How to prepare for the Great Tribulation?

[B-A-C]

Guys please let's not descend into yet another discussion on the rapture. I will link a recent thread for that.

Thread 'Christians and the Tribulation' Christians and the Tribulation

I agree, the rapture has nothing to do with all Christians going thru the tribulation.

 

[Butch5]

One would think that Christians are those who follow Christ's teachings.

@Butch5 ... but I think KingJ said a lot here without realizing it. (And you know what I mean... )

Rhema

Yeah, it appears that way.

 

[KingJ]

We escape the rapture?

If you actually meant that, then there's no reason to waste time "debating" with you. If you mistyped, and meant to say "tribulation" then there is also no reason to waste time "debating" with someone who doesn't proofread, or is unable to accurately explain himself.

Good day,
Rhema

Imagine jumping so hard on a typo. You just don't stop being cringe.

 

[KingJ]

One would think that Christians are those who follow Christ's teachings.

You like baiting and not discussing.

The word Christian was pioneered by Paul. Paul was given the revelation of living by faith in Jesus. Paul wrote 3/4 of the new testament.

Living by faith in the unseen God is Paul's teaching. This is todays Christianity 101.

In the tribulation, faith in Jesus does not matter. Only martyrdom.

@Butch5 ... but I think KingJ said a lot here without realizing it. (And you know what I mean... )

Yet another cringeworthy statement. You type like you are on X.

 

[Rhema]

Imagine jumping so hard on a typo. You just don't stop being cringe.

Yet Butch also wondered what the heck you were talking about.
And you hadn't the decency to even tell him it was a typo in post 25.
(At this point, I've got better things to do.)

 

[Rhema]

The word Christian was pioneered by Paul.

NO. It wasn't.

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.​

(Acts 11:26 KJV)​

It is considered that the term "Christian" was an epithet (insult). The text never attributes the word to any believer, let alone Paul.

Paul, NEVER USED THE WORD Christian (G5546) in any of his letters.

This is why I keep saying that you need to improve your study skills.

Rhema

 

[KingJ]

NO. It wasn't.

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.​

(Acts 11:26 KJV)​

It is considered that the term "Christian" was an epithet (insult). The text never attributes the word to any believer, let alone Paul.

Paul, NEVER USED THE WORD Christian (G5546) in any of his letters.

This is why I keep saying that you need to improve your study skills.

Rhema

You are nitpicking. Yes he did not use the word. But the understanding of following Jesus and having faith in Him is the message he was called to teach.

 

[th1bill]

Any advice on how we can prepare? Outside of being ready for a rapture.

I am referring more to the troubling times before the Tribulation.

Should we be teaching ourselves and our children, bush survival skills?was the prophet

It has nothing to do with "terms" or "new words." The Doctrine itself never existed (was never taught) within the Christian church until the early 1800s. There had always been just ONE Second Coming, not a "Second" Second Coming seven years later.

I would encourage you to read through Mathew 24 again, and show just where Jesus taught that there were two "Second Comings."

Rhema

I am, in no manner, an expert on versions of the scriptures but the numerous versions I have studied from over the past 34 3/4 years have all contained the same 23 verses teaching about the Rapture... never by that name but as I said, the word Rapture codifies the teaching of the Catching Away. My favorite is:

Matthew 24:30-31 ​

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

 

[th1bill]

It has nothing to do with "terms" or "new words." The Doctrine itself never existed (was never taught) within the Christian church until the early 1800s. There had always been just ONE Second Coming, not a "Second" Second Coming seven years later.

I would encourage you to read through Mathew 24 again, and show just where Jesus taught that there were two "Second Comings."

Rhema

You are building a strawman and i will not entertain throwing pearls at the feet of hogs.

 

[Rhema]

You are nitpicking. Yes he did not use the word. But the understanding of following Jesus and having faith in Him is the message he was called to teach.

That's not what you said KingJ. This is what you actually said:

The word Christian was pioneered by Paul.

If you had meant to say, "The Christian message was..." or "Christian Salvation was..." then do so. But I can only reply to the words that you actually post. Were I to do otherwise, wouldn't you complain that I'd be putting words in your mouth or trying to read your mind? Rather, I am respecting what you say. And holding you to account for the actual words you say is not "nitpicking." The fact that you feel the need to insult me when you misspeak is rather troubling.

the understanding of following Jesus and having faith in Him is the message he was called to teach.

And this statement seems to imply that Peter did not teach people to follow Jesus and have faith in him. Didn't all the Apostles understand that one should follow Jesus and have faith in him?

Could you be so kind as to clarify?

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

I am, in no manner, an expert on versions of the scriptures but the numerous versions I have studied from over the past 34 3/4 years have all contained the same 23 verses teaching about the Rapture... never by that name but as I said, the word Rapture codifies the teaching of the Catching Away. My favorite is:

Matthew 24:30-31​

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

34 and 3/4 years? If this is an important consideration, then I should mention that I've been using the Greek text of the New Testament for 51 years. Are we really doing this? Let's not. (And whatever version you'd like to use quite fine by me.)

But truth be told, I'm glad your favorite passage is in Matthew 24. I too believe that Matthew 24 is important. HOWEVER... we shouldn't cut out part of the scripture should we? That feels a bit like when liberals cut out a piece out of Trump's words to make it say something else. I think we need to read the entire passage including verse 29:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31 KJV)​

So this "Catching Away" or "Rapture" is immediately after the tribulation, and AFTER the Son of man coming in the clouds. (What has been historically called the Second Coming.)

No one is saying that this "Gathering" won't happen. It's a question of when this will happen.

When one encounters the word "Rapture" it typically refers to modern American Evangelical eschatology (inculcated by John Darby) that claims the Catching Away occurs before the tribulation, when scripture clearly states that this happens after.

Rhema

You are building a strawman and i will not entertain throwing pearls at the feet of hogs.

Is there really a need for you to get nasty?

 

[KingJ]

And this statement seems to imply that Peter did not teach people to follow Jesus and have faith in him. Didn't all the Apostles understand that one should follow Jesus and have faith in him?

Could you be so kind as to clarify?

Rhema

Peter, after correction from Paul, did preach the gospel message we know today. Separate topic, separate thread. Create a new thread if you want to discuss further.

 

[Rhema]

Peter, after correction from Paul, did preach the gospel message we know today. Separate topic, separate thread. Create a new thread if you want to discuss further.

No need to create a new thread. But it's really bizarre to believe that Peter was preaching the wrong gospel until Paul taught him differently. (Besides, that was only about eating with Gentiles, and that, only after James took over.)

Rhema

 

[KingJ]

No need to create a new thread. But it's really bizarre to believe that Peter was preaching the wrong gospel until Paul taught him differently. (Besides, that was only about eating with Gentiles, and that, only after James took over.)

Rhema

The rebuke by Paul to Peter is definitely a topic for its own thread.

Note Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Peter was still mixing laws in with the gospel message. It is this verse / this revelation that Paul received that all Christians follow. This is why I say we are ''Christians from Paul's revelation''. In the tribulation, Paul's revelation is not relevant. Only listening to two prophets, rejection of the mark of the beast and martyrdom Rev 2:10.

 

[th1bill]

That's not what you said KingJ. This is what you actually said:

If you had meant to say, "The Christian message was..." or "Christian Salvation was..." then do so. But I can only reply to the words that you actually post. Were I to do otherwise, wouldn't you complain that I'd be putting words in your mouth or trying to read your mind? Rather, I am respecting what you say. And holding you to account for the actual words you say is not "nitpicking." The fact that you feel the need to insult me when you misspeak is rather troubling.

Always being correct outside of the classroom makes one a professional nitpicker when one does so for no other reason than to attempt to belittle others. I very strongly wish another were posting this but in spite of possible smirtch, this needs consideration by yourself.

 

[Rhema]

Note Gal 2:16

James would disagree with you.

 

[Rhema]

for no other reason than to attempt to belittle others

Your opinion, and a very wrong one at that.

this needs consideration by yourself.

No. It doesn't. I have an oversight committee that would disagree with you. (And I wasn't the one being nasty.)

Rhema

(Something about a log and speck there Bill?)

 

[KingJ]

James would disagree with you.

So call it the Paul and James revelation. You are not dealing with the point made, you are creating a rabbit trail.

 

[Rhema]

Peter was still mixing laws in with the gospel message.

You will need to provide comprehensive proof of this. Peter's speech in Acts 15 directly contradicts your assertion.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:7-11 KJV)​

It is this verse / this revelation that Paul received that all Christians follow. This is why I say we are ''Christians from Paul's revelation''.

Yes, the academic term is Pauline Christian.

"a number of scholars have proposed that Paul's writings contain teachings that are different from the original teachings of Jesus" [LINK]​

It may take a while, but when studied, one can easily see these differences. Yet even today there are Christians that are not Pauline (as Paul is understood by Luther, Calvin, and the Reformation Protesters). For the most part, the Catholic Church is not Pauline. And at one time, Paul himself was not even Pauline, as can be seen in Paul's sermon in Acts 13. The theological principles of Soteriology found in that sermon are different from other doctrines found in his epistles.

In the tribulation, Paul's revelation is not relevant. Only listening to two prophets, rejection of the mark of the beast and martyrdom Rev 2:10.

And yet Rev 2:10 was written to the church at Smyrna, part of the church age, and so couldn't apply to any times after Laodicia (if I understand your timeline of eschatology). Aren't Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea all part of what you call the "Church Age"? So it sounds like this "Paul-type" salvation only applied to Ephesus, while your John-type salvation applied to the rest of the church age starting with Smyrna (Rev2:10). I find that rather chaotic and slipshod, but perhaps I'm missing something. Please feel welcome to clarify.

So call it the Paul and James revelation.

But those contradict.

(Galatians 2:16 KJV) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 3:6 KJV) Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.​

​

(James 2:21-24 KJV) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.​

I've heard all the supposed explanations about how these say the same thing. But they don't - as a matter of language.

Of course if feels like we're getting a bit off topic, but at the end of it, The Gospel message of Jesus, the Gospel message of Peter, the Gospel message of James and the Gospel message of Paul all diverged, enough to the point where an epistle had to be penned declaring -

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. (Ephesians 4:4-7 KJV)​

There would be no need to write such, if there was no dispute about such, (e.g. seven Spirits of God).

I hope this suffices,
Rhema

 

[KingJ]

You will need to provide comprehensive proof of this. Peter's speech in Acts 15 directly contradicts your assertion.

​

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:7-11 KJV)​

Yes, the academic term is Pauline Christian.

"a number of scholars have proposed that Paul's writings contain teachings that are different from the original teachings of Jesus" [LINK]​

It may take a while, but when studied, one can easily see these differences. Yet even today there are Christians that are not Pauline (as Paul is understood by Luther, Calvin, and the Reformation Protesters). For the most part, the Catholic Church is not Pauline. And at one time, Paul himself was not even Pauline, as can be seen in Paul's sermon in Acts 13. The theological principles of Soteriology found in that sermon are different from other doctrines found in his epistles.


And yet Rev 2:10 was written to the church at Smyrna, part of the church age, and so couldn't apply to any times after Laodicia (if I understand your timeline of eschatology). Aren't Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea all part of what you call the "Church Age"? So it sounds like this "Paul-type" salvation only applied to Ephesus, while your John-type salvation applied to the rest of the church age starting with Smyrna (Rev2:10). I find that rather chaotic and slipshod, but perhaps I'm missing something. Please feel welcome to clarify.


But those contradict.

(Galatians 2:16 KJV) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 3:6 KJV) Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.​

​

(James 2:21-24 KJV) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.​

I've heard all the supposed explanations about how these say the same thing. But they don't - as a matter of language.

Of course if feels like we're getting a bit off topic, but at the end of it, The Gospel message of Jesus, the Gospel message of Peter, the Gospel message of James and the Gospel message of Paul all diverged, enough to the point where an epistle had to be penned declaring -

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. (Ephesians 4:4-7 KJV)​

There would be no need to write such, if there was no dispute about such, (e.g. seven Spirits of God).

I hope this suffices,
Rhema

Is this your first time on a discussion forum?

If you want people to read your mind as it wonders into different galaxies, please create a new thread and not derail someone else's.

You definitely win first prize for creating rabbit trails and derailing threads. You acknowledge Pauline Christianity in paragraph two above. Yet waste time in all your posts here arguing it.