Does the AC's treaty with Israel begin the Tribulation?

athenasius

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that the AC could be visible and active on the world stage while we are still here, as someone we suspect could be him, but it won't be known for certain until after we are gone. When he signs the seven-year covenant, he will be revealed to be the AC--that's what I think "revealed" means: he is officially "outed." But I don't see where the Bible forbids him from being a public person and a likely person before the moment of "revealing." I could be wrong, lol.
I think so. I think Satan has always had one plus a spare of candidates down thru history. I think Hitler was one.

He has to be ready because he never knows when Christ will return for us and the Restrainer role of the Holy Spirit will be finished and the full Wrath of God and the Lamb are released onto the world.

The signing of the covenant will serve 2 functions:
1: That is the starter pistol shot that kicks off the 7 year Tribulation period.
2: That is the first of 2 identifications of the AC given-- the second one is the 666 mentioned in Revelation, at the midpoint.
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
whoa, lots of reading, I will admit I didn't read all of it, however...... since there will be peace for 3.5 years..... one could argue that the tribulation doesn't begin until half way through the 7 year peace treaty........idk
No because a covenant or peace treaty doesn't ensure peace. Broken treaties litter the landscape of history.

The Tribulation starts with a covenant of peace, not peace itself. That treaty is a signal to mark the start of the Tribulation.

Nothing the AC can do will bring peace because God Himself rains down judgments onto the earth that has rejected Him. Israel signs the peace treaty, hoping for peace, but as always looking for peace in human solutions, which the AC is only too happy to provide. But it is an empty peace that doesn't prevent the rest of the world erupting into war, famine, plagues that kill 25% of the planet.

There is a timeline given thru Revelation. Jesus speaks to John dividing the book in chapter 1: 1719 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. That is what John sees-- a vision of the risen Lord, what is now (spans the church age) and what will take place after or later (the Tribulation on into the Millennial reign, then into eternity future) During the first 3 chapters the church is on earth. Chapter 4 begins with John being called up. This marks the end of the church on earth and the believers who come to faith during the next period of time-- the Tribulation are the Tribulation saints.

During the first 4 seals, a quarter of the population dies and that is shortly after the Tribulation begins. It gets worse, steadily worse from there.

By the 6th seal everyone alive is saying this:
Rev 6: 15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”

It's one of the reasons why a mid trib rapture can't occur because from the very first seal --it is the Wrath of the Lamb, Jesus is opening the seals, and letting these things go forth. But 1 Thess 5:9 assures us we-- the church-- are not appointed to wrath. The church, the Bride of Christ is removed before the very first Seal is opened.

By the midpoint, Israel herself cannot escape war any further as the AC desecrates the Temple, and begins to persecute the Jews. The Jews who have been listening to the 2 Witnesses and the 144,000 will flee to Petra as they will understand the prophecies and many of those who flee are new believers. The AC will continue to persecute the remainder of the Jews. During that time 2/3 of the Jews will die.

At the end point, the leaders of Israel will corporately petition Jesus to come back, repenting publicly of rejecting Him and He will come from Heaven to rescue them, and put an end to the Tribulation, the AC and all the evildoers left on the earth.

It is a common misconception that the first half of the Trib is peaceful, and people often think only the last half is the bad part. It's all bad, it's all the Wrath of God unleashed, but the last half is the worst.

hope that helps.
 

PhilR

Active Member
My wife is saved, but doesn't really believe in the rapture. That's not a problem. The important thing is that when she is taken up, she will believe in the rapture then.
Her future beliefs are that we will have "heaven on Earth someday." I told her that some other events will happen before then.
 

sawas

Well-Known Member
My wife is saved, but doesn't really believe in the rapture. That's not a problem. The important thing is that when she is taken up, she will believe in the rapture then.
Her future beliefs are that we will have "heaven on Earth someday." I told her that some other events will happen before then.
LOL, "some other events". BTW, I totally agree with your point about believing the rapture isn't a salvation issue.

That said, I have come to understand that rejection of the rapture doctrine often leads to other more serious problems. Perhaps most notably, Replacement and/or Kingdom Now (or Dominionism) theology are there waiting in the wings, ready to steer believers off on some truly frightening theological tangents. Whether promoted by hard-core Calvinists or the NAR, these become open doors to rather more significant errors where issues of soteriology are more likely to be involved.
 
Last edited:

Jan51

Well-Known Member
LOL, "some other events". BTW, I totally agree with your point about believing the rapture isn't a salvation issue.

That said, I have come to understand that rejection of the rapture doctrine often leads to other more serious problems. Perhaps most notably, Replacement and/or Kingdom Now (or Dominionism) theology are there waiting in the wings, ready to steer believers off on some truly frightening theological tangents. Whether promoted by hard-core Calvinists or the NAR, these become open doors to rather more significant errors where issues of soteriology are more likely to involved.
Yes, because rejection of rapture stems from not taking the literal-historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible, so yes other doctrinal views are usually affected also.
 

Hiftobaf

Active Member
It seems to me that the AC could be visible and active on the world stage while we are still here, as someone we suspect could be him, but it won't be known for certain until after we are gone. When he signs the seven-year covenant, he will be revealed to be the AC--that's what I think "revealed" means: he is officially "outed." But I don't see where the Bible forbids him from being a public person and a likely person before the moment of "revealing." I could be wrong, lol.

This is entirely possible but I am inclined to think it's the opposite. I think the antichrist will be a young, obscure figure until very close to the start of the Tribulation. Jesus was an unknown figure until the start of his 3 1/2 year ministry at the age of 30. I can see the antichrist as a rough parallel to that.
 

PhilR

Active Member
LOL, "some other events". BTW, I totally agree with your point about believing the rapture isn't a salvation issue.

That said, I have come to understand that rejection of the rapture doctrine often leads to other more serious problems. Perhaps most notably, Replacement and/or Kingdom Now (or Dominionism) theology are there waiting in the wings, ready to steer believers off on some truly frightening theological tangents. Whether promoted by hard-core Calvinists or the NAR, these become open doors to rather more significant errors where issues of soteriology are more likely to be involved.
I think with her, she is looking at the whole picture and the wonderful end results of the new heavens and new Earth, and not only the return of the Lord. She may have read Isaiah 60 & 61: and Rev 20 thru 22. BTW sawas, you call it "the rapture doctrine." In what sense do you mean it is a doctrine?
Also, when I said "some other events will happen before then," I was not trying to lesson them: they are truly VERY IMPORTANT EVENTS. And there is no "LOL" as you say about it. When she is translated with all believers she will not only believe it, she will experience it.

And, sawas, after reading your statement above, to put it nicely, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
Last edited:

sawas

Well-Known Member
I think with her, she is looking at the whole picture and the wonderful end results of the new heavens and new Earth, and not only the return of the Lord. She may have read Isaiah 60 & 61: and Rev 20 thru 22. BTW sawas, you call it "the rapture doctrine." In what sense do you mean it is a doctrine?
Also, when I said "some other events will happen before then," I was not trying to lesson them: they are truly VERY IMPORTANT EVENTS. And there is no "LOL" as you say about it. When she is translated with all believers she will not only believe it, she will experience it.

And, sawas, after reading your statement above, to put it nicely, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Hey Phil - Sounds like I might have ruffled your feathers some, which was definitely not my intention. Certainly in the context of this thread, the simplification of pre-Second-Advent (or pre-Millennial) events as "some other events" just happened to strike my funny-bone. Sort of like saying, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, yada, yada, yada." It just made me laugh out loud (LOL). But, truly, no offense was intended toward you personally.

To your other points, all I can say is that this is the Rapture Forum, so you can expect that most here (me included): (a) take the Rapture Doctrine seriously and (b) wish to better understand, communicate, and defend it's importance and implications to both believers and non-believers alike. Most would, at the very least, promote it on the basis of 1 Thessalonians 1:18 (Wherefore comfort one another with these words.). Implicitly, the lack of understanding of this doctrine can be expected to be accompanied by distress. The context of that chapter suggests that such distress would be experienced by Christians facing the prospect of enduring the Tribulation. In my opinion, if that was a relevant point to be made to a 1st century church, it is highly relevant today. If you wish to argue that rejection of the Rapture Doctrine can't also lead to other more serious doctrinal errors, I would be happy to discuss that with you further.

Note: I use the word doctrine in it's natural, literal sense: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief (Merriam Webster). Also, various Bible versions (such as the NASB and NIV) translate didachē as "teachings", rather than doctrines, which is utilized in the KJV.


 

Jan51

Well-Known Member
Hey Phil - Sounds like I might have ruffled your feathers some, which was definitely not my intention. Certainly in the context of this thread, the simplification of pre-Second-Advent (or pre-Millennial) events as "some other events" just happened to strike my funny-bone. Sort of like saying, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, yada, yada, yada." It just made me laugh out loud (LOL). But, truly, no offense was intended toward you personally.

To your other points, all I can say is that this is the Rapture Forum, so you can expect that most here (me included): (a) take the Rapture Doctrine seriously and (b) wish to better understand, communicate, and defend it's importance and implications to both believers and non-believers alike. Most would, at the very least, promote it on the basis of 1 Thessalonians 1:18 (Wherefore comfort one another with these words.). Implicitly, the lack of understanding of this doctrine can be expected to be accompanied by distress. The context of that chapter suggests that such distress would be experienced by Christians facing the prospect of enduring the Tribulation. In my opinion, if that was a relevant point to be made to a 1st century church, it is highly relevant today. If you wish to argue that rejection of the Rapture Doctrine can't also lead to other more serious doctrinal errors, I would be happy to discuss that with you further.

Note: I use the word doctrine in it's natural, literal sense: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief (Merriam Webster). Also, various Bible versions (such as the NASB and NIV) translate didachē as "teachings", rather than doctrines, which is utilized in the KJV.


What a nicely worded response.
 
Back
Top