The Great Tribulation: Battleground Earth

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Because Tartarus and the bottomless pit is symbolic. But you preach over the internet to the neophyte and Fort Lauderdale housewives that it is an actual place. Which houses flying monsters, giants, and a beast.

Is Tartarus an actual place?

4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to TARTARUS, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

According to the APOSTLE PETER yes it is a real place. It houses angels that sinned.

Men mock the Apostolic word. They have no fear of God.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Is Tartarus an actual place?




According to the APOSTLE PETER yes it is a real place. It houses angels that sinned.

Men mock the Apostolic word. They have no fear of God.

No, Mike. You cannot go out to your back yard with shovel in hand.
Dig, dig, dig and find Tartarus. Sorry, but it is spritual, not physical. The name was taken from Greek mythology (do you believe in Greek mythology now?) and used because Peter was addressing Diaspora Hellenized Judeans.

Also watch it, before you start warning anyone of blasphemy you are far from being a judge of what’s Apostolic.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No, Mike. You cannot go out to your back yard with shovel in hand.
Dig, dig, dig and find Tartarus. Sorry, but it is spritual, not physical. The name was taken from Greek mythology (do you believe in Greek mythology now?) and used because Peter was addressing Diaspora Hellenized Judeans.

Also watch it, before you start warning anyone of blasphemy you are far from being a judge of what’s Apostolic.

Sorry Dom,

You resist what PETER AN APOSTLE OF JESUS taught the saints.

Try again to believe the truth. Apostle of Jesus, yes the same one that preached Acts 2:38 wrote.

2 Peter 4-6

4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to TARTARUS, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

So do you ALSO believe the flood in Noahs day which is the very next thought, mere mythology?

How about the destruction of Sodom? Was that just mythology in the same context?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Sorry Dom,

You resist what PETER AN APOSTLE OF JESUS taught the saints.

Try again to believe the truth. Apostle of Jesus, yes the same one that preached Acts 2:38 wrote.

2 Peter 4-6

4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to TARTARUS, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

So do you ALSO believe the flood in Noahs day which is the very next thought, mere mythology?

How about the destruction of Sodom? Was that just mythology in the same context?

Is it also possible you have misinterpreted "angels that sinned"? Where in the Bible do we read about "angels that sinned who were cast down into hell"? What is he referring to?

How did his original audience understand him, and on what basis would they have gotten that understanding?

[Esaias]

What is the context and purpose of the chapter, of the epistle? Is it to teach on the Apocalyptic Battleground: Earth in the far future Days of Great Tribulation?

1 Peter 2:1 establishes the context and subject matter: False Teachers introducing False Doctrines and making merchandize of people.

Verse 3 focuses on how these false teachers would use 'feigned words" to make money off unsuspecting Christians. Their judgment, however, approaches and they shall not escape.

Verse 4 begins with "For IF..." He doesn't say "Now, here's what happened." He says IF such and such happened. If requires a corresponding Then. The "then" part of the paragraph is implied and not stated due to the lengths spent discussing Lot. But it is obvious what the then part is: "...then God will not spare these false teachers either."

The SUBJECT of the passage in question is false teachers making money off the unlearned and unwise by promoting false heretical teachings and by using feigned words.

Is it not interesting that Peter here quotes from the book of Enoch (chapter 10, verse 4, to be exact)? A Jewish mythological treatise? And in the parallel passage in Jude, when speaking of these sinning angels, again the Jewish apocryphal (pseudepigraphical) book of Enoch is quoted from? Why do both writers quote a non Biblical Jewish myth, instead of just quoting Genesis, when talking about these sinning angels? Perhaps because they are referencing a JEWISH MYTH PROMOTED BY THE FALSE TEACHERS?

Peter is not giving a didactic, doctrinal dissertation on Biblical cosmology and end of days scenarios. He is making an ARGUMENT against a certain group of FALSE TEACHERS. And uses their own teaching to refute them and their covetous merchandizing of gullible saints.

Jewish exorcists taught that angels rebelled against God, were cast down, but now roam the earth as demons. Sound familiar? They charged money for getting the demons out of your life, your house, your business, etc.

Peter is showing how their own feigned words are self refuting (angels bound in hell cannot be troubling you, because they are bound in hell...). And rather than stopping there, and depending on their own Jewish myth to refute and condemn these false teachers, he turns to Scripture to nail the point home: God is not mocked, the wicked false teachers SHALL NOT escape judgement.

THAT is Peter's entire point.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is the context and purpose of the chapter, of the epistle? Is it to teach on the Apocalyptic Battleground: Earth in the far future Days of Great Tribulation?

1 Peter 2:1 establishes the context and subject matter: False Teachers introducing Fade Doctrines and making merchandize of people.

Verse 3 focuses on how these false teachers would use 'feigned words" to make money off unsuspecting Christians. Their judgment, however, approaches and they shall not escape.

Verse 4 begins with "For IF..." He doesn't say "Now, here's what happened." He says IF such and such happened. If requires a corresponding Then. The "then" part of the paragraph is implied and not stated due to the lengths spent discussing Lot. But it is obvious what the then part is: "...then God will not spare these false teachers either."

The SUBJECT of the passage in question is false teachers making money off the unlearned and unwise by promoting false heretical teachings and by using feigned words.

Is it not interesting that Peter here quotes from the book of Enoch (chapter 10, verse 4, to be exact)? A Jewish mythological treatise? And in the parallel passage in Jude, when speaking of these sinning angels, again the Jewish apocryphal (pseudepigraphical) book of Enoch is quoted from? Why do both writers quote a non Biblical Jewish myth, instead of just quoting Genesis, when talking about these sinning angels? Perhaps because they are referencing a JEWISH MYTH PROMOTED BY THE FALSE TEACHERS?

Peter is not giving a didactic, doctrinal dissertation on Biblical cosmology and end of days scenarios. He is making an ARGUMENT against a certain group of FALSE TEACHERS. And uses their own teaching to refute them and their covetous merchandizing of gullible saints.

Jewish exorcists taught that angels rebelled against God, were cast down, but now roam the earth as demons. Sound familiar? They charged money for getting the demons out of your life, your house, your business, etc.

Peter is showing how their own feigned words are self refuting (angels bound in hell cannot be troubling you, because they are bound in hell...). And rather than stopping there, and depending on their own Jewish myth to refute and condemn these false teachers, he turns to Scripture to nail the point home: God is not mocked, the wicked false teachers SHALL NOT escape judgement.

THAT is Peter's entire point.

This is awesome!!!!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Is Tartarus an actual place?




According to the APOSTLE PETER yes it is a real place. It houses angels that sinned.

Men mock the Apostolic word. They have no fear of God.

Is it possible you have misunderstood what's going in Peter's epistle? Nobody is mocking the apostolic word. They are disagreeing with your interpretation of the word.

Did Peter mention Tartarus? Actually, not really, the Greek word is a verb, literally "tartarised", translated as the whole phrase "cast them down into hell". Since Tartarus appears nowhere else in all of Scripture, why did he use the verb form without explanation, as if he expected his audience to already know what he was talking about? Where did they get the background information, to not be saying " Huh? Peter, whatchoo talkin bout?"

Is it possible you are building a belief and doctrine based on incomplete information? Information available to those first century readers but which for some reason YOU have not been exposed to?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is it possible you have misunderstood what's going in Peter's epistle? Nobody is mocking the apostolic word. They are disagreeing with your interpretation of the word.

Did Peter mention Tartarus? Actually, not really, the Greek word is a verb, literally "tartarised", translated as the whole phrase "cast them down into hell". Since Tartarus appears nowhere else in all of Scripture, why did he use the verb form without explanation, as if he expected his audience to already know what he was talking about? Where did they get the background information, to not be saying " Huh? Peter, whatchoo talkin bout?"

Is it possible you are building a belief and doctrine based on incomplete information? Information available to those first century readers but which for some reason YOU have not been exposed to?

Well a search on epicsearch.com turned up plenty of results for "Tartarus". All of then talking about the Biblical word.

To me no big deal if it is spelled a little bit different. We all know its the same place. I never sought out to argue over "Tartarus". My point in the video is that there will be demonic beings/creatures loosed from the bottomless pit.

They will TORMENT men for 5 months with stings that will make men wish they were dead. Sounds serious to me.

Dom brought up "Tartarus". I said ok maybe thats the bottomless pit. To me wrangling over where this pit is or if it even exists is not as important as what comes out of it at the 5th trumpet.

Namely terrifying judgement. I'm pointing men to cleave to Jesus. Get strong in Christ. Dont be fooled into thinking its an alien invasion.

He who endures to the end shall be saved.

PS.....I said this:

To me wrangling over where this pit is or if it even exists is not as important as what comes out of it at the 5th trumpet.

Because it seemed like a given that believers would believe the bottomless pit existed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Well a search on epicsearch.com turned up plenty of results for "Tartarus". All of then talking about the Biblical word.

You're kidding, right?

To me no big deal if it is spelled a little bit different. We all know its the same place.

Uh, no big deal? Spelled a bit different? Mike, the term Peter used is a verb, tartarised. But, OK.

I never sought out to argue over "Tartarus". My point in the video is that there will be demonic beings/creatures loosed from the bottomless pit.

They will TORMENT men for 5 months with stings that will make men wish they were dead. Sounds serious to me.

Serious enough to verify doctrine by a quick "epicsearch"? Really?

Dom brought up "Tartarus". I said ok maybe thats the bottomless pit. To me wrangling over where this pit is or if it even exists is not as important as what comes out of it at the 5th trumpet.

Namely terrifying judgement. I'm pointing men to cleave to Jesus. Get strong in Christ. Dont be fooled into thinking its an alien invasion.

He who endures to the end shall be saved.

PS.....I said this:



Because it seemed like a given that believers would believe the bottomless pit existed.

Mike, the scorpion demons, as you call them, can only torment those who have not the seal of God (Rev 9:4). So believers who are sealed to God aren't in danger of thinking there's an alien invasion, and people who aren't sealed get the torment no matter what they think.

So, sounds more like you are caught up in the epic grandiosity of a Tolkien-esque end time scenario, rather than being diligent to understand what these VISIONS in the Apocalypse mean. Just maybe?

[Esaias]

But none of this is actually relevant without first establishing the background of the vision. It is one in a series of visions, going back to the six seals and ch 4.

What disturbs me is when people just ASSUME the whole thing is a "future end time scenario" but never establish that is, in fact, the case. They don't point out the six seals and identify WHEN THESE THINGS WERE/ARE SUPPOSED TO BEGIN.

Never mind the Jesuit Counter-Reformation history of futurist eschatology...