Does Revelation predict and favour the NWO?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Does it strike you as odd that the church is absent in Revelation during the tribulation period. If you don't believe me, look through the Book, you won't find a single reference to the bride of Christ or the church.

Revelation ch11 vv3-8

I am expecting to do a thread about this as part of the ongoing series, but this is the church witnessing and suffering during the tribulation.

I think the Bible points out that in the years of the tribulations, there will be an anti-Christ who will deceive and rule the whole world and may be the New World Order you are referring to.

Revelation 13:1
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

3And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: andall the WORLD/b] wondered after the beast.

4And they worshiped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

It is long after the 7 Trumpets (Plagues and Catastrophes on Earth) and 7 Vials in which Jesus arrives:
Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

It wouldn't make sense to have the New World Order commence right after most of humanity perishes, which would have no relation to Jesus ruling for 1000 years. I really don't think he's going to be a some fascist dictator because in reality it is God coming down and building up the New Jerusalem with it's righteous people before the final battle.

I'm not sure of what you meant when you said the Bible 'favors' the New World Order, but if in fact you meant that the Bible was deceiving people into joining it, I have references to point that's false.

Verses in Revelation 13 tell mankind to reject the Mark of the Beast (666).

The following verse tells us that the Beast (Anti-Christ, or leader of the New World Order), forces everyone to receive his 'mark'.

- Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads

Now this next verse gives us clues as to what this mark might be, which hints at a 'microchip' implantation. I'm not giving my 100% as to whether this is true or not, however there are many clues that point us to the direction that this may in fact be true. The 'microchip', (if you don't know much about it, give it a Google search) is implanted as a human GPS unit, quick-identification, records, and may be the only way to buy or sell.

Revelation 13:17 And that NO MAN MIGHT BUY OR SELL, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Here is a Youtube video you should watch:

www.youtube.com...

These are commercials that are propaganda and convince people to have them.

www.youtube.com...
There are a lot more information sites and videos you can watch on this, just search 'microchip RFID' or of the like.

Finally the Bible warns people that this 'RFID microchip' is the mark of Satan (666), and leader of the New World Order.

Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (666)

I'll provide more information if you need any.


[edit on 4-5-2010 by mike2112]

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Does it strike you as odd that the church is absent in Revelation during the tribulation period. If you don't believe me, look through the Book, you won't find a single reference to the bride of Christ or the church.

Revelation ch11 vv3-8

I am expecting to do a thread about this as part of the ongoing series, but this is the church witnessing and suffering during the tribulation.

Revelation 11:3-8 has NOTHING to do with either the "Bride of Christ" or the "CHURCH".

3-8 discusses the TWO WITNESSES of Revelation.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Revelation 11:3-8 has NOTHING to do with either the "Bride of Christ" or the "CHURCH".
3-8 discusses the TWO WITNESSES of Revelation.

In my opinion, the two-fold witness of the church.
But I expect to go into more detail about this at a later time.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Revelation 11:3-8 has NOTHING to do with either the "Bride of Christ" or the "CHURCH".
3-8 discusses the TWO WITNESSES of Revelation.

In my opinion, the two-fold witness of the church.
But I expect to go into more detail about this at a later time.

You can have any opinion you wish to have, it's a free country, but to read THAT much into the text to squeeze that out would completely go against simple plain text reading of the verses.

So you're saying the CHURCH will lay dead in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 days? A Billion+ peoples?

Here, let me give you a great outline for the rapture teaching before you post your opinion, read it and if you still want to post you may, but look at this first, it should save you a ton of work.

LINK

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Thank you for your courteous intention in supplyng that link, and I will certainly study it.
In the end, though, I do think that I need to be hacking out my own trail.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Thank you for your courteous intention in supplyng that link, and I will certainly study it.
In the end, though, I do think that I need to be hacking out my own trail.

Before you 'hack out your own trail' my friend, let me remind you of 2 Peter 1:20.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

[edit on 5-5-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Before you 'hack out your own trail' my friend, let me remind you of 2 Peter 1:20.
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The first person to teach about the Rapture was developing a new line of interpretation, different from previous interpretations.
If that scripture did not prevent him from developing his own line of thought, it need not prevent me.
If the Holy Spirit guides my reasoning, that will keep me on the right track.

reply to post by DISRAELI
Paul taught about the Rapture, and it concurred with the OT prophecies.

Just read the plain text teachings on the subject and you'll do quite well.

There are 2 different types of NWO

One by man, and one by Christ.

TBTB think they are winning because God and his son have been passive for 2000 years, they think they won`t do anything.

So Mans NWO consists of:
-Warfare
-Economic Slavery
-Population Control
-Police States
-Negative Dictatorship, with heavy Corporate influence.

Christs NWO consists of:
-Perfect Health
-No Death
-Economic Liberty
-Peace & Security
-Perfect theocratic government from heaven

We are heading towards a NWO for sure and I know which one I want.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Paul taught about the Rapture, and it concurred with the OT prophecies.
Just read the plain text teachings on the subject and you'll do quite well.

He was not understood as teaching about the "Rapture", in your sense of the word, until the nineteenth century. The version of this teaching which you are recommending to me was invented in the nineteenth century,

I do intend to read the plain text, as it is found in the Bible.

However, I am not going to accept the teaching of any human authorities if I believe they are in conflict with the Bible.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Paul taught about the Rapture, and it concurred with the OT prophecies.
Just read the plain text teachings on the subject and you'll do quite well.

He was not understood as teaching about the "Rapture", in your sense of the word, until the nineteenth century. The version of this teaching which you are recommending to me was invented in the nineteenth century,

I do intend to read the plain text, as it is found in the Bible.

However, I am not going to accept the teaching of any human authorities if I believe they are in conflict with the Bible.

That's a lie propagated by anti-rapture proponents, and forgive me for my patronizing spirit, I just get sick of hearing the same argument ad nauseaum from SCORES of people who bought into that lie.

"Many of the Covenant Calvinists embrace the Roman Catholic ideology of amillennialism. Furthermore, many within this tradition, and even within the premillennial family, assert that the doctrine of a pre-trib rapture did not develop until the 1800s. Such statements are terribly inaccurate."

HERE

"Conclusion

Regardless of what else the writer of this sermon believed, he did believe that all believers would be removed before the tribulation-a pre-trib rapture view. Thus, we have seen that those who have said that there was no one before 1830 who taught the pre-trib rapture position will have to revise their statements by well over 1,000 years. This statement does not prove the pre-trib position, only the Bible can do that, but it should change many people's historical views on the matter."

HERE

AND HERE

Not to mention, PLAIN TEXT reading of eschatology will show that when our Lord Jesus comes FOR the church, he will come as "a thief in the night". A thief is different than a "robber", a robber will approach you face to face with a weapon and steal from you, a "thief" comes when you are gone from your house, and you are NOT aware of his actions until he is long gone and your possessions are missing.

It would be impossible for the Lord to come FOR His church as a thief in the night if he came after the Great Tribulation. That notion is absurd. Also plain text reading of eschatology shows that the Lord will come as a thief in the night for His Bride, the church, but when the Lord comes to battle the Antichrist, He comes WITH His church riding on horses. And is visible for the entire Earth, who will weep at this time.

Just read it plainly, that's how it was meant to be read. Just as one would read Genesis 1:1.

Another thing that irks me is when anti-rapture people claim that Paul says that the rapture will happen at the "last Trump" of Revelation... That seems odd to me considering the Book of Revelation was NOT EVEN WRITTEN by John at the time Paul wrote to the churches in Thesselonia!!! It's simply a reference to the "last trump" signifying the last trumpet blast of the feast of trumpets. It's impossible Paul was mentioning John's vision in Revelation, that was not to be had for a few decades later.

SIMPLE READING.....

[edit on 7-5-2010 by NOTurTypical]

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Thank you for providing those links.
I will study them.
My series of threads has not yet finished with the seven seals, so there is plenty of time.


PS All right, I can see that "nineteenth century" was obviously an over-hasty assessment.
But it is still the case that the people quoted were developing their own line of thought independently of others in the church.
I stick to my original point that I am not at fault in doing the same, based on my own reasoning ability rather than theirs.
If the Holy Spirit guides my reasoning, that will keep me on the right track.






[edit on 7-5-2010 by DISRAELI]

The Bible is a compilation of historical texts that are relevant to the times they are written in. For instance, John being exiled to that island, needed a way to communicate with believers without Romans intercepting his message and either putting him to death and or destroying his message.

Thus, the apocalyptic code. This letter was meant to address the things the Romans may bring about in regards to believers. Nothing more. The problem with 'believers' is that they take these books out of context and then turn them into fairy tale ideas. If you're going to believe in something, do your research rather than being a sheep, ignorantly following along without any introspection as to why.

reply to post by acapablemind

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm doing just fine on the path I am on. Until prophecy is wrong I'll keep reading it as something that will come to pass someday.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by acapablemind

 

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm doing just fine on the path I am on. Until prophecy is wrong I'll keep reading it as something that will come to pass someday.

You've just reaffirmed the point I was making. Of course the prophecy will continue to be right when you take it out of context. Then it is pliable, flexible, easily manipulated, to whatever scenario you want it to be. When you take something as vague and grandiose as the book of Revelations, there is always a way to apply some piece of scripture to some event in the world...when taken out of context.

The purpose of apocalyptic writing is described (in this certain religion and book)"...to encourage Jewish resistance to the encroachments of paganism, by showing that the national suffering was foreseen and provided for in the cosmic purpose of God and would issue in ultimate vindication. It is characteristic of these writings that they portray the present crisis. . .against a background of world history, the present struggle as part of the age-long struggle between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness, and victory over the immediate enemy as the embodiment of the final victory of God. It is also characteristic of them that they are written in symbolic language" (Black's New Testament Commentaries, "A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine," 2nd edition, p. 9).

Even Martin Luther neither considered the book 'apostolic' nor 'prophetic' and thought of Revelations as a "questionable document." The letter originated within one of two dates respected by most historians. The most prevalent being in 95 A.D., in the reign of Domitian. Eusebius of Caeseara (c.263-339) writes of Domitian starting this persecution or 'tribulation'.

I could go on all day (In fact, Wikipedia has quite a bit of information including the above). You see, there seems to be this false supposition amongst the churches of today. It is based on reading the Bible out of context. Because hey, if you can keep people chasing the dollar on the end of the string, why not? You think Pastors and Preachers aren't taught this as Theologians? So don't you think an honest individual would divulge these findings? Or is it easier to collect your 'donations' if you're convinced there is an impending doom meant to wipe out all those bad 'sinners' that don't attend church?

I'm not attacking anyone or making incendiary comments to cite a riot. I'm only denying ignorance. Don't take material out of context and then parade it as 'proof' or 'fact' when you find some correlating event. Of course it is going correlate with something.

reply to post by acapablemind

Wow, you wrote two paragraphs AFTER I stated "thanks" and I'm doing "just fine" on the path that I'm on?

Interesting....

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by acapablemind

 

Wow, you wrote two paragraphs AFTER I stated "thanks" and I'm doing "just fine" on the path that I'm on?

Interesting....

Then I apologize. Perhaps I was out of place. If so I do sincerely apologize for forcing any viewpoint or opinion on your or your thread. My intention was never ideologically segregating those with different perspectives than my own, I only saw a conversation and was hoping to add a different side to the coin to be considered.

However, that said, let me be the first to say B.S.. Your post did not avoid confrontation it rather oppositely, invited confrontation by assuming your argument was correct without any address as to the valid argument I proposed (which is the only reason I replied in the first place). Instead of addressing the argument you instead side-stepped it all with a little quip about prophecy being right and then abruptly went about assuming that was enough to end the debate (well, can't call it that, never even reached that point).

So thank you for pointing out the juvenile logic behind it all and for making me out to look like some sort of oppressor simply because you do not have an answer for what I said.

Originally posted by acapablemind

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by acapablemind

 

Wow, you wrote two paragraphs AFTER I stated "thanks" and I'm doing "just fine" on the path that I'm on?

Interesting....

Then I apologize. Perhaps I was out of place. If so I do sincerely apologize for forcing any viewpoint or opinion on your or your thread. My intention was never ideologically segregating those with different perspectives than my own, I only saw a conversation and was hoping to add a different side to the coin to be considered.

However, that said, let me be the first to say B.S.. Your post did not avoid confrontation it rather oppositely, invited confrontation by assuming your argument was correct without any address as to the valid argument I proposed (which is the only reason I replied in the first place). Instead of addressing the argument you instead side-stepped it all with a little quip about prophecy being right and then abruptly went about assuming that was enough to end the debate (well, can't call it that, never even reached that point).

So thank you for pointing out the juvenile logic behind it all and for making me out to look like some sort of oppressor simply because you do not have an answer for what I said.

Because I have been studying Biblical Eschatology for the better part of 15 YEARS Sir. Two paragraphs from some random I met on the internet has changed my opinion slightly on the matter. The perfect accuracy of prophecy is one of the reasons I BECAME a Christian, knowing full well that that kind of perfection could not have originated in the grey matter of men. I have literally over 100 BOOKS I have read on the subject, and am extremely educated in this particular department. I have read every argument against under the Sun, and none hold any weight IMHO.

So, again, sorry, but your two paragraphs in opposition doesn't sway me whatsoever. And, again, thanks for YOUR opinion, you are most certainly entitled to it. For the THIRD time, I'm doing absolutely fine right where I am.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by NOTurTypical]

All religionists should be in favor of a NWO.
Their particular God must be the head though.

All religions have tribal roots and all tribes should want to rule the whole world.

Yes, that is also what Revelation is all about where we are to elect a new God to rule the whole world.

If you track world events, it may soon happen because many of our problems, environmental and economic, need a world body to solve them.

Note the G20, the world bank and the U N.
They are attempting to be the vanguard of a NWO and will I think, eventually rule from one central hub.

Regards
DL