I have heard a number of thoughts concerning the man of lawlessness (mol) but don't really have any strong conclusions of my own yet. What are your thoughts and/or study you have done concerning the mol. In particular, I have a question regarding the holding him back...what do you think that refers to?

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

Answers

EVERYTHING Post-trib said.....I DISAGREE WITH!!!

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

And there is Spiderman, Batman, Superman, Catwoman, and Mighty Dog!!!

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Connie....

Just to verify....you believe all past prophecies to have been fulfilled....."literally??"

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Coooooooooooooooooonnie......

You are avoiding my question. Please answer.....I'll ask it again...

Just to verify....you believe all past prophecies to have been fulfilled....."literally??"

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

Connie.....

Your answer is being very "Clintonian."

You accused people on this forum of not believing the prophecies to have been fulfilled literally, indirectly, by making this statement...

"I'll go for literal, as all of the fulfilled OT prophecies were, and were fulfilled to the letter"

So I'll ask the question again....and a simple yes or no answer is sufficient.

Just to verify....you believe all past prophecies to have been fulfilled....."literally??"

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

OK Connie....good enough.

Therefore, since you believe the O.T. prophecies to be fulfilled "to the letter (i.e., literally).....then could you please explain the following passage to me found in Luke 3:4-6:

"As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the desert, prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths for him. EVERY VALLEY SHALL BE FILLED IN, EVERY MOUNTAIN AND HILL MADE LOW. THE CROOKED ROADS SHALL BE MADE STRAIGHT, THE ROUGH WAYS SMOOTH. And all mankind shall see God's salvation."

Now Connie....here is what I find interesting in your "literal" mode of translation.

My wife and I were in the land of Israel including Jerusalem in 1984. I can assure you of this......there were plenty of valleys which had not been filled in; there were plenty of mountains and hills that had not been brought low. There were plenty of crooked roads. And ohhhh....that I wish all the rough roads would have been made smooth.

In your "literal" mode of translation......what happened?? This prophecy was not "fulfilled literally" as you say.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

The problem in your answer Connie....is.....that Luke quotes this verse to point out that John the Immerser fulfilled this prophecy of Isaiah (i.e., that Scipture has been fulfilled.....it is not a "future" event).

So...I think I have made it very clear....that sometimes the "symbolic" meaning....is....the "literal" meaning.

I say this so that when people suggest a symbolic fulfillment to a prophecy....you will see that method is quite in line with the way biblical writers interpreted prophecy.

I know for a fact you do not interpret everything "literally."

More evidence??

Jesus said He was the "door to heaven." Do you believe that Jesus had a door knob for a belly button???

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

So another words Connie....you pick and choose the parts you believe to be "literally" fulfilled??

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

In recognition of what you said Connie....I went to the Holy Spirit today and prayed for guidance.

Connie.....it is as you say. He guided me. It was wonderful!!

The bad news for you is....He told me everything you were saying....WAS WRONG!!!

Now tell me....whose version of Holy Spirit inspiration is the correct one?? Based upon what??

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

I hope the readers of the forum have noticed what a capricious and ridiculous thing the false doctrine of "illumination" is as a result of this discourse with Connie.

She has demonstrated the perfect "neo-gnostic" attitude of most modern day Charismatics and others who claim such.

A very snobbish, arrogant, "I've got it and you don't." Now does that demonstrate the "fruit of the Spirit?"

Arguing with Connie is like playing football with someone who tells you...."Whenever they score they get 6 points and whenever you score....they still get 6 points."

What a convienent doctrine that allows one when backed into a corner....unable to give an answer....to simply claim spiritual high ground and claim...."if only you would let the Spirit teach you."

No wonder people like Connie have little to no effect on thinking people who want answers for real life situations and dilemas. While they are searching for answers....Connie gives out mystical nonsense.

Some of you have become very frustrated in that you give clear, concise, biblical answers that a fool could understand.....yet she just doesn't get it.

Now you know why. She really is....in a world all of her own.

Numerous times there have been good discussions going on that she steps into and gets people sidetracked with some off the wall, idiotic remark.

Now you know why. Just don't let it happen anymore.

Connie is not bound to a defense of the faith, or the Bible, or theology. She is bound only to her subjective whims and feelings. If she feels it's right...it's right. And if it feels wrong....it's wrong. She refuses to allow the objective word of God to be her guide.

In Connie's world....the Bible answers to her feelings....not vice versa....as it should be.

Readers of the forum.....save your breath.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

Well Micheal,

In my meager 41 years, Bill Clinton is probably the most "lawless" man I've seen - with Al Gore & Janet Reno tied for 2nd Place... :~)

Actually, I'd have to go back into my archives for the data (ala Raiders of the Lost Ark), but the most convincing argument I've heard to date is that the Man of Lawlessness is best equated to the Pope - or more specifically, the whole Papal System.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

I personally believe the man of lawlessness will be the Antichrist.

The one holding him back (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8) can't be the church or the Holy Spirit because many Christians will still be on the earth during the Antichrist’s rule (Revelation 13:7-10, 14:12-13), and there are no Christians outside of the church (Ephesians 4:4-6), and no one can be a Christian without the Spirit (Romans 8:9).

When we are dying under the Antichrist, we will have the same presence -- no doubt more -- of the Holy Spirit than in our lukewarm Church today. The Holy Spirit won't leave us (Matthew 18:2, 28:20; John 14:16).

It's true that only God can hold back evil, but he does this through his angels (for example, Revelation 20:1-3, 12:7-9). God himself cannot be "taken out of the way" (2 Thessalonians 2:7) like angels and nations can be, for he is omnipresent.

The restrainer could be the archangel Michael, but it may not be. In Daniel 12:1 "stand up" (amad) may not mean "stand down" because amad is used consistently in Daniel (8:22, 23, 25; 11:2, 3, 4, 7, 14, 20, 21) to refer to the rising up of a power. Daniel 12:1 probably refers to the 2nd coming; Michael may be the archangel referred to in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.

The restrainer may be another angel, AND a political power that keeps the Antichrist from taking over the Middle East: in Paul's day it would have been Rome; today it would be the US. The US has to be removed as a power in the world before the Antichrist can take over the Middle East.

The connection between powerful angels and nations is shown in Daniel 10:13, 20. The US may have the same angel that the Roman Empire had. It is the most powerful nation on the earth and uses the Roman calendar (July August is Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar), Roman alphabet, Roman time, Roman architecture (almost all its important government buildings are purely Roman), Roman legislatures (Senate), Roman eagle, etc.

http://www.geocities.com/postrib/

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Very true Danny,

The Apostle John said that in his day MANY AntiChrists had arisen - those who had denied Christ as being God in the flesh. AS such there is no THE AntiChrist, there were many then, there are many now, and there are many more to come.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

But there is still a 'man of lawlessness', a 'man of perdition', and a man with the number '666' to be revealed. He will be cast into the lake of fire with the beast and the false prophet.

Post-trib, these people do not believe the prophecies.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

And don't forget about Underdog & DINGBAT!

Oh Connie, I thought you said before that Russian Nuclear Submarines were the "lawless" one? So Sorry.......all your myths confuse my feeble mind------maybe the Spirit will infuse me with some of your "Schermeneutics".

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Revelation, the letter's of Paul, etc. never identify the 'beast' as 'the Anti-Christ.' That's a pop-eschatology label for the Beast. The Beast in Revelation sure does seem to be 'an anti-Christ.'

I assume that the peopole that have posted so far do believe that Christ will literally return and that there will be aliteral resurrection of the dead.

Take a look at the description in II Thes. 2:1-12.

Here we read about a son of perdition who would try to demonstrate that he is God. The passage speaks of the Wicked whose coming would be after the working of Satan, with power signs, and lying wonders. The Lord will consume him with the Spirit of His mouth, and the brightness of His coming.

Since we realize that the coming of Christ is something real, that is really going to happen (and this is an important doctrine of the faith) then is it so unreasonable to believe that this man of sin will be an actual person. He sure sounds like an Anti-Christ.

Considering al these things, why would it be unreasonable to see a connection between this son of perdiction and the Beast in the book of Revelation? Why the sarcasm about the posts in which Connie and post-mil present this idea?

To those who responded to these posts with sarcasm- what is _your_ understanding of the II Thes. 2 passage?

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001

Link,

The sarcasm is due to the fact that we view dispensationalism, of all ilks, as rather silly. I was not one of the ones who answered with sarcasm above but in my own teaching I call pre-millism "Comic-Book Christianity." Lots of colorful images with superhuman characters, but it's all based on fantasy and imagination (and the current newspaper headlines).

Just because we see premilism as silly, hardly means that we do not believe Jesus is coming back. That's quite an assumption on your part and it does not logically nor Biblically follow.

I did not respond to this thread as I still have serious questions concerning the passage. I have some firmly held views but not so firm as to try and defend them here.

As to the antichrist passages, the Apostle John attributed that name to a specific group of people, i.e., the proto-gnostics. Had John wanted to connect them with "the Beast" of Rev 13, he would have done so. After all, he wrote both the epistles and Revelation. Had he intended for anyone to have understood "the Beast" as "antichrist" he would have used the word instead of introducing a different word, "Beast." Yet, he did not use "antichrist" in the entire book of Revelation. Hmmmmmm.

I would also suggest that before anyone get too dogmatic over the MOL that a good re-translation of II Thess 2 be done. IMO there is not a good translation available yet. I translated it once, but as I said, there's not a good one out there yet. The Greek is very difficult in that passage. That is why most translations of integrity have quite a bit of it in italics. They are trying to piece together the Greek. And, I would also add, some of the differences of the Greek and what gets translated in the major translations are staggering - even my beloved NASB has severe problems here.

Whoever or whatever the MOL is, he is NOT the Beast of Rev. And the Scriptures no nothing of THE antichrist. There were many.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001

Link,

I reread what you posted and I misunderstood what you stated. Please accept my apology. Yes, we agree that Jesus is literally coming back. I understood you to say that those who posted sarcastically did NOT believe Jesus is coming back. Sorry for the confusion. Other than that my post stands.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001

Connie,

Where does it say that the Beast is yet to be revealed? The verse says, "Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six."

Where does it say that the Beast is yet to come. I realize that in your preconceived interpretations it must, of necessity, be futuristic. As I understand it, he revealed to the Church who this Beast was, i.e., Domitian. He is giving them comfort, not shadows that only people of 2001 could understand, which you do not.

BTW, read your history. By the time John worte Revelation Domitian had already forced sacrifices to be made in his name in the marketplaces. A person could neither buy nor sell anything without receiving a mark of ash from the altar of Domitian. What you push to the future was taking place at the moment John was writing. See, he didn't write to you. He wrote to those who were living at the time, having to endure a terrible period of history. He wrote to you only in the sense that you have the benefit of reading what he wrote to them and can make application of that writing to your own life.

You do this with most of the premil stuff you espouse on this forum. You come at passages of Scripture determined that your preconceived notions are correct. You then accuse people like me of not believing prophecy. Get a clue, please. It's not that we do not believe, we simply treat them with some historical respect.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

I now offer for your reading and consideration the excellent comments of J. W. McGarvey and P. K. Pendelton on these verses, which concern the subject of this thread. I hope that you will find them helpful and beneficial to the discussion.

THE COMING OF CHRIST AND OF ANTICHRIST. 2:1-12. The section before us expresses the principal object of this Epistle, which was to correct the misapprehension that the Lord was about to come at once. Without professing to set forth all the events which would intervene between the date of his Epistle and the Lord's coming, the apostle enumerates three: 1. A great apostasy. 2. The removal of that power which hindered the manifestation of the lawless one. 3. The manifestation of the lawless one, and his reign. Since Paul gives us only a bird's-eye view of events, which covers a very extended range of history, it would be injudicious to fill in his outlines with elaborate details. The full outline of prophecy covering the Christian dispensation is given in Revelation, and will be discussed when that book is reached. II. 1 Now we beseech you, brethren [having just prayed for the Thessalonians, Paul now passes to entreaties to them], touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him [the final gathering (1 Thess. 4:17). He entreats them to be soberminded both as to the coming and the gathering, for each of these events had been used to generate error and fanaticism--1 Thess. 4:13; 2 Thess. 3:11]; 2 to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind [Shaken is a figurative expression taken [33] from waves agitated by a storm. The minds of the Thessalonians having been instructed by Paul, and having a thorough apprehension of the entire subject, ought not to have been so readily, and with such small reason, confused--Eph. 4:14], nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that [as teaching that] the day of the Lord is just at hand [Paul here enumerates the three forces which had produced the fanatical unrest at Thessalonica. The first was probably the cause of this unrest, and the second and third were more likely used to excuse or justify it. Some highly wrought souls, laboring under morbid excitement, had delivered exhortations or discourses which were professedly inspired. While these men ought not to have been despised without due consideration, neither ought they to have been believed without being thoroughly tested (1 Thess. 5:20, 21; 1 John 4:1). The Thessalonians, however, despite the apostle's warning, had imprudently accepted both the prophet and the prophecy, and had permitted, and perhaps aided and encouraged, the justification of the prophecy. The prophecy was justified by "words," by which we may understand misapplications or misquotations either of the apostle's own teaching while he was with them, or of the words of Christ orally communicated by him to them, as, for instance, the sayings at Matt. 16:28; 24:34. It was also justified by a misuse of certain phrases in Paul's first Epistle, as for instance the passages cited in our introduction, Commentators almost universally contend that by the phrase "epistle as from us" Paul means a spurious or forged epistle which had been palmed off upon the church as if it had come from him. In support of this notion it is urged that if Paul had referred to his first Epistle he would not have disowned it, but would have explained it. But to this it may be answered that Paul does explain his first Epistle by thus tersely and emphatically disowning the misconstruction placed upon it. Against the idea of forgery, four points may be considered: 1. Ought any of the church at Thessalonica to be lightly accused of such a fraud? 2. Was there any sufficient inducement for their committing such a fraud? 3. Was such an event [34] likely to be made the subject of fraud? 4. Would Paul have passed over such a sacrilegious outrage without a syllable of rebuke, while in verse 5 he even rebukes their forgetfulness, and in 2 Thess. 3:14 he orders the excommunication of any man who fails to give heed to his Epistle? Had there been a forgery we would reasonably have expected some such language as that of Gal. 1:6-12. Moreover, had there been a forgery Paul could not have repudiated it without explanation, else his repudiation might have been shrewdly used by the forgers to cast discredit upon his first Epistle. Paul taught that the day of the Lord was at hand (Rom. 13:12; Phil. 4:5), as did other of the apostles (1 Pet. 4:7; Rev. 1:3), John using a very strong expression (John 2:18); but the phrase "just at hand" is stronger still; it denotes an imminence nothing short of the actual appearing of the Lord the next instant--an imminence answering to the fanaticism of the Thessalonians, and one which Paul had not taught. In teaching us to be always prepared for the Lord's coming, the Scripture nowhere justifies or excuses us in letting the thoughts of his coming absorb our mind, or the expectation of his coming interfere with the most trivial duty]; 3 let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first [Paul uses the article "the" because this apostasy was well known to the church, its coming having been announced by Jesus (Matt. 24:10- 12), and reiterated by Paul while at Thessalonica. This apostasy, or falling away, may be defined to be a desertion of the true religion and the true God], and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition [Literally, son of perishing. The man of sin is identical with the antichrist of 1 John 2:18. Though he is distinguished from Satan in verse 9, yet is he in a sense an incarnation of Satan, for as Satan entered into the heart of Judas (John 13:27), who was the first great apostate and son of perdition (John 17:12), so he shall enter into the heart of this second apostate and son of perdition, who shall be a man made up of sin, a veritable manifestation of concrete wickedness, and thus self-fitted for perdition. The language clearly shows that he is a person, but there is nothing to forbid [35] us from regarding him as an official rather than an individual personality, as, for instance, a line of popes rather than an individual pope. Those who have denied the right to thus construe his personality, have for the most part straightway fallen into the solecism of interpreting the phrase "one that restraineth," of verse 7, so as to make it mean a line of emperors, or succeeding generations of rulers in our human polity, or some other official personality that existed in Paul's day and long afterward, though the assertion of personality is as strong in verse 7 as it is in verse 3. Antichrist does not cause the apostasy, but is rather the cap-sheaf of it, being revealed in connection with it, and exalted by it], 4 he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. [The antichrist will be antagonistic to God, and will exalt himself as a rival to everything that is worshiped, whether it be king or emperor, mythical god or true God, even entering, not only into the outer courts of the temple, but penetrating to the inner sanctuary, and taking his seat where God alone has a right to rest, and there making an arrogant display of himself as an object of worship (comp. Acts 12:21-23). The Greek word for "worship" is sebasma: from it came Sebastus or Augustus (i. e., the Worshipful), which was the title of the Roman emperors. A man of that age could hardly see this word in such a connection without thinking that Paul meant to convey the idea that the antichrist would arrogate to himself all the reverence then claimed by the great civil lords of the earth, such as emperors, kings, etc. The temple is Paul's favorite metaphor for the church--1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21.] 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? [Literally, was telling. He had repeated the instruction often, and now reproves the Thessalonians for forgetting what he did say, and being agitated by false reports of what he did not say.] 6 And now ye know [because Paul had told them verbally] that which restraineth [i. e., retards and delays the antichrist], to the end that he may be revealed in [36] his own season. [And not prematurely. Thus we see that the Thessalonians had a key to Paul's prophecy that we do not possess. His probable reason for withholding from his Epistle that which he freely stated verbally will be given later.] 7 For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. [In verse 6 we have a thing ("that which") restraining the person of antichrist, and in this verse we have the thing ("mystery of lawlessness") which would produce the antichrist restrained by a person. This nicety of expression is important, and should be noted. The traces of that spirit which overrules God's laws and substitutes its own were abundant in the church. It showed itself in attempts to engraft both Judaism and paganism into Christianity, thus paving the way for an apostasy, with a great head apostate. Romans and Galatians were written to correct Judaizing tendencies, and the Epistle to the Hebrews was an attempt to wean weak Christians from the sensuous ritualism of Moses. Tendencies to lapse into paganism are also frequently reproved. See especially Col. 2:16-23; 1 Cor 5:1-8.] 8 And then shall be revealed the lawless one whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming [After the removal of the hinderer, the vague spirit or mystery of lawlessness will become an embodied personality--a Christ-rival. At the mere thought of his thus being revealed, Paul, in his fervent zeal for Christ, at once announces the triumph of the Lord over this adversary, though he has not yet finished describing him. In the next verse we shall find the apostle returning to tell what manner of ruler the antichrist was to be, and the quality and destiny of those who should follow him. "Breath," etc., does not mean that Jesus shall slay antichrist by converting, and thus cutting off, his followers; for "breath" does not signify God's truth or instruction, but the execution of his judgment (2 Sam. 22:16; Job 4:9; 15:30; Isa. 11:4; 30:27-33). The manifestation (Greek, epiphany) of his coming is undoubtedly the divine excellency, radiance, glory and sublimity of the [37] revealed Godhead; for the word "epiphany" conveys this idea (Tit. 2:13; 1 Tim. 6:14-16; comp. Rev. 20:11). The destruction of antichrist will be caused by the judgment of God, and be effected by the appearing of God. The manifestation of the real and perfect will stand in awful, consuming contrast to the revelation of the sham and lie]; 9 even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders [To give full force to the Greek we should here translate "all lying power, all lying signs, all lying wonders." Antichrist shall employ the methods of Satan, and shall prove his claims by false miracles, like those of Jannes and Jambres--Ex. 7:10- 13; 2 Tim. 3:1-8], 10 and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. [Antichrist comes with lies, to those who love not the truth as to right and wrong, etc., that they may be saved by it; but sentence themselves to perish by preferring that deception leading to unrighteousness--which makes unrighteousness appear the better course.] 11 And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error [the threefold working of error mentioned in verse 9], that they should believe a lie: 12 that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [God permits Satan to present lies to those who, because of their love for sin, desire to be deceived (Deut. 13:1-5). Having given our exposition of the above passage, we should like also to give a history of its exposition, but must content ourselves with referring the reader to those given by Newton, Lunemann, Alford, Gloag, etc. We should like also to discuss the theory of most commentators who identify the man of sin with the beast at Rev. 13, and the Roman Empire with the red dragon at Rev. 12, and who find in the Antiochus of Daniel the prototype of this lawless one. See Newton on the Prophecies, Dissertation 22. But we will content ourselves with the presentation of the antichrist, and remarks on this prophecy. The term "antichrist" conveys not only the idea of one who is opposed to Christ, but [38] also of one who is the antithesis of Christ. This latter idea has been touched upon, but not fully developed. The antichrist is a counterfeit or caricature of Christ, and his life is an elaborate parody of that part of the Christ life which may be so contradicted, contorted and adapted so as to comport with worldly ambition. The antichrist is the personification of sin (verse 3), whereas Christ is the incarnation of righteousness (Acts 3:14). He is the son of perdition (verse 3), just as Jesus is the Prince of life (Acts 3:14). He opposes his will against God, and exalts himself against God, and enthrones himself in the temple of God, and displays himself as God (verse 4), while Jesus resigned himself to the Father's will (Luke 22:42) and humbled himself in complete obedience (Phil. 2:5-8), and, though truly claiming to be divine (John 14:8- 11), waited until he was exalted of God (Phil. 2:9), when he sat down at the right hand of the majesty in the true temple on high, because he was divine (Heb. 1:3-5; 8:1, 2). Antichrist has a season or time for revelation (verse 6), just as Jesus had (Gal. 4:4), and still has a proper time for revealing himself (Acts 1:6, 7). He first exists as a mystery, and then has his open revelation (Greek, apocalypse)-- verses 7, and 3, 6, 8; and so also did Jesus (Rom. 16:25, 26). Moreover, as a mystery the antichrist existed as lawlessness, and finally came forth the lawless one, while Jesus was first concealed in the mysterious types of the law (John 5:46; Rom. 3:21, 22), and was born under the law (Gal. 4:4) and was the very incarnation of law (Rom. 10:4; Matt. 5:17, 18), and is the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16). He has a coming (Greek, parousia)--verse 9, just as Christ has (verse 8). His coming is according to the working of Satan with lying power, signs and wonders (verse 9), while Jesus came after the working of God (John 5:19, 20; Eph. 1:19, 20), with God's real powers, signs and wonders--Acts 2:22 ("powers" being translated "mighty works"). With these lying miracles he established an anti-gospel, formed in the deceit of unrighteousness and producing death (verse 10); while Jesus, as is shown by the same verse, brought the gospel of truth that men might he saved. And [39] finally, his kingdom rests on belief--the belief of a lie (verse 11)--just as Christ's rests upon the belief of the truth. Thus, step by step, the antichrist parodies the glories, but not the humiliations of the Christ, but he fails to rise to the last step, for he has no manifestation (Greek, epiphany) answering to that which Christ has, as shown by verse 8. That is to say, he has no divinity to subdue all things by the outburst of its glory. He can assume the figure of Christ, but can not rival Christ transfigured. In interpreting this passage commentators divide themselves into three parties: 1. Those who think the prophecy long since fulfilled. 2. Those who regard it as in process of fulfillment. 3. Those who look upon it as yet to be fulfilled in the future. The first class fail to note that the antichrist is to be destroyed by the epiphany of Christ's coming. Hence antichrist can not have come and gone, since this epiphany is yet to take place. The great body of Protestant commentators are found in the second class, who look upon the long line of popes as the antichrist, and the church of Rome as the apostasy. The third class, of whom Alford and Olshausen are exponents, look upon the pope as a prefiguration or forerunner of the antichrist, having many of his characteristics, but not filling up all the Scripture details by which he is described; Olshausen urging that the pope can not be antichrist, because, contrary to John 2:22, he confesses that Jesus is the Christ; and Alford objecting on the two grounds that the pope does not oppose God, and exalt himself above God, according to verse 4, for the pope is found to be very worshipful; and because the Papacy has existed for some fifteen hundred years, and Christ has not yet come, though the revelation of the antichrist is to immediately precede the coming of Christ. Taking up these three objections in their order, we would note, first, that a mere verbal, formal or ceremonial confession of Christ certainly will not relieve any one from being charged by the Spirit with having denied Christ. To really confess Jesus as Christ, is to look to him as the supreme Priest, to be guided by him as the all-authoritative Prophet or Teacher, to be ruled by him utterly as the divine and absolute King. Does the [40] pope's confession answer to this? Secondly, the language of verse 4 should not be so strained as to make it stronger than it is. It must be borne in mind that antichrist is a man, and not a deity, and hence his opposition to God, exaltation of self against God, etc., must be such as is possible to man. Alford so construes verse 4 as to demand not only one who lifts himself against God, but even above God, so as to make himself the sole object of worship. But Whedon justly remarks, "If this prophecy is to wait for a being who literally exalts himself above the Omnipresent and Omnipotent, it waits for an impossibility." Moreover, in permitting the worship of saints and of the virgin, the pope does not avoid the charge of opposing all that is worshiped, for it must be borne in mind that the very spirit of worship demands an unseen element. If the pope should entirely deny all the unseen, then worship itself would be at an end. Since he must permit some continuance of this unseen element or defeat his own purposes, he contents himself with dictating as to it, deciding for himself in what it shall consist. Too rigorous a denial of all worship would destroy that which he seeks to parody, and obliterate his title as antichrist, Lastly, the third objection, that the Papacy has existed for fifteen hundred years, carries no weight; for the word "immediately," on which Alford founds it, is neither in the text nor in the thought, and prophecy has very little perspective at best. It is sufficient that the Papacy still exists, and if it continues to exist till the Lord comes, and is brought to naught by that event, it will fulfill that part of the prophecy under consideration. In short, while we will not attempt to say that the final form of antichrist, Papal or otherwise, may not exceed in wickedness all that we have yet seen (for prophecies are certainly iterative), yet we are constrained to contend that if no other form appears, the Papacy has already fulfilled the prophecy, for it agrees in all the points, as follows: 1. It has one official man ever at its head, and the arrogancy of its claims are centered in him. 2. That man came with and out of all apostasy, and the very kind of an apostasy which Paul elsewhere describes (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9). Can that apostacy exist for all these centuries, and antichrist be still unborn of it? 3. The spiritual pride and lawlessness which worked and would have produced antichrist in Paul's day, was curbed by the person of the Cćsar whose superior spiritual pride and lawlessness restrained that of the church by contempt and persecution. 4. When, notwithstanding the overshadowing emperor, the bishops of Rome began to assert themselves spiritually, they were still checked and restrained from revealing themselves as earthly potentates by the temporal power of the empire, just as the language of verses 6 and 7 so carefully distinguishes. 5. When the power of the Roman Empire was taken away, the pope appeared, and has since been unceasingly in evidence. Paul's readers could readily see how the emperor and the empire would check the antichrist; but Paul could not openly write that emperor and empire were to fall, for, had he done so, the Romans would have appealed to his words as affording a just cause for persecuting the church. So thought Tertullian (A. D. 150-240), Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (342-420), Chrysostom (347-407), Augustine (354-430), etc. 6. The pope is careful to keep up his line of succession, so as to establish his identity and claims; and arising out of the fall of Rome and the apostasy of the church, which accompanied that event, he has continued for centuries with little change, and certainly none for the better. 7. He exalts himself against God and Christ, calling himself the vicar, or infallible substitute for Christ, and permitting and encouraging his followers to speak of him thus: "Our Lord God the Pope, another God upon earth . . . doeth whatsoever he listeth, even things unlawful, and is more than God." Under these titles he presumes to set aside divine laws in favor of his own. Thus as a substitute person he makes substitute laws, and arrogates to himself divine power, as did Pope Clement VI. when he commanded the angels to admit certain souls to paradise. 8. He sits in the temple of God, i. e., he has his sphere of dominion in the church, and the temple or church which he occupies is still a temple erected to [42] God, albeit the Spirit and presence of God may have long since departed from it. 9. He proves his supreme claims by fraudulent miracles, signs and wonders; of which cures effected by relics and shrines and pictures; prayers, made effectual by blessed beads; indulgences; souls prayed out of purgatory for money; absolution, and transubstantiation are fair samples.]

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001

E. Lee,

Consider the paragraph.

Scott Sheridan,

Please share with us your translation or your 'take' on the Thesalonians passage. Can you see why many Christians see a connection between the Lord destroying the man of sin at his coming, and what happens to the 'Beast' at the end of Revelation 19?

Anyone who opposes Christ is an 'anti-Christ' in a very literal sense. John wrote that the spirit of anti-Christ is already gone out into the world. I hear that 'anti-christ' can also mean one who pretends to be Christ. I Thes. does not call the man of sin 'The AntiChrist' but the man certainly does seem to be an enemy of God and of Christ.

I can understand your concerns about what you call 'Comic Book Christianity' but you are painting with a broad brush, and in your zeal to paint, you might just be painting the apostles and the early church as well.

If we look in Acts 1, we see that the apostles were still looking for God to restore the kingdom to Israel. They just didn't know when it would happen. Jesus had already opened their hearts to understand the scriptures, as we see in the Gospels, and they still expected to see the kingdom restored to Israel.

In deliberating over what to teach the Gentiles, James quoted a verse about a day in which the Lord would rebuild the tabernacle of David. The passage he quoted spoke of other nations being called by the name of the Lord. The light bulb probably switched on for a lot of those Jewish apostles and elders there. If other nations were to be called by the name of the Lord in the future, then it stood to reason that they didn't have to become Jews to be just before God. Gentiles could be Christians. They didn't need to be circumcised.

I'm no expert in hermenutics or history, but I'll share what seems to be the case from what I've read. The use of OT scripture in the NT uses a system of hermenutics that was similar to some of the hermenutics used by Jewish rabbis. Up till Jesus day, the kingdom of God was still with the Jewish leaders. Jesus told them that the kingdom of God would be taken from them. Many of Jesus' teachings were in line with some of the rabinnical teaching in His day. It stands to reason that if the kingdom of God was with the leaders of the Jews, some of their teachings would be true, even if there was also error and leaven.

Think about how Matthew used OT scripture. 'Behold a virgin shall conceive' had a short-term fulfillment in the centuries before Christ was born. But I've heard some rabbis used that as a Messianic prophecy, and Matthew was justified in using this scripture as a prophecy about the Messiah. 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' refered to Ephraim, in context, if I am not mistaken. Ephraim, with the other Israelites, was taken out of Egypt. Matthew was, of course, right to see what happened to Israel as a type of what would happen to Christ, and was right to use this verse to refer to Christ.

A premillinealist view seems to be much more in keeping with the hermenutics that were in use in the early church. I certainly can't imagine Jewish rabbis allegoricalizing away prohpecies having to do with the nation of Israel, and I don't believe the eleven apostles would have either. They were looking forward to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, after Jesus had opened their hearts to understand the scriptures. Jesus ahd spoke of them sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Paul also speaks of a day when all Israel shall be saved. The context makes it clear that he is talking about Israel as a nation. See Romans 11. I can't see Paul using later allegorical methods to come up with amil interpretations of the Old Testament. It doesn't seem consistent with his Jewish hermenutical techniques.

From what I've read, early Christians were largely premillinealists. Eusebius' writing around the 300's, was an amillinealist. Yet, in his history, he admitted that Papias and other early Christians in the cricles associated with the apostle John were premillinealists. Justin Martyr, who lived in the 100's, believed in an actual thousand year reaign of Christ in Jerusalem. He considered this to be the correct Christian view. He seemed to consider it to be a standard orthodox (or catholic) teaching. I included the quote from him in a thread a few months back.

What happened? From what I understand, the amil teachings evolved over time. Origin, in the 200's, promoted a multi-layered system for interpreting the scriptures. One of his methods was very allegorical. By Augustine's day, some started to interpret the scritpures in a very allegorical manner. Augustine, originally a premillinealist, pciked up this allegorical manner of interpreting the scriptures, and became an amillinealist.

Augustine's philosophy became very influenctial in the Western churches, in what turned into the Roman Catholic Church. He passed on his teachings abotu infant baptism, original sin, and amillinealism through his writings. Protestants of various sorts inhereited these teachings. Over time, prost-millinealism evolved out of pre-mil teaching. Many Presbyterians believed in amillinealism, infant baptism, and other Augustinian philosophy. Some of the very influential leaders of the RM were from a Presbyterian background. Maybe they were the ones to pass on these amil views to the RM, although they did not continue to teach Augustine's views of infant baptism.

So premillinealism is not something that comic book illustrators invented. I am unaware of anyone who believed in 'pre-trib' before the 1800's. Usually it's pre-trib people who go around with newspapers in their hands. I agree that some of that hype and speculation is silly. But if you include all 'premil' people in the 'comic book Christianity' category, you may just be including Justin Martyr, John's disciples, and the apostles in there as well. So be careful not to paint with a broad brush.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001

E. Lee,

Consider the paragraph.

Scott Sheridan,

Please share with us your translation or your 'take' on the Thesalonians passage. Can you see why many Christians see a connection between the Lord destroying the man of sin at his coming, and what happens to the 'Beast' at the end of Revelation 19?

Anyone who opposes Christ is an 'anti-Christ' in a very literal sense. John wrote that the spirit of anti-Christ is already gone out into the world. I hear that 'anti-christ' can also mean one who pretends to be Christ. I Thes. does not call the man of sin 'The AntiChrist' but the man certainly does seem to be an enemy of God and of Christ.

I can understand your concerns about what you call 'Comic Book Christianity' but you are painting with a broad brush, and in your zeal to paint, you might just be painting the apostles and the early church as well.

If we look in Acts 1, we see that the apostles were still looking for God to restore the kingdom to Israel. They just didn't know when it would happen. Jesus had already opened their hearts to understand the scriptures, as we see in the Gospels, and they still expected to see the kingdom restored to Israel.

In deliberating over what to teach the Gentiles, James quoted a verse about a day in which the Lord would rebuild the tabernacle of David. The passage he quoted spoke of other nations being called by the name of the Lord. The light bulb probably switched on for a lot of those Jewish apostles and elders there. If other nations were to be called by the name of the Lord in the future, then it stood to reason that they didn't have to become Jews to be just before God. Gentiles could be Christians. They didn't need to be circumcised.

I'm no expert in hermenutics or history, but I'll share what seems to be the case from what I've read. The use of OT scripture in the NT uses a system of hermenutics that was similar to some of the hermenutics used by Jewish rabbis. Up till Jesus day, the kingdom of God was still with the Jewish leaders. Jesus told them that the kingdom of God would be taken from them. Many of Jesus' teachings were in line with some of the rabinnical teaching in His day. It stands to reason that if the kingdom of God was with the leaders of the Jews, some of their teachings would be true, even if there was also error and leaven.

Think about how Matthew used OT scripture. 'Behold a virgin shall conceive' had a short-term fulfillment in the centuries before Christ was born. But I've heard some rabbis used that as a Messianic prophecy, and Matthew was justified in using this scripture as a prophecy about the Messiah. 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' refered to Ephraim, in context, if I am not mistaken. Ephraim, with the other Israelites, was taken out of Egypt. Matthew was, of course, right to see what happened to Israel as a type of what would happen to Christ, and was right to use this verse to refer to Christ.

A premillinealist view seems to be much more in keeping with the hermenutics that were in use in the early church. I certainly can't imagine Jewish rabbis allegoricalizing away prohpecies having to do with the nation of Israel, and I don't believe the eleven apostles would have either. They were looking forward to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, after Jesus had opened their hearts to understand the scriptures. Jesus ahd spoke of them sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Paul also speaks of a day when all Israel shall be saved. The context makes it clear that he is talking about Israel as a nation. See Romans 11. I can't see Paul using later allegorical methods to come up with amil interpretations of the Old Testament. It doesn't seem consistent with his Jewish hermenutical techniques.

From what I've read, early Christians were largely premillinealists. Eusebius' writing around the 300's, was an amillinealist. Yet, in his history, he admitted that Papias and other early Christians in the cricles associated with the apostle John were premillinealists. Justin Martyr, who lived in the 100's, believed in an actual thousand year reaign of Christ in Jerusalem. He considered this to be the correct Christian view. He seemed to consider it to be a standard orthodox (or catholic) teaching. I included the quote from him in a thread a few months back.

What happened? From what I understand, the amil teachings evolved over time. Origin, in the 200's, promoted a multi-layered system for interpreting the scriptures. One of his methods was very allegorical. By Augustine's day, some started to interpret the scritpures in a very allegorical manner. Augustine, originally a premillinealist, pciked up this allegorical manner of interpreting the scriptures, and became an amillinealist.

Augustine's philosophy became very influenctial in the Western churches, in what turned into the Roman Catholic Church. He passed on his teachings abotu infant baptism, original sin, and amillinealism through his writings. Protestants of various sorts inhereited these teachings. Over time, prost-millinealism evolved out of pre-mil teaching. Many Presbyterians believed in amillinealism, infant baptism, and other Augustinian philosophy. Some of the very influential leaders of the RM were from a Presbyterian background. Maybe they were the ones to pass on these amil views to the RM, although they did not continue to teach Augustine's views of infant baptism.

So premillinealism is not something that comic book illustrators invented. I am unaware of anyone who believed in 'pre-trib' before the 1800's. Usually it's pre-trib people who go around with newspapers in their hands, preaching about microchips and barcodes and the like. I agree that some of that hype and speculation is silly. But if you include all 'premil' people in the 'comic book Christianity' category, you may just be including Justin Martyr, John's disciples, and the apostles in there as well. So be careful not to paint with a broad brush.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Mr. Hudson has responded to our post as follows:

“Lee

Consider the paragraph.”

We did consider the paragraph and when we copied the above quotation from J. W. Mcgarvey and P. K. Pendelton it was in paragraph form. But when we posted it the paragraphs disappeared. We do not know why this happens on some occasions but it does. But even without paragraphs an intelligent person would be able to understand the comments that we have quoted and though he might not appreciate their not being present for his benefit he would have no problem in comprehending the argument that is presented.

But one who is seeking to ignore and evade the arguments must often find something to say. And it does seem that the best Mr. Hudson could do in responding to the exposition of this passage which we have quoted is “whine” about the absence of the paragraphs. We would like to see him stop whining and consider the arguments.

He is not likely to do such for he is completely unable to do so. I wonder, if we were to provide him with the paragraphs he seems to need in order that he might more easily comprehend just what the arguments are would he then make some attempt to respond to them or would he find some other excuse for ignoring them?

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001

Amillennialism is 'Comic Strip' prophecy.

When Christ failed to return in 1000 A.D., people attributed a symbolic meaning to the millennium, because, after all, 'mil' means 'thousand'.

I'll go for literal, as all of the fulfilled OT prophecies were, and were fulfilled to the letter, as the NT prophecies are being fulfilled.

Respectfully, (with difficulty)

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

E. Lee,

Still looking for any excuse to stir up strife?

'Consider the paragraph' does not equal whining. If there was any whining, it was in your imagination. Leave it to you to take three words and write a diatribe.

Like I've told you before, I generally don't read your long posts. Sometimes I skim them. So if I don't respond to what you posted, it doesn't mean that it's because I can't. Often is because I didn't read your post in the first place. I only have 24 hours every day, and I can't read everything.

And if there were some paragraphs making it easily recognizable who wrote what, I might have read the parts that another author wrote.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Notice how Mr. Hudson comes into this thread with the comment, “E. lee. Consider the paragraph.” And then after I respond to him stating that I did consider the paragraph and that it disappeared when I posted it he returns to ask:

“E. Lee, Still looking for any excuse to stir up strife?”

Now, no one has ever been able to prove that it has ever been the intention of Mr. Saffold’s heart to “stir up strife”, least of all Mr. Hudson. Mr. Saffold could not have been seeking strife when he quoted the words of two brethren in their entirety for all to consider. And the only response from Mr. Hudson is for us to “consider the paragraph” which was surely nothing more than a “veiled” insult, which it does seem, was intended to “gender strife”. And we responded to it.

Now, from this it does indeed appear that Mr. Hudson came into this thread to “stir up strife” and when he is met with the opposition that he sought he claims that Mr. Saffold is “looking for any excuse to stir up strife”. He stirs it and them blames Mr. Saffold for seeking the strife that he has clearly "sought" of his own accord. I will leave it to your judgement as to whom it was that sought to “stir up strife” but it is sufficient here to notice that Mr. Hudson has again failed to respond to the arguments made by brother Mcgarvey and Pendelton concerning the meaning of these verses.

Then Mr. Hudson says:

“'Consider the paragraph' does not equal whining. If there was any whining, it was in your imagination. Leave it to you to take three words and write a diatribe.”

Yes, it does, Brethren. Mr. Hudson has demonstrated to us with his response that he had not other response to this post other than to “complain” that Mr. Saffold should have “considered the paragraph”. Now that complaint is nothing more than whining, isn’t it. We failed to include something that Mr. Hudson would have preferred and thus he does not have time to respond to the post and the arguments raised it. He only has time to register his “complaint” or to “whine” that we did not make his reading experience more convenient and pleasurable. So, his whining is not in our imagination but is rather clearly evidenced in his responses to post that he is so prejudiced against that he cannot even bring himself to read them first before responding to them. He is just simply unhappy that we do not just believe everything that he says without questioning him about it. And he surely does not enjoy our opposition to his false doctrines. Thus he is angry and frustrated every time he sees a post written by us and just cannot resist any opportunity to cast in an insult that he would not cast in the direction of those who happen to agree with him, now can he? Do take note, Brethren and friends, how that he does not say anything about the form of writing of those who agree with his words, now does he? And they do not always make good use of paragraphs either. But their “saving grace” with him is that he does not care how any one writes so long as they agree with him in all that he says whether what he says is true or not. WE do not agree with his doctrines and resist him at every opportunity and therefore he cares very much about the form and method of our writing but ignores, by his own admission, the content of what we write. This is what false teachers do best, Brethren and friends; they are very adept at “evasion” and “escape”, aren’t they?

Then he continues to seek to gender strife as follows:

“Like I've told you before, I generally don't read your long posts. Sometimes I skim them.”

Yes you have on numerous occasions “whined” about our post and how much you do not like them and do not read them. We accept this Mr. Hudson and have told you before that it is your time and your right to read or ignore what we write. But for one who does not read them you seem to like to respond to them so long as all you have to do is whine about how they are written. WE have admitted now several times that our writing is not skillful and that we are not talented in this area but we continue to do the best we can with the meager talents that we have. So it is not likely that Mr. Hudson will ever see the improvements that he so much desires to see in our post. But he will continue to see our post. He can ignore them if he wishes. But if he chooses to express his displeasure with how they are written we will continue to encourage him to stop whining and make so attempt to respond to the arguments made in them.

Then he says:

“So if I don't respond to what you posted, it doesn't mean that it's because I can't.”

Well, we do not know about that now do we? All we know is that you have not responded with anything significant but rather to only criticize something that has nothing to do with the arguments. Now that fact does make it quite obvious that you are ignoring the arguments, doesn’t it? And one of the reasons for your ignoring the arguments could be that you couldn’t answer them. Now, we do not know, though we suspect strongly that such is indeed the very reason that you ignore them.

Then he says:

“ Often is because I didn't read your post in the first place.”

Well, Brethren, you can judge for yourself. If a man has not read the post in the first place is he competent to judge it in any place?

Then he says that which we all know to be true:

“ I only have 24 hours every day, and I can't read everything.”

WE understand. In fact it does indeed appear that we also only have 24 hours in a day. And we also cannot read everything. But you can rest assured that if we respond to anything we will have given the author that we are responding to the benefit of our judgement of his writing only after we have read his words and given them serious and sincere consideration. We will not just notice that his name is at the bottom of the post and respond to his post without having read a word it and seek to insult him just because we do not like him for having opposed us in the past. Now, this, according to Mr. Hudson, Is exactly what he does with our post when he sees them. He admits that he dose not read them but only “skims over them” and then he responds not to answer any arguments we have made but only to insult and stir up as much strife as possible. And he then runs away and whines that he only has 24 hours in a day as an excuse for why he responds to post and judges them with out having read them at all. Now, brethren, it is Mr. Hudson’s right to behave this way if he so chooses and we do not mind. But we write this to make all aware that when Mr. Hudson responds he has not read the post and considered the arguments made but is only responding to stir up strife and then does not have time to engage in the strife that he sought to stir. This is foolish behavior in our opinion. But it is his right to be foolish if he so desires and it is our right to decide whether we can take anything he says about our post seriously.

Then he says:

“And if there were some paragraphs making it easily recognizable who wrote what, I might have read the parts that another author wrote.”

It was easily recognizable as to “who wrote what” in the last post for the entire quotation was enclosed in “quotation marks” which are designed for the purpose of determining who wrote what. And beside that, if Mr. Hudson had bothered to read the post he would have easily seen that we introduce the fact from the very beginning that we were merely quoting Brother Mcgarvey and P. K. Pendelton in the entire post. We had not comments upon their words at all. We simply quoted then without comment. Thus, E. Lee Saffold was not the author of any of that post other than the introductory words, which stated his intent to merely quote the comments of these two brethren for every one to consider. And they had paragraphs in their writing and when I copied and pasted to the forum the paragraphs were in some way eliminated. But the content and force of their argument was not affected in the least. But all Mr. Hudson appeared to read was the signature of “E. Lee Saffold” at the end of the post and that was sufficient to start him to “whining”, wasn’t it?

And as far as Mr. Hudson’s comments are concerned the arguments of brothers Mcgarvey and Pendelton remain completely intact, untouched and unanswered by any one, do thy not? And we cannot know if that is because 24 hours in a day does not give Mr. Hudson sufficient time to respond or if the arguments themselves leave him with nothing to say. We certainly cannot trust the words of one who responds to posts without reading them, now can we?

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

E. Lee,

If you are unable to realize that you are contentious, then you ahve a serious problem.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Talk about making a planet out of a meteorite. Look at the size of that rediculous post.

Stop whining and throwing a tantrum over every little thing. Don't you have anything better to do with your time.

The sad part is that you behave like this and you don't seem to realize that there is anything wrong with your character, and don't receive correction when people point it out.

Proverbs 26:21. As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.

Proverbs 13:1. A Wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.

There is a lot in the Bible against stirring up strife and contention. Why don't you listen to what the Father has to say?

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

Hello, Link,

E. Lee loves contention and strife as does his father.

He will remain intractable until he is borne from above by the Spirit.

Let's continue to pray for that.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

I believe that all of the prophecies God has intended to be filled, have been, to the letter. They might have been stated in parabolic language when they were given, or in apokalyptic language, but I believe they have been fulfilled to the jot and tittle.

The ones yet to be fulfilled will also be carried out in every detail. IMHO

Why?

Blessings,

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

I really work hard at not despising anyone, but if I did despise anyone, Clinton would be at the top of the list.

I tell the truth and I keep my word.

Unlike some who preach from pulpits.

I answered in the most truthful way I could. The prophecies God intended to be fulfilled to this time have been fulfilled to the letter. The ones yet to be fulfilled will be fulfilled to the letter, in God's Time.

He used apokalyptic language (veiled language, some of which He has unveiled) and spoke in parables. He explained much of the veiled language He used.

What are you looking for in an answer?

I probaly won't answer precisely the way you want, because I do not think the way you do ~ combatively.

Blessings,

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Well, of course, Danny, the answer to that is extremely simple.

'It's not over 'til it's over'. Or until the fat lady sings, whichever comes first.

There is much to be fulfilled. Watch and Pray.

By the way, I am jealous. We have enough flyer miles to go to Israel, but they keep killing each other.

We have been to Europe three times (including Greece) and to many islands (Santorini, St. Thomas, St. Johns, St. Kitts, Prince Edward, Marco Island, Jekyll, and the British Virgin Islands.

But my great quest is to go to Israel. I wish they would stop killing each other for their own sakes, but also so that we can go to see that 'beautiful (however dry)land'.

Blessings,

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Danny, I re-post to comment:

"As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the desert, prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths for him. EVERY VALLEY SHALL BE FILLED IN, EVERY MOUNTAIN AND HILL MADE LOW. THE CROOKED ROADS SHALL BE MADE STRAIGHT, THE ROUGH WAYS SMOOTH. And all mankind shall see God's salvation."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again:

And all mankind shall see God's salvation."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I believe this denotes a time yet to come, just as Christ sets up the peaceable kingdom.

Blessings,

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

Yes, Danny, just as you and everyone else does. Except that I ask the Holy Spirit for help and counsel and you go to your RM teachers and doctrine.

The Scriptures say that He will aid us in our understanding without criticizing our understanding. "Without upbraiding", is, I believe, the way He expresses it.

Unlike human beings and their CENI hermeneutics.

Blessings,

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

If you keep going to Him, sincerely in prayer, and ask for guidance He will direct you. (If you are a Christian, that is, of which I am not convinced).

Your phony claim that you went to Him and He informed you that I am wrong you know did not actually happen.

You have to seek Him, believing.

He can spot a phony from a great distance, Danny.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001