Rapture dream

[WhiteWings]

ELM did great research. Obviously not everybody agrees with his conclusions but still there is a lot to learn from him. Especially his historical research. He (almost) never makes unfounded claims. Always truck loads of footnotes and quotes.
 

[Molly]

8Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.

9They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

--Jer 31

Israel in this passage stands for the 10 northern tribes of the house of Israel for which Ephraim is the stand-in for all ten tribes.

Why does he call Ephraim his firstborn?  Ephraim is actually the second born son of Joseph who received all the birthright blessings from his grandfather, Jacob, including the name and blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel [Jacob].

The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel [Ephraim], not with the house of Judah.


but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks.  1Cor !:23

[Doug]

The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel [Ephraim], not with the house of Judah.

Both the OT and the NT say it is made with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.

Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Hebrews 8:8
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Doug

[Molly]

The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel [Ephraim], not with the house of Judah.

Both the OT and the NT say it is made with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.

Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Hebrews 8:8
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Doug

Yes, I know he says that in Jer 31:31

But then he goes on to only specify the covenant with the house of Israel.


33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
--Jer 31


So how do you read this?  Why does he leave out the house of Judah in these specific covenant blessings given to the house of Israel in Jer 33?

Is it because the house of Judah will receive them at a different time?

We see what is come upon the house of Judah [in general] in other passages--during this age--


In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. Mat 13:14

[Molly]

What's more, the house of Judah, [those who call themselves Jews]. do not acknowledge a New Covenant themselves.

[micah7:9]

On this "short and long plan" that is being talked about in this post, Dr. Martin is speculating himself, not that he thought God had two plans. Dr. Martin is just giving two scenarios as to how things MIGHT go. He isn't saying God had two plans. 

I do not agree with everything Dr. martin believes but I pray that no one takes anothers word as truth about his articles before reading them for themselves. I have learned this from reading all the pros and cons that people have written about different scholars. They do not always present things the way they really are. I do believe Dr. Martin was given a lot of truth but as I have said many times, I don't believe any one has all of the truth.

CHB

Well said and a great response! Glory! and Amen!

[Molly]

Ephraim is my firstborn  Jer 31:9

What does it mean?


"firstborn"

From H1069
בּכר
bâkar
baw-kar'
A primitive root; properly to burst the womb, that is, (causatively) bear or make early fruit (of woman or tree); also (as denominatively from H1061) to give the birthright: - make firstborn, be firstling, bring forth first child (new fruit).

 firstborn; hence chief: - eldest (son), first-born (-ling).

[Doug]

On this "short and long plan" that is being talked about in this post, Dr. Martin is speculating himself, not that he thought God had two plans. Dr. Martin is just giving two scenarios as to how things MIGHT go. He isn't saying God had two plans. 

I do not agree with everything Dr. martin believes but I pray that no one takes anothers word as truth about his articles before reading them for themselves. I have learned this from reading all the pros and cons that people have written about different scholars. They do not always present things the way they really are. I do believe Dr. Martin was given a lot of truth but as I have said many times, I don't believe any one has all of the truth.

CHB

It seems to me that to understand that Isaiah 24 is not a prophecy about a terrible disaster such as a one mile in diameter asteroid or comet imacting with the earth resulting in the deaths of billions of people ought to be quite a relief. Believing as he did, Martin must have felt burdened with a heavy responsibility, and frustrated because few people would take such an interpretation seriously. I suppose it likely robbed him of much peace, in his last years. And frankly, those claims would make him seem like a crack-pot, in the eyes of other scholars, which must have been vexing to him.

The fact that there is a fresh, and much more happy interpretation of the prophecy should make his followers delighted, I would think.

Doug

[Molly]

Ephraim is my firstborn  Jer 31:9

What does it mean?


"firstborn"

From H1069
בּכר
bâkar
baw-kar'
A primitive root; properly to burst the womb, that is, (causatively) bear or make early fruit (of woman or tree); also (as denominatively from H1061) to give the birthright: - make firstborn, be firstling, bring forth first child (new fruit).

 firstborn; hence chief: - eldest (son), first-born (-ling).

Could it have something to do with this: ?


11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

--John 1

[WhiteWings]

Ephraim is my firstborn  Jer 31:9

What does it mean?


"firstborn"

From H1069
בּכר
bâkar
baw-kar'
A primitive root; properly to burst the womb, that is, (causatively) bear or make early fruit (of woman or tree); also (as denominatively from H1061) to give the birthright: - make firstborn, be firstling, bring forth first child (new fruit).

 firstborn; hence chief: - eldest (son), first-born (-ling).

I think a lexicon won't answer your question because Ephraim is the second.
Manasseh was replaced by Ephraim.

[CHB]

On this "short and long plan" that is being talked about in this post, Dr. Martin is speculating himself, not that he thought God had two plans. Dr. Martin is just giving two scenarios as to how things MIGHT go. He isn't saying God had two plans. 

I do not agree with everything Dr. martin believes but I pray that no one takes anothers word as truth about his articles before reading them for themselves. I have learned this from reading all the pros and cons that people have written about different scholars. They do not always present things the way they really are. I do believe Dr. Martin was given a lot of truth but as I have said many times, I don't believe any one has all of the truth.

CHB

It seems to me that to understand that Isaiah 24 is not a prophecy about a terrible disaster such as a one mile in diameter asteroid or comet imacting with the earth resulting in the deaths of billions of people ought to be quite a relief. Believing as he did, Martin must have felt burdened with a heavy responsibility, and frustrated because few people would take such an interpretation seriously. I suppose it likely robbed him of much peace, in his last years. And frankly, those claims would make him seem like a crack-pot, in the eyes of other scholars, which must have been vexing to him.

The fact that there is a fresh, and much more happy interpretation of the prophecy should make his followers delighted, I would think.

Doug

Doug, Dr. martin understood that everything is in the hands of God and he was not burdened, vexed, frustrated, or any of those things. This I am pretty sure of. I do know that he was saddened by the fact that most did not understand about the salvation of all but still he knew it was all up to God.

I personally do not know whether there will be an astroid that will destroy most of the earth in the future, I pray there isn't but who knows for sure? There has been speculation in other areas as to this event. It would account for the verses in Revelation chapter 8. If this hasn't already happened then I believe it is yet in the future, or else the Bible is wrong and I believe prophecy will happen just as the Bible says it will.

CHB

[Doug]

The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel [Ephraim], not with the house of Judah.

Both the OT and the NT say it is made with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.

Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Hebrews 8:8
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Doug

Yes, I know he says that in Jer 31:31

But then he goes on to only specify the covenant with the house of Israel.


33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
--Jer 31


So how do you read this?  Why does he leave out the house of Judah in these specific covenant blessings given to the house of Israel in Jer 33?

Is it because the house of Judah will receive them at a different time?

We see what is come upon the house of Judah [in general] in other passages--during this age--


In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. Mat 13:14

The question about whether or not inheriting the blessings of God is connected with one's order of birth, race, or ethnic background is addressed in the history of the Israelites and of Edom. Edom is a name for the descendants of Esau, Jacob's brother. Technically, Edom was the firstborn, but Jacob usurped him, obtaining the birthright and the blessing by stealth.

Before they were born, their mother learned that they represent two nations, and two manner of people.

Genesis 25:21-26
21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.
26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

After Jacob received the blessing from Isaac, he was hated by Esau.

Genesis 27:41
And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.

Centuries later, when the Israelites were in the wilderness, Balaam gave a prophecy that said Edom would eventually be a possession of Israel.

Numbers 24:17-20
there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.
And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly.
Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city.
And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever.

In Isaiah, other prophecies speak of God's judgments falling upon Edom. Idumea was another name for Edom or Esau.

Isaiah 34:5-6
5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.
6 The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea.

Ezekiel also records similar prophecies.

Ezekiel 35:15
As thou didst rejoice at the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so will I do unto thee: thou shalt be desolate, O mount Seir, and all Idumea, even all of it: and they shall know that I am the LORD.
   
Ezekiel 36:5
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.

The book of Obadiah is all about Edom. It predicts the complete destruction of the house of Esau.

Obadiah 1:18
And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.

In Malachi, Esau is said to be hated.

Malachi 1:3
And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

This is quoted in the NT.

Romans 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

It seems the whole concept of inheriting God's blessings because of birth is represented by Esau. Eventually they disappeared after becoming Jews. They were assimilated in the Jewish race. Today they are nowhere to be found.

OTOH, the covenant people become Israelites and inherit the promises, not by any ethnic connection, but by faith in Christ. This, I think, is the meaning behind the revelation given to Rebekah that her children represent two manner of people.

One is a type of those who hope to inherit by right of birth, and the other, Jacob, represents those who obtain the blessing, by grace, and faith in Christ.

Doug

[Molly]

The question about whether or not inheriting the blessings of God is connected with one's order of birth, race, or ethnic background is addressed in the history of the Israelites and of Edom.

I would disagree.  The question is about the order in which the blessings are received and by whom, not whether or not anyone receives them.

Who, what, where , when.

I'm just looking at what the text says about the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

A prophecy is made in Jer 31 and elsewhere in the OT about the house of Israel [the northern ten tribes].

Is it a coincidence that this prophecy proves to apply in fact to the 'gentiles'?

I don't think it's a coincidence at all.

It tells us who the 'gentile' elect really are and it confirms God's prophecy which was not made to a spiritual people but to a real people.

It ties the Old and New Covenants together in a way that makes sense.

Israel was always the elect of God, chosen before the foundation of the world.

Then why would these upstart, no name gentiles, appear out of nowhere to scoop up the promises made to another people?

They wouldn't and they didn't.  They were always the people of God.  They were just 'lost' and 'hidden' for a while as they were planted among all the nations of the world.

[redhotmagma]

Obadiah 1:18
And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.

Edom is the same word as Adam.  I think this is showing the glorious resurrection of the new man destroying the old man Adam.

[Nathan]

On this "short and long plan" that is being talked about in this post, Dr. Martin is speculating himself, not that he thought God had two plans. Dr. Martin is just giving two scenarios as to how things MIGHT go. He isn't saying God had two plans. 

I do not agree with everything Dr. martin believes but I pray that no one takes anothers word as truth about his articles before reading them for themselves. I have learned this from reading all the pros and cons that people have written about different scholars. They do not always present things the way they really are. I do believe Dr. Martin was given a lot of truth but as I have said many times, I don't believe any one has all of the truth.

CHB

It seems to me that to understand that Isaiah 24 is not a prophecy about a terrible disaster such as a one mile in diameter asteroid or comet imacting with the earth resulting in the deaths of billions of people ought to be quite a relief. Believing as he did, Martin must have felt burdened with a heavy responsibility, and frustrated because few people would take such an interpretation seriously. I suppose it likely robbed him of much peace, in his last years. And frankly, those claims would make him seem like a crack-pot, in the eyes of other scholars, which must have been vexing to him.

The fact that there is a fresh, and much more happy interpretation of the prophecy should make his followers delighted, I would think.

Doug

Doug, Dr. martin understood that everything is in the hands of God and he was not burdened, vexed, frustrated, or any of those things. This I am pretty sure of. I do know that he was saddened by the fact that most did not understand about the salvation of all but still he knew it was all up to God.

I personally do not know whether there will be an astroid that will destroy most of the earth in the future, I pray there isn't but who knows for sure? There has been speculation in other areas as to this event. It would account for the verses in Revelation chapter 8. If this hasn't already happened then I believe it is yet in the future, or else the Bible is wrong and I believe prophecy will happen just as the Bible says it will.

CHB

For me, it's like anything . .and everything else that Scripture assumingly may or may not be saying.  It's all based on the perspective of our relationship with the Father.  Only the Father reveals the nature of his very being, which is FAR above and beyond any man's point of views.  It seems to boil down to the idea that it's not a matter of "if" the world is going to be destroyed and everyone in it . . .but "when".  I'm not speaking from this forum's point of view, I speak from conventional wisdom within the mainline church's point of view.  The assumption is, because our 'INTERPRETATION" of what we THINK Scripture is implying has not yet happened it, then it "must" be yet another unfulfilled prophecy yet to come. 

Not to offend, but in my eyes, conclusions such as this are not deriving from personal revelation as much as they are from personal observations.  It's based on the "reasoning" that in our eyes, these things haven't literally happened to the earth so they "must" be something that's yet to happen . . .that's "logic" talking, not spiritual wisdom.  If we truly understood the nature of Love, then we'd also know that Love is not going to destroy the very beings He created, cherishes, died for, and actually has his very DNA in.  We are his craftsmenship.  It is the minds of men that have instilled the fear of total destruction.  I can speak with great certainty, regardless of how many people believe otherwise, that God is not going to destroy this earth, or the inhabitants on it.  It may sound over the top, but no more than those who profess the world is coming to an end.

Love is not the destroyer of it's very own creation.

[thinktank]

On this "short and long plan" that is being talked about in this post, Dr. Martin is speculating himself, not that he thought God had two plans. Dr. Martin is just giving two scenarios as to how things MIGHT go. He isn't saying God had two plans. 

I do not agree with everything Dr. martin believes but I pray that no one takes anothers word as truth about his articles before reading them for themselves. I have learned this from reading all the pros and cons that people have written about different scholars. They do not always present things the way they really are. I do believe Dr. Martin was given a lot of truth but as I have said many times, I don't believe any one has all of the truth.

CHB

It seems to me that to understand that Isaiah 24 is not a prophecy about a terrible disaster such as a one mile in diameter asteroid or comet imacting with the earth resulting in the deaths of billions of people ought to be quite a relief. Believing as he did, Martin must have felt burdened with a heavy responsibility, and frustrated because few people would take such an interpretation seriously. I suppose it likely robbed him of much peace, in his last years. And frankly, those claims would make him seem like a crack-pot, in the eyes of other scholars, which must have been vexing to him.

The fact that there is a fresh, and much more happy interpretation of the prophecy should make his followers delighted, I would think.

Doug

Doug, Dr. martin understood that everything is in the hands of God and he was not burdened, vexed, frustrated, or any of those things. This I am pretty sure of. I do know that he was saddened by the fact that most did not understand about the salvation of all but still he knew it was all up to God.

I personally do not know whether there will be an astroid that will destroy most of the earth in the future, I pray there isn't but who knows for sure? There has been speculation in other areas as to this event. It would account for the verses in Revelation chapter 8. If this hasn't already happened then I believe it is yet in the future, or else the Bible is wrong and I believe prophecy will happen just as the Bible says it will.

CHB

For me, it's like anything . .and everything else that Scripture assumingly may or may not be saying.  It's all based on the perspective of our relationship with the Father.  Only the Father reveals the nature of his very being, which is FAR above and beyond any man's point of views.  It seems to boil down to the idea that it's not a matter of "if" the world is going to be destroyed and everyone in it . . .but "when".  I'm not speaking from this forum's point of view, I speak from conventional wisdom within the mainline church's point of view.  The assumption is, because our 'INTERPRETATION" of what we THINK Scripture is implying has not yet happened it, then it "must" be yet another unfulfilled prophecy yet to come. 

Not to offend, but in my eyes, conclusions such as this are not deriving from personal revelation as much as they are from personal observations.  It's based on the "reasoning" that in our eyes, these things haven't literally happened to the earth so they "must" be something that's yet to happen . . .that's "logic" talking, not spiritual wisdom.  If we truly understood the nature of Love, then we'd also know that Love is not going to destroy the very beings He created, cherishes, died for, and actually has his very DNA in.  We are his craftsmenship.  It is the minds of men that have instilled the fear of total destruction.  I can speak with great certainty, regardless of how many people believe otherwise, that God is not going to destroy this earth, or the inhabitants on it.  It may sound over the top, but no more than those who profess the world is coming to an end.

Love is not the destroyer of it's very own creation.

That a noble hope, but the scriptures speak a lot concerning that God does destroy. I think we have difficulty understanding that God causes evil and so try to reason what else could it mean.

My hope is that mankind will repent enough, so that God does not have to take drastic measures to destroy them that destroy the earth.

[Nathan]

Old covenant . . . It was "type and shadow".  New covenant replaces . . .it doesn't add to the existing old covenant, it replaced it.  Love conquers all, grace is sufficient.  Loving the enemy is the code of conduct of the New Covenant.  Destroying the enemy was the old covenant.  The only man being destroyed in the New Covenant is the one in each and every one of us.

As to God hating Esau . . .everything is type and shadow.  Esau depicts the carnal man in us, Jacob depicts the anointed man.  If you read the stories about them, neither of them were walking in perfection in the natural sense.  But God doesn't measure by what is seen.  Christ is the only plumb line he uses to measure us with.  Resurrection . . .freedom . . .everlasting life . . . we go by inches, feet and yards .. .God goes by Resurrection, freedom and everlasting life . . .the further you go in your relationship with God, the deeper the redemptive nature of his being goes.

Scripture illuminates the relationship between God and man by using the characters of men.  We emphasize the actual men rather than the inner workings of man in us.  As a result, our message becomes tainted with hints of fear and sorrows rather than light and life.  There is no life in a message that depicts the destruction of either men or their habitat.  But when we apply that destruction to "man" and not "men" then the result is one of celebration and jubilation rather than condemnation and manipulation.

The usage of the destruction principle is really religion's manipulation to motivate people to it's conforming ways.  When you hear about the church's version of end times, what kinds of emotion does that invoke in you?  What kinds of emotion does that invoke in the unbelievers?  Line up your answer with the answer to "this" . . . what kind of emotion did Jesus stir up in the unbelievers who heard "his" message?  His message attracted the lost . . .the church's message repels the lost.  His message instilled hope and celebration, the church's message instills fear and isolation.

Does the message of "end times destruction" bring about celebration and hope?  Or does it bring about fear and darkness? 

"Well, it depends on whether or not you believe in God . . ."  That doesn't work for me . . . the message Jesus brought was to those who "didn't" believe in God.  He didn't use fear tactics.  He didn't bring his message of life with the threats of death and destruction.  If we have that same light in us, then why would we embrace a message that doesn't have the same affects as what Jesus' message had?

Knowledge has crept in and taken the ruling reigns of men's hearts instead of life received through faith. 

[CHB]

Nathan, what about the earthquake in Japan, the tsunami, tornadoes, and other happenings? You think God didn't have anything to do with those?

CHB

[thinktank]

God destroys the man in us, via the lake of fire, so that all are purified.

But in this age there is death and wars.

The problem is we hold onto this life and do not wish to see it destroyed, we have trouble letting go.

[Doug]

Doug, Dr. martin understood that everything is in the hands of God and he was not burdened, vexed, frustrated, or any of those things. This I am pretty sure of. I do know that he was saddened by the fact that most did not understand about the salvation of all but still he knew it was all up to God.

If the teaching about the ultimate salvation of all is coupled with a doomsday message about an asteroid impact, that wipes out most of humanity, it seems a bit like trying to light a candle, in the midst of a hurricane.

The New Covenant was foretold by the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel several centuries before Jesus came to establish it. Martin's claim that it was to last for only a few decades, and that it was then replaced by the "mystery," does not inspire one with any confidence. Such a claim needs to be supported by notable miracles. The New Covenant is said to be "everlasting." [Hebrews 13:20]

Jeremiah 32:40
And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

Ezekiel 37:26
Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

Doug

[Nathan]

Nathan, what about the earthquake in Japan, the tsunami, tornadoes, and other happenings? You think God didn't have anything to do with those?

CHB

I think God shows up when people call on him.  But I don't think he brings in chaos and destruction . . .seriously . . .what "is" God's nature?  It's that age-old question "Why do bad things happen to good people?"  The church puts out this vibe that if you become a Christian, life will be bliss forever more.  But they seem to leave out the part that even Jesus stated "IN THIS WORLD . . you will have trials and tribulation . . ."  The fact that THIS WORLD has wars and hurricanes has nothing to do with whether God sends them or not.  It's not about the tribulations because IN THIS WORLD . . that's what THIS WORLD consists of.  This is a world of death and decay . . .our bodies are influenced by that.  Try as we will, we'll never be able to stop the process of death to these bodies we live in.  The emphasis isn't on the manifestations of death, it's on the fact that Christ as overcome it all.  When we pursue Christ, the miracle happens.  We become illuminating life in the middle of a realm of death.

So, as to all the terrible things happening around us . . .no, I don't believe God sent any of it.  I believe that is merely the nature of the realm that we live in.  Every GOOD THING comes from above.  The things God DOES send are things that induce life.  There is no darkness in him, so why would we assume that darkness around us comes from him?  There was a reason why he told Adam not to eat of that tree . . .it was the gateway into the realm in which we live.  That's a whole other thread.

[Nathan]

God destroys the man in us, via the lake of fire, so that all are purified.

But in this age there is death and wars.

The problem is we hold onto this life and do not wish to see it destroyed, we have trouble letting go.

I don't argue that this world is going to be changed.  My argument is that this world is not going to be destroyed.  I think that which is now predominantly natural will return to it's rightful place and become a secondary realm, giving way to that which is spiritual.  Never said I was trying to "hang on" to this life.  I'm just saying God isn't going to destroy it like we've been taught.

[Nathan]

If the teaching about the ultimate salvation of all is coupled with a doomsday message about an asteroid impact, that wipes out most of humanity, it seems a bit like trying to light a candle, in the midst of a hurricane.

I whole-heartedly agree!!!  I've often been a bit bewildered at some of the responses in the past on this forum pertaining to these kinds of things where many agree that God saved the whole world, but yet embrace many of the same teachings the ET'ers embrace when addressing things like the books of Daniel and Revelation and such . . .hanging on to that "end of the world destruction" idealism just seems to contradict the life message that comes from the far-reaching affects that Jesus brought to the world in the first place.

[redhotmagma]

what about "I form the light and the darkness I create peace and calamity (evil) I the lord do all these things?"

[Doug]

. . .hanging on to that "end of the world destruction" idealism just seems to contradict the life message

I would not call Dr. Martin's approach "idealism." It was, I think, more a "futurist" approach, and one that required the identification of biblical nations and peoples with literal nations and peoples existing today. This was probably a big motivating factor in his work.

In Idealism the biblical nations need not represent specific literal nations in the modern world, but they are symbolic and spiritual. The "Sodom and Egypt" of Revelation 11:8 are examples. Also Babylon in Revelation 17. Martin, on the other hand, said that the literal Babylon in Iraq would be rebuilt. But there is little evidence that this is about to happen.

Doug