are exhorted to look for "the glorious appearing" of Christ to His own. If the Rapture follows the Tribulation, believers would then look for signs instead of His coming.

The Problem of Purification

Believers are exhorted to purify themselves (1 Jn. 3:2, 3) in light of the fact that the Lord could appear at "any moment." It would not make sense for a believer to purify himself for the tribulation (which would be the case if posttribulationism were correct).

The Problem of John 14:1-3

At the Rapture, the church goes to the Father's house, and not back to earth again as posttribulationists hold.

==============================
"The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries."