The trinity
The bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God but that God is yet greater. Jesus admitted that the Father was greater and that God knew things he didn't know. Some people confuse diety with trinity. Jesus is GOD, but God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not coequal.
Question: Why is the Holy Spirit no found in the depiction of God's throne when Jesus is IF He is a member of this 'trinity'?
As far as the trinity goes, we can either accept the clear statements of the scriptures on the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, or we can accept the extra-Biblical revelation that was given to the Nicene Council four hundred years later.
Going to heaven after we die.
The bibles says many things about the intermediate state but not once does it state we go to heaven until after we get our glorified bodies. There variations are either being awake or brain dead for a while until the resurrection. All that is a matter of debate. But why do so many churches teach we go to heaven when it's clear we go to paradise to await the resurrection.
Where we go before resurrection is not clear.
When Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross, He said, "Today I tell you, you will be with me in paradise." He did not say, "I tell you, you will be with me in paradise today."
It is my understanding that Christians go to sheol (the grave) since the graves open up in the resurrection.
Preteriblationism. This one astounds me.
What makes pre-tribbers think that when God does remove His own, planes, trains, and automobiles would crash killing millions and causing havoc all over the earth? Why would people want to turn to God knowing he just murdered millions just to take you to 'heaven?' Sounds more like a terror attack to me. They make the rapture appear more like a destructive and sloppy transition from earth to heaven rather than a kind and loving act of God. Worst yet is preterism.
There is no justification for a "Rapture" to happen before the resurrection.
Since the resurrection happens when Jesus returns, and Jesus returns after the great tribulation, then the doctrine of the "Rapture" before the great tribulation is a false doctrine.
Preterism
It is the most destructive thing that has ever entered the church. God's power, wisdom and foreknowledge is proven by prophecy. Preterisn is a prophetic cop out. It's so easy to take a prophecy and find some history, especially from the first century, that's remotely similar to a prophecy AND CLAIM it's already fulfilled. Preterism is an awful denial of God's prophetic Word. It takes so much away from God's purpose in prophecy just before the return of His Son Jesus Christ.
There really isn't much difference between full and partial preterism.
I am a Historicist, so I will disagree with you on that one.
There was an event in 70 CE that was so significant that the effects of it are still felt today in 2015 CE.
That event was the destruction of the Temple in fulfillment of the prophecy given by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.
Futurism is mistaken in ignoring that event.
The Revived Roman empire.
This is a colossal blunder and yet people still believe it even though there's no evidence of it and a classic misinterpretation of the great statue of Daniel 2. People are moving away from it for very simple reasons. The reformers and those that followed in their eschatological footsteps are responsible for an incredible amount of misleading prophecies because of it.
The challenge on this one is for anyone on the forum to show me ONE verse of prophecy where Rome, Catholicism, The EU, or America is implied anywhere in ebd-time prophecy.
The revived Roman Empire comes more from the "gap" that futurists put between the 69th and 70th "week" of years in the prophecy of the seventy weeks found in Daniel 9 than anywhere else.
The Roman Empire as the fourth beast or the legs of iron in the statue are valid interpretations for the time that Jesus was on earth.
A revived Roman Empire is not a valid interpretation for the time of the return of Jesus since the beast of Revelation combines features from all four beasts in Daniel, so is not the fourth beast.
In our time, America is the only empire that matches the descriptions of the beast in Revelation.
Globalsim.
Does the bible really teach that in the end a demonic duo would somehow rise and unite the worlds governments and religions? Does it really predict an end-time world dictator? Do you really think all of the world's governments would relinquish their political and governing authority over to one man? How would one man accomplish such an enormous task?
This blunder primarily comes from a misinterpretation of about three simple words. ALL, WORLD, AND END. Neither will there be a global mark of the beast. The mark will be limited to the empire or caliphate of the Islamic beast in the Arab world headquartered in the Dome complex in East Jerusalem and probably will spill over to other Muslim dominated countries.
It is possible that the mark will be limited to the land of Israel, since the word interpreted as "world" is also the word for "land".
The Anti-Christ. He's NOT an global dictator and...
Some people say there not once is someone called "the anti-Christ' in the bible. This is not true as he is called the anti-Christ. Some say the anti-Christ is a system, a spirit, or a plurality of persons. That's not true either since several times personal pronouns are attributed to him.
. . .
The fact that the word THE is in the interlinear, I say the passage indicates a coming antichrist as well as many antichrist.
There are prophecies about the "son of perdition" and about the "beast". Either of these terms is more accurate than "the Anti-Christ".
The primary Protestant view of Daniel 7.
How can Daniels first beast similar to a lion rise from the sea, when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon? The Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written! Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end? Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence. But you know wht? Christians typically don't care.
A PROPHET CANNOT PROPHESY ABOUT SOMETHING ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHOUT TRULY BEING A FALSE PROPHET!
There are other examples in the Bible of a prophet being shown a vision of something already in existence, so you don't have any justification for calling Daniel a false prophet.
The vision Daniel was given showed the Babylonian empire first in order to show that the next three empires would succeed the Babylonian empire.
Attributing APOSTASY to the church.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
From the word 'except' in verse 3c, to the end of verse 12, the church is not implied in any way. In fact the words "but we" in verse 13 prove that the church is not part of the apostasy! The word but is a conjunction that shows distinction and opposition to a previous statement. It opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of. The distinction in this passage is between the followers of Christ as opposed to the man of sin and his followers. The church is not implied whatsoever. Everything is attributed to the anti-Christ and his followers.
The time of Antiochus Epiphanes was 200 years before the writing of the New Testament.
The people had a clear idea what happened then because of the written accounts and the festival that was created to commemorate the Maccabean Revolt.
The reason the Maccabees revolted against Antiochus Epiphanes was because he brought in apostasy into Judaism.
Paul said that there would be another time like that when apostasy would again be an issue, only this time it would be an issue for Christianity instead of for Judaism.
