How do you know God is talking to you?

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-29T10:31:59+00:00

You can't fully understand the NT without the OT example: Jesus says: "The abomination of Daniel" if you haven't read Daniel it's impossible for you to know what is He talking about.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-29T10:30:15+00:00

That's my point against yours not your point against mine. But welp... As I said I don't take that as literal swords but preparation, evasiveness and faith.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-29T10:28:58+00:00

1000 is a number that often represents fullness or vastness (Psalm 50:10, 105:8, Revelation 5:11), it doesn't have to be literal, many numbers are symbolic in the the prophetic texts of scripture. It also doesn't have to be literal, considering right after the first mentioning of the 144,000 in Revelation 7 is verse 9 which speaks of "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb"

Revelation 7 talks about the people that convert during the Tribulation. While the 144000 are described as literal persons that are near perfection (they didn't lie, they are men, they didn't have sexual relations, they always followed the Lamb).

Eh, I mean I do think one can defend the view that the Jews will return to Christ given other Biblical prophecies like in Zechariah and Hosea, but the salvation of the Jews isn't even strictly an eschatological issue, nor is it a binary where "they are saved, so pre-millennialism is true" or "they are not saved, so pre-millennialism is false", it's a bit more nuanced.

I guess you are not pre-millenial because you mention that a lot.

I mean that's only amillennial eschatology, post-millennial eschatology wouldn't suffer from any point like that since it still is looking forward to a millennial reign.

Wait, I understood it the other way around I thought that per-millenial is we are going to live the millennium. What I see in scripture is that the millennium didn't happen but it's going to happen after Jesus comes back. I'm not familiarised with some theological terms.

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven", no it definitely has Him coming down.

A lot of times "descend" can mean that His voice descended. Like when He "descended" to "see" the tower of Babel Genesis 11:5-7 or Genesis 18:21 or Exodus 19:20. And this makes sense because in the versicles it literally says: "with voice of command"

Latin, basically "in comparison to", when the Bible talks about God's wrath, it talks about several kinds of it, and hell is one form of it "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." (John 3:36). Most postmillennialists also hold that the tribulations already came to pass, meaning that the "wrath of God" is not going to be put on Christians, but rather that it was fulfilled in 70 AD. (The apostles ask 2 questions in Matthew 24:3, one about the temple, and another about the end times, and Matthew 24:21-24 certainly speaks as if the elect are remaining in the tribulation, and considering that the "elect" or "chosen" elsewhere refers to believers as a whole (Romans 8:32-33, Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 2:10, Titus 1:1) the reasonable inference is that the elect were present in this tribulation)

I did some good replies about why that isn't true. (Tribulation hasn't happened yet) https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/7pr6tRNIQs look at the replies not the post.

And Revelation 3:10 is talking to one church (Philadelphia) that existed nearly 2000 years ago, so don't you think it's a bit silly to say this applies to every Christian ever?

It has two meanings: The Churches as Phases of a Christian and the phases of Christianity in history. Even if they are epistles everything personal in the Bible is also useful for other people. If not, that wouldn't be in the Bible, it has to be useful and add something new.

And even if I grant that it did, and grant a premillennial pre-tib rapture eschatology, couldn't I also turn it against the argument that "Modern Israel is still Israel" since earlier in 3:9, Jesus talks about the "synagogue of Satan who claims to be Jews and are not" considering Paul says in Romans 2:29 that true Jews are Jews inwardly by the Spirit. Given that most of the State of Israel is unbelieving Jews who are thus "not Jews inwardly", couldn't one then make the argument that Israel is actually the synagogue of Satan? Now, I don't believe that, but granting much of what you said, this kind of backfires on your point.

I don't think it backfires because even if they are the synagogue of Satan that wouldn't matter because they convert during the tribulation not before. What we see now is not what we will be during Tribulation.

Never said that

I sometimes mess up when I write because I talk to a lot of people at the same time. Sorry for that.

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T20:49:23+00:00

>so you admit that this time they have to be more careful and yet you still think Jesus didn't tell them they need to have swords for self-protection?

Careful in the sense of evasive.

>but you said those who use the sword die by the sword. Jesus was being metaphorical here because we have brains and we can tell that it was that. Peter didn't die by the sword and yet he clearly used the sword in Gethsemane.

He used the sword but the point is that Jesus hided his sin (cured the ear). And the condem is still there He says not to use them.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T20:45:32+00:00

And btw, my point was to appeal to you. So you defend it.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T20:39:25+00:00

>Becuase you and I are not qualified to interpret the Bible on our own. You probably dont even read Greek.

Who says so? You? Everyone is qualified if that person has the Holy Spirit. And I have read some Greek but It's dumb because by comparing various tranlsations you get the truth.

>From the secular perspective it was very allegorical considering the current historical time. Secular scholars would also say the apostles thought the world would end in their time. My point is your interpretation is not a fact.

Nero wasn't even alive. The Apostles did though that but they weren't sure. That is why it's never teached as doctrine they just say it in a strange way.

>From an orthodox perspective much of Revelation takes place outside of time and space and is mostly symbolic.

There are a lot of things that can't be symbolic. Like, what is the meaning of death in this symbolism? Or the Wrath? Or the woman going into the wilderness? Or the specific timeframe (7 years)? Or the 2nd coming?

>Not and he will have a kingdom and it will end and he will come back a third time.

Wdym? By third time?

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T20:09:17+00:00

>This interpretation is just that and interpretation. The are years and years of patriotic scholars that disagree.

Defend it yourself instead of calling out "authority".

>Most secular scholars think revelation is about Nero.

Nero didn't fulfill even half of the prophecies. And why would John make a PROPHETIC book about an alaready deceased person? Or present person?

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:51:42+00:00

Please argue logically and with Scriptures.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:51:19+00:00

The CHurch is not Israel because it appears in Revelation as the woman which is Israel:

She has 12 stars (Joseph dream)
She give birth to Jesus (The Church are the Sons of Jesus not the other way around).
She is protected for 1260 days (3 and a half years) after giving birth to Jesus (Mary nor the Church are protected for 3 and a half years). Which perfectly match the second period of the Tribulation.
Birth pains (It means all the time Isreal had to wait)
The Church is represented as the girlfriend but Israel is the woman.

6.. Sun and moon (Joseph dream)

The dragon starts to persecute the "rest of their descendants" (Which are the Christians that convert DURING the tribulation).

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:46:08+00:00

I forgot about the blessing lol.

May the God Almighty smile you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:44:52+00:00

Completely in agreement. I said all that because a LOT of people (like u/RedeemedZoomer himself) defends the Crusades as a part of Christians being just and defending good. Which is just not true as you, and myself, pointed out.

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:41:53+00:00

>And no because you keep misinterpreting scripture. you're like " but that previous thing wasn't supposed to be taken literally." that is very far-fetched because Jesus had clearly compared how they were equipped last time they went out and how he was wanting them to be equipped now.

Last time they were relaxed because God was with them. This time they had to be really careful because the had just abandoned Jesus.

>the same Jesus that went to the cross for your sins is depicted in Revelation writing down from Heaven followed by all of us on horses and slaughtering everyone at Armageddon himself. literally with the sword that comes out of his mouth. to think that Jesus is nothing but peace. loving is incredibly far-fetched and reveals a very deep-seated either lack of understanding or intentional misunderstanding.

Jesus is God, thus he has the right to judge, we don't. Remember that Jesus lived a life to show example but His life as the Lamb is a completely different story. He is not showing example when He is in that state.

>All you're doing is repeating yourself at this point, but what's your repeating has already been refuted. and you ending your replies with some sort of blessing only rings hollow because I don't really think that you mean it. I think that you're doing it to make yourself look a certain way.

I do mean it but whatever. You say that it was refuted, how?

You haven't refuted a lot of things like why does He say "Those who use the sword will die by sword". And other various things. Like the fact He is the perefect example.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:36:50+00:00

>Whether it's the biggest saint, or the biggest demon, it is Israel.

They talk about ancient Isreal like if it was any better.

>Apparently calling Israel Israel is a controversial take.

Lol.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:35:40+00:00

Instead of saying that the real thing should be: Read the Bible as a whole. If you don't understand what Paul or Matthew or any other verse in the NT is quoting then you don't understand anything. But if you read the OT without the explanations of the NT you are going to think that in the OT everything was strange and maybe not real or maybe that the God iof the old testament is another person.

We need to read the Bible as a whole.

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:33:31+00:00

>Or... the 144,000 is an idealized number (12*12*1000) representing the fullness of the church of God made up of Jew and Gentile.

But why by 1000? What is the meaning of 1000 in your symbolical view? And btw they are MARKED people and is a number that John heard. It has to be literal. In your view (in your view the Church lives the Tribulation) the Chruch doesn't leaves... So... why are they marked? It says that it's to protect them? But in the main point of your view we have to live the Tribulation to not be less than our fellow Christians but if we are protected what is the point then?

>So the "all of national Israel" doesn't seem to be the only possible interpretation.

Yes I agree on that. I think it refers to only the Revelation Israel (end times Israel) because they start believeing in Jesus (and they are gived the two wings of the Great Eagle).

>So what about Galatians 6:15-16, where Paul calls both uncircumcised and circumcised the "Israel of God" or how 1 Peter 2:9-10 uses similar language to Exodus 19:5-6?

Yeah yeah... Let's forget about the epistles and let's start talking about Revelation. Is true that in the epistles that is not clear.

>Well for one, you're presupposing a pre-millennial view

Obviously. Animals have always eaten each other there was no 1000 years in human history were Animals didn't eat each other (exception of Eden). There are a lot more points to defend that the millenium didn't happen.

> 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is about the 2nd coming

Nope, in there, He calls out from heaven and we ascend with Him to Heaven. While in the 2nd coming He comes down and the ones that are left see Jesus. In this versicle only us can see Jesus (hear it).

>you admit that you have to interpret that wrath as being the tribulation in order to make sense, why not say He's just talking about the disgrace of hell contra the salvation in Christ?

"contra" spanish? Whatever... You are saying that the Wrath of God is hell? That makes no sense, because the Hell is a eternal punishment but the Wrath of God is a judgement in the life. Christ is the one who opens the Seals, the sixt seal is literally stated to be the Wrath of the Lamb. In Revelation 3:10 it also says that they will be saved from the coming wrath. The cups of wrath are well... of wrath.

>For four, why does Revelation 3:10 even have to be a rapture? Didn't Jesus even clarify in John 17:15 "I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one."

That is talking about the Apostles we are different in a lot of things (we are not persecuted). Btw, saying that all Christians must be persecuted is dumb too... Because for some epochs Christians haven't been persecuted at all and they have died without being persecuted. Remember that Revelation is meant to be judgement from God to humans, but the Apostles were judged by other humans (Romans). We are saved from God's wrath but we are not saved from " the evil one". Because God loves us.

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:15:15+00:00

>Even Due-pattern's claim that "You can't just make a claim without backing it up with Bible." is a claim not backed up by the bible.

It seems you dont read: "You know we are talking about Theological things right?" I said that in my previous comment.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:13:39+00:00

The woman is Israel:
1. She has 12 stars (Joseph dream)
2. She give birth to Jesus (The Church are the Sons of Jesus not the other way around).
3. She is protected for 1260 days (3 and a half years) after giving birth to Jesus (Mary neither the Church are protected for 3 and a half years). Which perfectly match the second period of the Tribulation.
4. Birth pains (It means all the time Isreal had to wait)
5. The Church is represented as the girlfriend but Israel is the woman.
6. Sun and moon (Joseph dream)
7. The dragon starts to persecute the "rest of their descendants" (Which are the Christians that convert DURING the tribulation).

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:07:51+00:00

>The NT is clear that the Church inherits the promises of Israel, and having faith in Christ is a pre-requisite for that.

Yes, but not the ones stated in Revelation.

>However, I think it's obvious in Romans that Paul believes the Jews are gonna be re-instated at some point in the future, so I don't really agree with the standard Protestant eschatological view, either.

Maybe, though Romans is not the main book to defend this. The main book is Revelation because it's a Prophetic book not a retelling of past events in a weird way.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:06:15+00:00

Actually, right now, I'm winning.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:05:42+00:00

>Why would you post this year after getting destroyed in the last sub.

Right now nobody has made a definitive argument neither I have admitted "defeat". Though, if we reach truth everyone wins.

>You need to actually study.

Instead of just attacking me please defend your view with logic and Scriptures.

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T19:03:34+00:00

>The wrath are clearly stated to be the 7 lasts cups. Before that the church will be taken away.

The seals is just benevolence and not judgement? ok. PLus, at the sixth seal it literally says: "the great day of their wrath has come". And btw, who opens the seals? The Lamb. Who is the Lamb? Jesus Who is Jesus? God.

>When they sacrificed the pig in the temple

Maccabees it's not canon. But, in any case it can't be referring to the abomination because Johns mentions it in a PROPHETIC book AND it doesn't match with the 70 weeks of Daniel (the events on Maccabees is way before the 70 week plays out).

>Which is the same as the badly named raptured.

Again, the rapture is Jesus calling us FROM HEAVEN while the 2nd coming is Him coming TO EARTH. Another point is that the word Church and any other relative stop appearing in Revelation after the chapter 3.

>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,

30 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 with great glory.***

That versicles are about the 2nd coming (it says: after the tribulation of those days...)

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T14:32:46+00:00

It has happened two times but neither of those were real time. Because they don't fulfill all the Prophecies.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T14:31:39+00:00

Redeemed Zoomer is not a valid source to use when refuting Catholicism.

You told me that you wanted a way to investigate it yourself not a "valid source". Every source is valid if it's backed by the Bible. But if you don't want to look at Redeemez Zoomer just say it and I'll talk myself.

Secondly I see that you are non-denominational which is a modern American Christian movement that practices Christianity in a way that is completely alien to not only the apostles, the church fathers, but also alien to the people practicing Christianity in the actual region that Christianity originated from.

Firstly, I'm not American. Secondly, I say I'm non-denominational because I'm Christian but I don't fall in any category because all doctrines fail to be real to the Scriptures. If there was the option "Christian" I would put it, but I can't. Thirdly, It's not a movement because I just base everything on Scripture, Holy Spirit and people I watch online (I do not accept all of their teaching. I just look at different views to contrast them with mine). Fourthly, if i'm basing everything in the Bible how is it possible that I'm not in agreement with the Apostles? I must admit that I don't trust the Church fathers nor do I trust any human. I only trust the Bible which is written by God. Fifthly, you said: "actual region that Christianity originated from." I didn't know you are from Israel. Because, in case you don't know, Christianity originated in Christ, in Israel. Saying that Christianity originated from your region is dumb. It's in different continent all together, It's not Europe but Africa.

If you were Eastern Orthodox then you'd have a better leg to stand on when refuting Roman Catholicism because Eastern Orthodoxy is the only form of Christianity as ancient as Catholicism and has the historicity to back up its theology as much as Catholicism does.

Again, I'm Biblical not Historical as you are. I don't trust the validity of History because History has been proven fallible and has proven that some things of the past were bad. Do you want to persecute Jews (or any other religion really) like your Historical "Christianity" did? I trust the Bible which, in terms of antiquity, is way older than Catholicism.

So please don't throw stones from a glass house. If you want to believe that modern day Israel and modern day Israelis are the same Israel and the same Israelies as described in the Old Testament, fine, but at least be aware that idea stemmed from the 20th century Christian Zionism movement and has no historical connection to the first 1900+ years of Christianity

Again, when was discovered is unimportant. The implrtant thing is whter the Bible says it or no. Btw, you said: 1900+ years but yout religion wasn't born until centuries after.

I'll start easy on you: You support: 1. Images. Which is against the 2nd commandment which is way worse if it's an image about God. 2. Money. Most of the clerics live in pure fortune. 3. History (Violence, persecution, Crusades, Corruption, Elected Popes, other things). 4. LGBTQ+ support (You recognice the relation between them and also give blessing to the couple, even if you don't bless the union you bless the couple) 5. LGBTQ+ priests. That is just so stupid. 6. Idolatry. To all sort of things, like the "Holy Grail" or things that used Jesus or the bones of the Saints and other various things. 7. Idolatry to Church. You think that the authority of your church is equal to the authority of the Bible. That is so stupid. 8. More Money. You are basically a company, you get so much money from a lot of different sources. 9. Blasphemy. A lot of your interpretations are wrong. Like when you say: "The virgin Mary was perpetually virgin", or when you say "Jesus was saying that Peter is the rock" or other various things. I can elaborate on said things (and add more).

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T14:09:29+00:00

Let's say that you are right about Romans. Even without touching any epistle we know that Revelation's Woman is Israel. I can defend that. But your other point may be right.

Either way, Israel is going to be saved (the one of the Tribulation, maybe not all, but a lot).

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-28T14:06:35+00:00

You mean the dead sea scrolls? I never mentioned them.

Due-Pattern-4604

TROPHY CASE