PDA

View Full Version : It seems this would support the amil view . . .



VerticalReality
Mar 16th 2007, 03:25 AM
In 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 it talks about the order of the resurrection. It states that Jesus Christ is the first fruits and then those at his second coming will be resurrected. It states then that the end is to come where He hands the Kingdom over to the Father, and He puts an end to all rule and authority and power. Then in verses 25 and 26 it states that He must reign until all enemies are put under His feet, and the last enemy that must be destroyed is death. Paul later goes on to describe when death will be defeated when he tells them the "great mystery".



1 Corinthians 15:51
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”


So, what we have here is the statement that death is the final thing that is defeated, and it is defeated when we are all resurrected (or changed in a twinkling of an eye if you are one of those who are alive and remain) in an incorruptible body that has put on immortality. What it is also saying is that Jesus Christ's reign will carry through until death has been defeated. Therefore, the end of Jesus Christ's reign and the defeat of death is happening at the same time at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ when we are all resurrected with glorified bodies. That would mean that Revelation chapter 20 is happening right now, and His reign will continue until His return when He finally puts that last enemy (death) under His feet. Once death is defeated, Jesus Christ's reign is over and the Kingdom is ready to hand back over to the Father.

Thoughts?

David Taylor
Mar 16th 2007, 04:08 AM
I agree.

That is the most natural reading of I Cor 15's account.
It also harmonizes well with Isaiah 24-25's similar account of the
2nd Coming and of the time of the resurrection "when death is swallowed up in victory" that Paul quotes from.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 10:43 AM
In 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 it talks about the order of the resurrection. It states that Jesus Christ is the first fruits and then those at his second coming will be resurrected. It states then that the end is to come where He hands the Kingdom over to the Father, and He puts an end to all rule and authority and power. Then in verses 25 and 26 it states that He must reign until all enemies are put under His feet, and the last enemy that must be destroyed is death. Paul later goes on to describe when death will be defeated when he tells them the "great mystery".

So, what we have here is the statement that death is the final thing that is defeated, and it is defeated when we are all resurrected (or changed in a twinkling of an eye if you are one of those who are alive and remain) in an incorruptible body that has put on immortality. What it is also saying is that Jesus Christ's reign will carry through until death has been defeated. Therefore, the end of Jesus Christ's reign and the defeat of death is happening at the same time at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ when we are all resurrected with glorified bodies. That would mean that Revelation chapter 20 is happening right now, and His reign will continue until His return when He finally puts that last enemy (death) under His feet. Once death is defeated, Jesus Christ's reign is over and the Kingdom is ready to hand back over to the Father.

Thoughts?

I would agree. This would seem to suggest that the new earth will be free of corruption. In fact this is backed up by I Corinthians 15:50, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." This passage is speaking of the period immediately following the Coming of Christ. The whole context is clearly man’s final deliverance from the corruptible state. It is talking of glorification and the eternal state on the new earth. It would seem to indicate “flesh and blood” or mortal believers cannot inherit a glorified earth that has been purified by fire of every last vestige of the curse. Man in his sinful corruptible state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth.

I feel Romans 8:19-23 supports that, saying,“For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be (future tense) delivered from the bondage of corruption (death, sin and decay) into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.”

This would also appear to suggest that death and all the result of the fall is removed when we are glorified ("the redemption of our body”).

How might this be done?

I feel the answer is in 2 Peter 3:10-13, it says, “the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

The whole import of this narrative is the unexpected and climactic nature of the Lord’s Coming. This is a truth that is presented several times in the New Testament – most notably by Christ Himself.

Paul

VerticalReality
Mar 16th 2007, 12:13 PM
I do have a question, though. When would be the time when Satan is released for one last round of deceit? Is that what is being spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2 where He who is restraining the son of perdition will remove His restraint?

It seems to me that the "man of lawlessness" spoken of there are those who refuse to accept the truth. It seems it's not talking about one person but rather a group of people. It seems Paul indicates as much when he states that "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work". It says that this "man of lawlessness" will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, and if you think about it, that is what mankind is doing right now. It says that he will sit as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Well, the temple in the New Testament is not an actual physical temple sitting in Jerusalem right now. Christians are called the temple of God in 1 Corinthians 6:19. So, it would seem to me that the man of lawlessness will reject God's presence in his temple, and try to exalt himself above all that is God.

So, it would seem, basing my opinion off this view, that the "man of lawlessness" or "son of perdition" is mankind in a condition of apostasy.

Am I off my rocker here?

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 12:35 PM
I do have a question, though. When would be the time when Satan is released for one last round of deceit? Is that what is being spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2 where He who is restraining the son of perdition will remove His restraint?

It seems to me that the "man of lawlessness" spoken of there are those who refuse to accept the truth. It seems it's not talking about one person but rather a group of people. It seems Paul indicates as much when he states that "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work". It says that this "man of lawlessness" will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, and if you think about it, that is what mankind is doing right now. It says that he will sit as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Well, the temple in the New Testament is not an actual physical temple sitting in Jerusalem right now. Christians are called the temple of God in 1 Corinthians 6:19. So, it would seem to me that the man of lawlessness will reject God's presence in his temple, and try to exalt himself above all that is God.

So, it would seem, basing my opinion off this view, that the "man of lawlessness" or "son of perdition" is mankind in a condition of apostasy.

Am I off my rocker here?

I would agree. I would take 2 Thessalonians 2 to correspond with Satan's little season in a final end-time battle, Gog and Magog represening the wicked from all nations surrounding the camp of the saints - the Church.

Paul

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 16th 2007, 12:41 PM
Ok, so I'm back to the End-Times forum again. The thread title caught my attention...and I find myself agreeing with what it says (sorry Rookie!). Interesting...

the rookie
Mar 16th 2007, 01:54 PM
Ok, so I'm back to the End-Times forum again. The thread title caught my attention...and I find myself agreeing with what it says (sorry Rookie!). Interesting...

I don't mind so much. There are a hundred other passages that support the premillennial view. :lol:

David Taylor
Mar 16th 2007, 02:20 PM
I don't mind so much. There are a hundred other passages that support the premillennial view. :lol:

In Revelation chapter 23, and Hezekiah chapter 2 mostly though:rofl:.

the rookie
Mar 16th 2007, 02:25 PM
In Revelation chapter 23, and Hezekiah chapter 2 mostly though:rofl:.

Hey, those are some of my favorites in a theological street fight :lol:

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 02:27 PM
In Revelation chapter 23, and Hezekiah chapter 2 mostly though:rofl:.

Dave

I think you are being unfair on Premillennialism. There are a few problematic passages for Amillennialism in 1st and 2nd Imaginations. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Paul

moonglow
Mar 16th 2007, 03:09 PM
I do have a question, though. When would be the time when Satan is released for one last round of deceit? Is that what is being spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2 where He who is restraining the son of perdition will remove His restraint?

It seems to me that the "man of lawlessness" spoken of there are those who refuse to accept the truth. It seems it's not talking about one person but rather a group of people. It seems Paul indicates as much when he states that "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work". It says that this "man of lawlessness" will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, and if you think about it, that is what mankind is doing right now. It says that he will sit as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Well, the temple in the New Testament is not an actual physical temple sitting in Jerusalem right now. Christians are called the temple of God in 1 Corinthians 6:19. So, it would seem to me that the man of lawlessness will reject God's presence in his temple, and try to exalt himself above all that is God.

So, it would seem, basing my opinion off this view, that the "man of lawlessness" or "son of perdition" is mankind in a condition of apostasy.

Am I off my rocker here?

You are right...this is what Coffman says on it:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=2th&chapter=002
Verse 3
let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,

There is no hint here regarding the length of the time interval between the time Paul wrote and the actual coming of Christ in the Second Advent. In the light of intervening events, we now know that centuries and millenniums of time were to elapse before the final judgment; but as regards the actual date, we are no better off than were they. The event is still scheduled for a time yet future; and, as the mystery of lawlessness was working then, so it is now; but no man can know how long it will be before the Lord comes.

The man of sin ...
See excursus on this at the end of the notes on this chapter. He is the same as the "lawless one" in 2 Thess. 2:8, with this distinction, that "the man of sin" refers to a progressive development of an anti-Christian influence, whereas "the lawless one" is thought by many to refer to some terminal and final embodiment of evil. The interpretation presented here is that the man of sin has indeed appeared. The man of sin sitteth in the temple; he exalts himself; he is a false apostle, the son of perdition; names of blasphemy are upon his head; and he is drunken with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus; but his course is not yet run. The final usurpation of the place of God himself has not yet taken place.

The son of perdition ...
Judas is the only other person so designated in the New Testament. Just as he was the object of prior prophecy, so also is the apostle of apostasy.


Verse 4
he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.

This verse is understood as revealing the character of the final lawless one who shall be the culmination of that evil progression, or as marking the true spiritual import of those innovations and corruptions which have been exhibited by the "man of sin" (in a collective sense) as already historically revealed. A strong case may be made out for either view.

All that is called God ...
A persecutor of the church exalts himself against God in the person of his followers; a perverter of the word of God exalts himself against God in his word.

Or that is worshiped ...
This indicates the total atheism and unbounded egotism of the ultimate man of sin.

Sitteth in the temple of God ...
There can be no way that this is a reference to the Jewish temple. Paul, who wrote the Corinthians that "Ye are the temple of God," would never have made that den of thieves and robbers in Jerusalem the "temple of God" historically. First, it means the church of Jesus Christ; but in context it means the apostate church of Jesus Christ, a deduction that is mandatory from the fact of the apostasy being Paul's subject in this paragraph. Therefore, whenever and wherever the "man of sin" appears it will be in the church apostate!

Sitteth ...
This is a most peculiar verb to be used in such a context; and this writer, who has seen the Pope borne into the Basilica of St. Peter, hoisted above the people and elevated above the high altar upon the shoulders of those who carry him (literally "sitting") into the sanctuary cannot escape the deep. impression that a prophecy of that very spectacle is imbedded in this remarkable verb. Who else, ever, in the history of humanity, always entered the church house "sitting," and even taking the Lord's Supper "sitting"? Luther was outraged by this, and said, "Let the Pope stand up to take the Lord's Supper, like any other stinking sinner."

Setting himself forth as God ...
The papacy fulfills this in the blasphemous titles of the supreme pontiff, but there may be a more drastic fulfillment of it in the revelation of the terminal "man of sin."
***************************
God bless

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 03:37 PM
You are right...this is what Coffman says on it:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=2th&chapter=002
Verse 3
let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,

There is no hint here regarding the length of the time interval between the time Paul wrote and the actual coming of Christ in the Second Advent. In the light of intervening events, we now know that centuries and millenniums of time were to elapse before the final judgment; but as regards the actual date, we are no better off than were they. The event is still scheduled for a time yet future; and, as the mystery of lawlessness was working then, so it is now; but no man can know how long it will be before the Lord comes.

The man of sin ...
See excursus on this at the end of the notes on this chapter. He is the same as the "lawless one" in 2 Thess. 2:8, with this distinction, that "the man of sin" refers to a progressive development of an anti-Christian influence, whereas "the lawless one" is thought by many to refer to some terminal and final embodiment of evil. The interpretation presented here is that the man of sin has indeed appeared. The man of sin sitteth in the temple; he exalts himself; he is a false apostle, the son of perdition; names of blasphemy are upon his head; and he is drunken with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus; but his course is not yet run. The final usurpation of the place of God himself has not yet taken place.

The son of perdition ...
Judas is the only other person so designated in the New Testament. Just as he was the object of prior prophecy, so also is the apostle of apostasy.


Verse 4
he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.

This verse is understood as revealing the character of the final lawless one who shall be the culmination of that evil progression, or as marking the true spiritual import of those innovations and corruptions which have been exhibited by the "man of sin" (in a collective sense) as already historically revealed. A strong case may be made out for either view.

All that is called God ...
A persecutor of the church exalts himself against God in the person of his followers; a perverter of the word of God exalts himself against God in his word.

Or that is worshiped ...
This indicates the total atheism and unbounded egotism of the ultimate man of sin.

Sitteth in the temple of God ...
There can be no way that this is a reference to the Jewish temple. Paul, who wrote the Corinthians that "Ye are the temple of God," would never have made that den of thieves and robbers in Jerusalem the "temple of God" historically. First, it means the church of Jesus Christ; but in context it means the apostate church of Jesus Christ, a deduction that is mandatory from the fact of the apostasy being Paul's subject in this paragraph. Therefore, whenever and wherever the "man of sin" appears it will be in the church apostate!

Sitteth ...
This is a most peculiar verb to be used in such a context; and this writer, who has seen the Pope borne into the Basilica of St. Peter, hoisted above the people and elevated above the high altar upon the shoulders of those who carry him (literally "sitting") into the sanctuary cannot escape the deep. impression that a prophecy of that very spectacle is imbedded in this remarkable verb. Who else, ever, in the history of humanity, always entered the church house "sitting," and even taking the Lord's Supper "sitting"? Luther was outraged by this, and said, "Let the Pope stand up to take the Lord's Supper, like any other stinking sinner."

Setting himself forth as God ...
The papacy fulfills this in the blasphemous titles of the supreme pontiff, but there may be a more drastic fulfillment of it in the revelation of the terminal "man of sin."
***************************
God bless

Whilst I believe El Papa is part of the anti-Christ system I believe he cannot be viewed as part of the temple of God. This relates to the rerdeemed of God alone. I believe this refers to the spirit of anti-Christ operating within the true Church in the last days – evidenced by the notable growth of false doctrine and unscriptural practices, signs and wonders. That is not to suggest that this anti-Christ spirit can possess the true believer – I don't believe so – but he can influence the believer to accept, expound and walk in error.

Paul

VerticalReality
Mar 16th 2007, 03:40 PM
Here's one thing that is confusing to me, though. Revelation 20 states that after the thousand years have expired Satan will be loosed. Would that mean that Satan is going to be loosed after the reign of Jesus Christ? That doesn't make much sense to me because 1 Corinthians 15:25 states that Jesus Christ must reign until all enemies are put under His feet and death is defeated. Wouldn't that also mean that Satan must be finished off completely then as well? Chapter 20 of Revelation makes it sound as if the resurrection won't happen until after Satan is loosed and defeated. It talks of the sea giving up the dead and Death and Hades delivering up their dead. Will Satan's "thousand year binding" be completed before Jesus Christ's "thousand year reign"?

What am I missing here?

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 04:02 PM
Here's one thing that is confusing to me, though. Revelation 20 states that after the thousand years have expired Satan will be loosed. Would that mean that Satan is going to be loosed after the reign of Jesus Christ? That doesn't make much sense to me because 1 Corinthians 15:25 states that Jesus Christ must reign until all enemies are put under His feet and death is defeated. Wouldn't that also mean that Satan must be finished off completely then as well? Chapter 20 of Revelation makes it sound as if the resurrection won't happen until after Satan is loosed and defeated. It talks of the sea giving up the dead and Death and Hades delivering up their dead. Will Satan's "thousand year binding" be completed before Jesus Christ's "thousand year reign"?

What am I missing here?

That challenge exists for all mills. None of the views believe that Christ's reign stops when Satan is released, only that during the thousand yrs period Christ is reigning. Certainly one could argue that He must then 'by implication' stop reigning, but Premils, Postmils and Amils are all in agreement that the reign also exists during Satan's little season although not expressly stated.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 05:25 PM
wpm


That challenge exists for all mills. None of the views believe that Christ's reign stops when Satan is released, only that during the thousand yrs period Christ is reigning. Certainly one could argue that He must then 'by implication' stop reigning, but Premils, Postmils and Amils are all in agreement that the reign also exists during Satan's little season although not expressly stated.One satans best doctrines is enviroment.

Man is the way he is because of his enviroment; if man had a better enviroment than all will be well.

All this fuss to fight global warming and fighting world hunger is doctrine that is not of Christ.

There will be perfect enviroment; exactally what the doctrine of man and demons have been says was needed for a perfect world; a return to eden.

Satan and man will rebel against that perfect enviroment; thus exposeing that perfect world doctrine as the lie it is.

moonglow
Mar 16th 2007, 05:44 PM
Whilst I believe El Papa is part of the anti-Christ system I believe he cannot be viewed as part of the temple of God. This relates to the rerdeemed of God alone. I believe this refers to the spirit of anti-Christ operating within the true Church in the last days – evidenced by the notable growth of false doctrine and unscriptural practices, signs and wonders. That is not to suggest that this anti-Christ spirit can possess the true believer – I don't believe so – but he can influence the believer to accept, expound and walk in error.

Paul

I agree with you on that.

1 Timothy 4
The Great Apostasy
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

This is why I tell people over and over and over again to check everything against the bible...if they think God told them something, check it against the bible as He will not go against His Word...and to check any teachings they read about or hear about against the bible so they won't be lead astray off into something else. There is so much 'junk' out there now, truth mixed with a little lie, that its hard to tell what is true and what isn't unless you know the bible well...or at least use it...too many don't read their bibles and just take someone's word for something.

God bless

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 05:56 PM
There will be perfect enviroment; exactally what the doctrine of man and demons have been says was needed for a perfect world; a return to eden.


How can you say that the Premil millennium is "a return to Eden" - obviously referring to the pristine pre-fall Eden? Eden was indeed perfect, sinless and harmonious. It was free of sin, death and the wicked. The Premil millennium will be a sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future state. The bondage of corruption is reignited after the Lord’s return. This earth will continue to be plagued with all the result of the fall. The curse will continue in their approaching kingdom. Sickness and sadness, corruption and decay will be resurrected. Sin will abound and wickedness will gain a strong footing. The terror of war and rebellion will continue unabated. It will experience murder and mayhem and therefore funerals, bereavement and mourning again. They also force countless wicked onto the incorrupt new earth despite the fact that they are forbidden entry by the Holy Ghost. This was unknown to Eden before the fall. In fact, the number of the wicked will prosper to such a magnitude that they will surround the saints in the end. Frankly, the Premil millennium is the same as this current age. Evidently, Christ will have failed in his rule of the nations having been overcome by Satan at the end. Christ’s rod of iron will have been ineffective. Righteousness will have failed and wickedness will have prospered.

It is the Amil view that sees the restoration of the earth to the Garden condition. Amils believe that this earth is totally regenerated by fire at Christ's Coming, whereupon this current earth is purged of every vestige of the fall. The earth will return to its original pristine condition. The old earth is burnt up along with the wicked. Every last vestige of the fall is finally eliminated. This current earth will thus be regenerated, purified and re-populated by the eternal saints. It will be restored to the state it was before the fall, it will be sin-free, goat-free, death free.

Paul

David Taylor
Mar 16th 2007, 06:16 PM
Man is the way he is because of his enviroment; if man had a better enviroment than all will be well.

All this fuss to fight global warming and fighting world hunger is doctrine that is not of Christ.

There will be perfect enviroment; exactally what the doctrine of man and demons have been says was needed for a perfect world; a return to eden.

Satan and man will rebel against that perfect enviroment; thus exposeing that perfect world doctrine as the lie it is.


Already happened.....

That cat is already out of the bag on that premise.

Genesis 1
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

Genesis 2
"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

Genesis 3
"And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden"

The Bible never again speaks of a restored perfect earthly environment again, where sin and death do not exist, until the time of the New Heavens and New Earth.

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 06:17 PM
wpm



How can you say that the Premil millennium is "a return to Eden" - obviously referring to the pristine pre-fall Eden?
Your terms like " Premil millennium" I understand not;

In Christs reign the world will have perfect enviroment; a chicken in every pot; a roof over every head.
Even the weather will be perfect in every way.
Even death will be dimished.

The forces of restoration will be unleashed upon the heavens and the earth; it will be restored to a eden like enviroment.

Isa 65:17
17"For behold, I {"bara" - shape or fashion from existing materials} new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

18"But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing
And her people for gladness.

19"I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people;
And there will no longer be heard in her
The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.

20"No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
Or an old man who does not live out his days;
For the youth will die at the age of one hundred
And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred
Will be thought accursed.
Death will be dimished; but it will exist.
21"They will build houses and inhabit them;
They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

22"They will not build and another inhabit,
They will not plant and another eat;
For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people,
And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.

23"They will not labor in vain,
Or bear children for calamity;
For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD,
And their descendants with them.


Eden was indeed perfect, sinless and harmonious. It was free of sin, death and the wicked. The Premil millennium will be a sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future state. The bondage of corruption is reignited after the Lord’s return. This earth will continue to be plagued with all the result of the fall. The curse will continue in their approaching kingdom. Sickness and sadness, corruption and decay will be resurrected. Sin will abound and wickedness will gain a strong footing. The terror of war and rebellion will continue unabated. It will experience murder and mayhem and therefore funerals, bereavement and mourning again. They also force countless wicked onto the incorrupt new earth despite the fact that they are forbidden entry by the Holy Ghost. This was unknown to Eden before the fall. In fact, the number of the wicked will prosper to such a magnitude that they will surround the saints in the end. Frankly, the Premil millennium is the same as this current age. Evidently, Christ will have failed in his rule of the nations having been overcome by Satan at the end. Christ’s rod of iron will have been ineffective. Righteousness will have failed and wickedness will have prospered.
You are stating a failure of Christ?

This lets lose the question: Then exactally who is that failure to judge me?

Therefore for Christ to be the perfect judge; he will have never failed in his plain; it will be perfect in every way.
There is no failure in perfection.



It is the Amil view that sees the restoration of the earth to the Garden condition. Amils believe that this earth is totally regenerated by fire at Christ's Coming, whereupon this current earth is purged of every vestige of the fall. The earth will return to its original pristine condition. The old earth is burnt up along with the wicked. Every last vestige of the fall is finally eliminated. This current earth will thus be regenerated, purified and re-populated by the eternal saints. It will be restored to the state it was before the fall, it will be sin-free, goat-free, death free.


Thats nice; however the kingdom of Christ on earth will have sin; it must be shown that Christ can rule sinful man; his doctrine must be tested.

And when it is not found lacking then there is no questioning his eternal judgments.

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 06:24 PM
David Taylor



The Bible never again speaks of a restored perfect earthly environment again, where sin and death do not exist, until the time of the New Heavens and New Earth.

Never stated sin and death would NOT exist in that enviroment.

It will be a prefect enviroment;

And Satan and man will reject one more that perfect enviroment.

Establishing enviroment is not a valid arguement as to the judgement upon man.

Todays courts may accept the enviroment one was raised as a excuse for their actions.

God however will not.

VerticalReality
Mar 16th 2007, 06:25 PM
In Christs reign the world will have perfect enviroment;

According to 1 Corinthians 15:25, Jesus Christ is reigning right now. I don't see anything you're talking about.

David Taylor
Mar 16th 2007, 06:28 PM
In Christs reign the world will have perfect enviroment;
Even death will be dimished.
The forces of restoration will be unleashed upon the heavens and the earth; it will be restored to a eden like enviroment.

however the kingdom of Christ on earth wil have sin

Your remarks are in conflict with each other, and show the ultimate reason I abandoned the Premill viewpoint years ago.

Death either exists for mortals on the Earth or it doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as 'diminished' death.
(unless you watch Monty Python and meet someone on a cart who is "not dead yet" or The Princess Bride and encounter a patient of Billy Crystal who is "mostly dead")

In fiction, you can have 'diminished death'.....not in reality.

The very fact that you admit to the existence of sin and death on the Earth in the Premill Kingdom, shows that it can't be "a perfect environment".

Eden was only perfect prior to sin and death entering it.

That's the ultimate core-crux of the Premill view folks.

Sin and death and the curse upon the Earth continue....but in a supposed perfectly restored environment.

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 06:32 PM
VerticalReality


According to 1 Corinthians 15:25, Jesus Christ is reigning right now. I don't see anything you're talking about.

Really.

If one doesnt one line verses; the context shows what they are covering.

What doctrines support he is reigning at this time?

According to current event Christ is at the right hand of God while God is putting his foes as his foot stool.

Hebrews 1:13
But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 06:42 PM
David Taylor



Your remarks are in conflict with each other, and show the ultimate reason I abandoned the Premill viewpoint years ago.

Death either exists for mortals on the Earth or it doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as 'diminished' death.
(unless you watch Monty Python and meet someone on a cart who is "not dead yet" or The Princess Bride and encounter a patient of Billy Crystal who is "mostly dead")

In fiction, you can have 'diminished death'.....not in reality.

The very fact that you admit to the existence of sin and death on the Earth in the Premill Kingdom, shows that it can't be "a perfect environment".
1) It is NOT a "premill" it is THE 1000 year kingdom.

2) People living as long as trees is a pretty good sign of a dimishing of death.
isa 65:22"They will not build and another inhabit,
They will not plant and another eat;
For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people,
And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.
3) It is a perfect enviroment for man in his state; it is exactally what man have been trying to recreate since he was booted from the garden. A utopia. He will get it and he will reject it. Thus no more excuse will remain.



Eden was only perfect prior to sin and death entering it.
Hence why I said "eden-like"



That's the ultimate core-crux of the Premill view folks.
Pontification.



Sin and death and the curse upon the Earth continue....but in a supposed perfectly restored environment.
Correct;

Is Christ rule able to handle sin and death?

After all satan has had 1000s of years with that.

How has he done?

Now its Christs turn.

How will he rule the earth with sin and death?

It will be ruled perfectly.

And that perfect rule and enviroment will be rejected.

Thus no defense will remain against Gods judgement of eternal damnation of satan and the unbelievers.
{Which is something all the "other" views dont bear answer to, that is nullying satans defense case against the charges leveled at him.}

moonglow
Mar 16th 2007, 06:47 PM
VerticalReality



Really.

If one doesnt one line verses; the context shows what they are covering.

What doctrines support he is reigning at this time?

According to current event Christ is at the right hand of God while God is putting his foes as his foot stool.

Hebrews 1:13
But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

And you just did a one liner of scripture...so are we to assume you are covering up something? :hmm: Lets see yours in content shall we?

Hebrews 1

God’s Supreme Revelation

1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
The Son Exalted Above Angels

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:


“ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?

And again:


“ I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?

6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:


“ Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

7 And of the angels He says:


“ Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But to the Son He says:


“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”



10 And:



“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”


13 But to which of the angels has He ever said:



“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?



14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

Hebrews 10:12-14
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

1 Corinthians 15
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 06:58 PM
moonglow


And you just did a one liner of scripture...so are we to assume you are covering up something? :hmm: Lets see yours in content shall we?Is Christ currently at the right hand of God?

Or is He on a throne in Jerusalem?

We are not in the "End"; Christ has not returned to set up rule.

If you think he has please point me to the news stories about the mount of Olvies being ruptured {which will occur when he returns.}.

Zechariah 14:4
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.



I was there recently and it looked solid.

I have valid photos from news stories of it as early as yesterday; perhaps something occured over night.

The Jerusalem post shows nothing; about the mount being ripped up; I am sure they would be part of the first to know. http://www.jpost.com/

cwb
Mar 16th 2007, 07:02 PM
There is so much 'junk' out there now, truth mixed with a little lie, that its hard to tell what is true and what isn't unless you know the bible well...or at least use it...too many don't read their bibles and just take someone's word for something.




That's how I feel aobut all the end time views. I do not believe anybody has a corner stone on truth when it comes to this, though they might have some valid points.

moonglow
Mar 16th 2007, 07:03 PM
moonglow



Is Christ currently at the right hand of God?

Or is He on a throne in Jerusalem?

We are not in the "End"; Christ has not returned to set up rule.

If you think he has please point me to the news stories about the mount of Olvies being ruptured {which will occur when he returns.}.

I was there recently and it looked solid.

I have valid photos from new stories of it as early as yesterday; perhaps something occured over night.

Did it ever occurr to you a giant Christ standing on mount Olives might not have been meant to be taken literally? As far as I know Christ isn't returning the size of the jolly green giant. What do you think those verses I posted mean?


God bless

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:09 PM
moonglow


Did it ever occurr to you a giant Christ standing on mount Olives might not have been meant to be taken literally? As far as I know Christ isn't returning the size of the jolly green giant. What do you think those verses I posted mean?What more does it take before it is literal?

Zechariah 14:4
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives

1) shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west,
2) and there shall be a very great valley;

3) and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north,

4) and half of it toward the south.



5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
You cant get much more literal than that,
And there will be no denying the fact that he has returned.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 07:11 PM
What doctrines support he is reigning at this time?

According to current event Christ is at the right hand of God while God is putting his foes as his foot stool.

Hebrews 1:13
But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

It was only after His resurrection (in His glorified state) that Christ announced to His disciples, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18).

1 Peter 3:22 says, that Christ, “who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God (now!!!); angels and authorities and powers being (currently!!!) made subject unto him.”

Christ is reigning over His enemies since the resurrection, waiting for their final predetermined put down.

Christ carries the supreme and ultimate authority over both the natural and the supernatural realm. Colossians 1:16-18 declares, “for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Christ is shown to be the ruler of all dominion and power. With the Premillennial reasoning they divest Christ of His rightful power.

Philippians 2:9-11says, “wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

He reigns today over the seen and the unseen world making every power and every authority “subject unto him.”

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:13 PM
wpm


He reigns today over the seen and the unseen world making every power and every authority “subject unto him.”

And inthe 1000 year kingdom; it will be personally over the seen world from Jerusalem..

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 07:16 PM
David Taylor

1) It is NOT a "premill" it is THE 1000 year kingdom.


2) People living as long as trees is a pretty good sign of a dimishing of death.
isa 65:22"They will not build and another inhabit,


They will not plant and another eat;


For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people,


And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.
3) It is a perfect enviroment for man in his state; it is exactally what man have been trying to recreate since he was booted from the garden. A utopia. He will get it and he will reject it. Thus no more excuse will remain.

Hence why I said "eden-like"

Pontification.

Correct;

Is Christ rule able to handle sin and death?

After all satan has had 1000s of years with that.

How has he done?

Now its Christs turn.

How will he rule the earth with sin and death?

It will be ruled perfectly.

And that perfect rule and enviroment will be rejected.

Thus no defense will remain against Gods judgement of eternal damnation of satan and the unbelievers.
{Which is something all the "other" views dont bear answer to, that is nullying satans defense case against the charges leveled at him.}

Were there wicked humans in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there death in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there sin in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there war in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there rebellion in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there decay in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there corruption in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there sickness in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there pain in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there tears in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there sorrow in Eden prior to the fall?

Please answer each of these questions.

Paul

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 07:19 PM
wpm



And inthe 1000 year kingdom; it will be personally over the seen world from Jerusalem..


It doesn't say one thousand years ("1,000 years") as you suggest but an indefinite "thousand." It is not 1,000 literal years as you keep quoting. Show us where it states "one thousand years" in Rev 20? I have pointed this error out severall times.


We are in the kingdom age now. Christ is reigning now.


Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:22 PM
wpn



Were there wicked humans in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there death in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there sin in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there war in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there rebellion in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there decay in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there corruption in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there sickness in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there pain in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there tears in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there sorrow in Eden prior to the fall?

Please answer each of these questions.

Paul


What is the relvence of any of that?

I stated eden-like; Ie perfect enviroment; {as in Isa 65}

The type of enviroment man has been wanting since the fall.

VerticalReality
Mar 16th 2007, 07:24 PM
Centurion,

I would address your comments to me, but I'm going to be perfectly honest with you . . .

I just don't understand your posts. I'm not saying this to be rude or hurt your feelings or anything, so forgive me if it comes across that way through a message forum. I just don't want to seem rude and not address your comments at all.

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:30 PM
wpm


It doesn't say one thousand years ("1,000 years") as you suggest but an indefinite "thousand." It is not 1,000 literal years as you keep quoting. Show us where it states "one thousand years" in Rev 20? I have pointed this error out severall times.

We are in the kingdom age now. Christ is reigning now.




Ok looking.

Got a little End of times Check list;
In case I may wake up and think this lovely world we enjoy to day is eden like.

1) Mount of Olives split in two? - nope
2) People iving as long as trees? - nope
3) No weeping or crying among the jews? - nope.
4) Are other people not living in homes ment for jews. - nope
5) Are other people NOT eating vinyard that are reserved for Jews - Nope
6) Is there a active temple in jerusalem - nope


You have no support doctrine for you single statement.
One can Hide behind this line or that line; however the doctrine doesnt support your position.

VerticalReality
Mar 16th 2007, 07:34 PM
One can Hide behind this line or that line; however the doctrine doesnt support your position.

Pretty much the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 says that Jesus Christ is reigning now, so I don't know what the "one line" theory is about. A good portion of that chapter is dealing with the resurrection, the glorification of the body, and the defeat of death. It also states that Jesus Christ will continue to reign (which is the present state) until ALL His enemies are his footstool.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 07:35 PM
wpm




Ok looking.

Got a little End of times Check list;
In case I may wake up and think this lovely world we enjoy to day is eden like.

1) Mount of Olives split in two? - nope
2) People iving as long as trees? - nope
3) No weeping or crying among the jews? - nope.
4) Are other people not living in homes ment for jews. - nope
5) Are other people NOT eating vinyard that are reserved for Jews - Nope
6) Is there a active temple in jerusalem - nope


You have no support doctrine for you single statement.
One can Hide behind this line or that line; however the doctrine doesnt support your position.

You totally avoided my points and changed the subject. Please keep to one subject at a time.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:38 PM
VerticalReality


Centurion,

I would address your comments to me, but I'm going to be perfectly honest with you . . .

I just don't understand your posts. I'm not saying this to be rude or hurt your feelings or anything, so forgive me if it comes across that way through a message forum. I just don't want to seem rude and not address your comments at all.
Fair enough.

The point I was making; is your verse was way out of context;
Your statement ignored the verses around it that first of all had him returning before the rule.

23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. {Christ is coming}

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. {This occurs in his 1000 year reign when it is shown all excuses satan ever made was about him getting power.}

26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. {this occurs at the final resurrection.}


He is not reigning over the earth now; satan is still the ruler over this world. {By permission.}

When he returns satan is bumped and he will rule personally this earth in the flesh.

By asking for support doctrines; I am looking for what other bible teachings supports your position.

I have shown in my position part of the resolution of the angelic conflict and what is resolved by Christ ruling a perfect world;
that being the rejection of satans excuse of enviroment.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 07:39 PM
wpn

What is the relvence of any of that?

I stated eden-like; Ie perfect enviroment; {as in Isa 65}

The type of enviroment man has been wanting since the fall.

They are totally relevant. You said the Premil millennium would be "a perfect world" and a "perfect environment" - I am saying the opposite is the truth. It is no different from today. I would be obliged if you would address my important questions.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:42 PM
wpm



You totally avoided my points and changed the subject. Please keep to one subject at a time.

Your point was in semantics; then from that; a bold statement that we are in the kingdom now.

To which I shown that we are not; for certain things must occur as part of that kingdom.

Now you are stating I did subject change, because I didnt jump and hurl over the sematics.

I looked to the signs of how we will know we are in his earthly kingdom; this is considered by you to be a subject change.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 07:43 PM
{this occurs at the final resurrection.}


When is the very last resurrection in your opinion?

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:45 PM
wpm



They are totally relevant. You said the Premil millennium would be "a perfect world" and a "perfect environment" - I am saying the opposite is the truth. It is no different from today. I would be obliged if you would address my important questions.


You cant see the difference between today and what is in ISA 65??

It is everything liberialism and other human thinking has desired and preached about.

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:46 PM
wpm

When is the very last resurrection in your opinion?

Resurrection of the damed which occurs at the end of his 1000 year kingdom.

VerticalReality
Mar 16th 2007, 07:47 PM
VerticalReality
Fair enough.

The point I was making; is your verse was way out of context;
Your statement ignored the verses around it that first of all had him returning before the rule.

23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. {Christ is coming}

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. {This occurs in his 1000 year reign when it is shown all excuses satan ever made was about him getting power.}

26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. {this occurs at the final resurrection.}

So, by your own admission, we will not be resurrected until after the thousand year reign. So, who is reigning with Christ as "priests of God and of Christ"?

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 07:48 PM
wpm



You cant see the difference between today and what is in ISA 65??

It is everything liberialism and other human thinking has desired and preached about.

When your position is shown to be untenable you always change subjects or continue on as if the contradictions don't exist. It is impossible to progress in this until you address the following reasonable questions about your supposed millennial "perfect world."

Were there wicked humans in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there death in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there sin in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there war in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there rebellion in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there decay in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there corruption in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there sickness in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there pain in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there tears in Eden prior to the fall?

Was there sorrow in Eden prior to the fall?

Please answer each of these questions.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:49 PM
VerticalReality


So, by your own admission, we will not be resurrected until after the thousand year reign. So, who is reigning with Christ as "priests of God and of Christ"?We are the firstfruits; our resurrection is part of Christs for we are in Christ.; when he returns as the king all Jewish saints are ressurected.

VerticalReality
Mar 16th 2007, 07:50 PM
VerticalReality

We are the firstfruits; our resurrection is part of Christs for we are in Christ.; when he returns as the king all Jewish saints are ressurected.

So, now what you're saying is that Jesus Christ has to defeat death more than once?

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 07:51 PM
satan is still the ruler over this world.

Speak for yourself. Not my world. Christ reigns sovereign in my world.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:52 PM
wpm



When your position is shown to be untenable you always change subjects or continue on as if the contradictions don't exist. It is impossible to progress in this until you address the following reasonable questions about your supposed millennial "perfect world."


You are the one taking it off point.

I never stated the world would be eden with out sin and man in a innocent state. Therefore your questions have no meaning.

I stated eden-like.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 07:52 PM
VerticalReality

We are the firstfruits; our resurrection is part of Christs for we are in Christ.; when he returns as the king all Jewish saints are ressurected.

Where is your Scripture for this?

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 07:56 PM
wpm


Speak for yourself. Not my world. Christ reigns sovereign in my world.


Then there is reality.

Reality is satan is the ruler of this world; his plans are in full swing.

One cant look at what is occuring in thiis world and say Christ is forcing all that to occur.

cwb
Mar 16th 2007, 07:57 PM
I just had a question for the a-millers - anybody who would care to answer. Why do you believe taking Zechariah 14 literally contradicts your viewpoint. These are the verse I am specifically asking about.




4And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.







Rev. 21 speaks about a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem so why do you feel taking these verses literally occuring at the Lord's return contradict your viewpoint? I hope my question makes sense. Please let me know if not.

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 08:01 PM
wpm


Where is your Scripture for this?


James 1:18

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.


1 cor 15


23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.


Also many passages on how we are the body of Christ; Part of Christ; his bride; etc..

VerticalReality
Mar 16th 2007, 08:01 PM
I just had a question for the a-millers - anybody who would care to answer. Why do you believe taking Zechariah 14 literally contradicts your viewpoint. These are the verse I am specifically asking about.




4And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.







Rev. 21 speaks about a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem so why do you feel taking these verses literally occuring at the Lord's return contradict your viewpoint? I hope my question makes sense. Please let me know if not.

Don't ask me. I'm still trying to get down the resurrection and the defeat of death.:lol:

I'll get to that other stuff later. However, what I do know is that I don't see any possible way to have a pre-trib rapture or even a post-trib rapture with what 1 Corinthians 15 has to say on the subject. It appears to me, basing my opinion on how 1 Corinthians 15 lines up with Revelation 20 and 1 Thessalonians 4, that pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib is impossible. However, that's as far as I've gotten on this study.

Now, along with that, it would appear that Pre-mil is kind of difficult to believe simply for the fact that you have to believe that Jesus Christ will have to defeat death more than one time. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 08:03 PM
wpm



You are the one taking it off point.

I never stated the world would be eden with out sin and man in a innocent state. Therefore your questions have no meaning.

I stated eden-like.

No. You have done a complete u-turn half way through this discussion. You actually started by describing your supposed future millennium as a "perfect world," "a return to eden" and a "perfect environment." Please check out post #15 in this discussion. The sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future earthly millennial kingdom you are now describing is totally the opposite of what you commenced with. Your millennium has went from a pristine earth that is free of the curse to a millennium of havoc plagued by all the ravages of the curse. It seems like you are not totally sure of what you expect.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 08:03 PM
cwb



Rev. 21 speaks about a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem so why do you feel taking these verses literally occuring at the Lord's return contradict your viewpoint? I hope my question makes sense. Please let me know if not.


Dont know what a a-mill is;

Doctrinally Rev 21 and Zech 14 are not the same event.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 08:06 PM
I just had a question for the a-millers - anybody who would care to answer. Why do you believe taking Zechariah 14 literally contradicts your viewpoint. These are the verse I am specifically asking about.

4And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


Rev. 21 speaks about a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem so why do you feel taking these verses literally occuring at the Lord's return contradict your viewpoint? I hope my question makes sense. Please let me know if not.

I don't. It is not speaking of the second Coming, but the first. Zechariah 14:1 declares, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.”

This passage and especially its rendering in the King James Version has caused confusion to many Bible students over the years. However, a closer examination of the original dispels a lot of ambiguity surrounding the passage. Firstly, the Hebrew does not actually say “the day of the Lord” as the King James Version renders it but ‘a day is coming for the Lord’. There is no definite article in the Hebrew in the text, so “a day” would be a better translation than “the day.” There is no doubt, the phrase “the day of the Lord” normally relates to the Second Coming in Scripture, but Zechariah 14:1 does not state that in the original. Therefore, we cannot insist that it is referring to the day of the Lord. This places a completely different slant on the meaning of the whole chapter. Other versions translate the reading more accurate.

The NASB says: "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you."

The YLT states: "Lo, a day hath come to Jehovah, And divided hath been thy spoil in thy midst."


We must add to this the Greek LXX Septuagint, which supports this interpretation, saying,

idou Behold
hmerai day
erxontai cometh
tou the
kuriou Lord
kai even (or indeed)
diamerisqhsetai divides
ta the
skula spoils
sou you
en with
soi you

When we look at the usage of the Greek throughout the Old Testament (in the Greek LXX Septuagint) and our New Testament we find a definite pattern in relation to the wording and identification of the day of the Lord in the original.

In the New Testament:

Of the five “day of the Lord” passages in the New Testament, they read in the original:

Three are: “hemera kurios” (Acts 2:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3).

Two are: “hemera ho kurios” (1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14).

In the Greek LXX Septuagint

Of the twenty “day of the Lord” passages in the Old Testament:

Eleven are: “hemera kurios” (Isaiah 13:6, 9, Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 2:31, 3:14, Obadiah 1:15, Zephaniah 1:14, Malachi 4:5)

Four are: “hemera ho kurios” (Joel 2:11, Amos 5:18, 20, Zephaniah 1:7)


We can see, fifteen align precisely with the Greek New Testament wording and confirm that this would be the normal rendering of the Coming of Christ in the Greek. That is 75%.

One reads: “hemera ekeinos kurios” (Jeremiah 46:10), also meaning day of the Lord.

One is: “hemera gar kurios” (Isaiah 2:12), literally meaning day for the Lord.

Finally, there are two references (one after the other in Zephaniah) that refer to the same climactic day. One says, “hemera thumos kurios” (Zephaniah 2:2), meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. The other reads, “hemera orge kurios” (Zephaniah 2:3), similarly meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. Plainly, they are both speaking of the same day in the same reading and in the same context.

That brings us to Zechariah 14:1, which is worded completely different from the rest, saying, “hmerai erxontai tou kuriou,” literally meaning “a day is coming for the LORD.” None of the other passages say this. It is not unreasonable to make a distinction between Zechariah’s description and that of the other nineteen references. The only similarity is the King James Version’s translation of the same in the English. Notwithstanding, regardless of how high we value our A.V. we cannot use this as conclusive proof for equating the day Zechariah is speaking of to the other nineteen. The original rendering supersedes any other translations. It seems like he may not have been referring to the day of the Lord as is commonly used to describe the last day. If it was, it would have most likely read “hemera kurios” or “hemera ho kurios” in the Greek LXX Septuagint. Or failing that: “hemera ekeinos kurios.” Whilst the wording of Zechariah 14:1 doesn't prevent it referring to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus the phrase ‘a day is coming for the Lord’ and ‘the day of the Lord’ are definitely not synonymous. It is therefore reasonable for us to question its identification with the Second Coming of the Lord and to consider the possibility that it relates to Christ’s first advent.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 08:09 PM
wpm



No. You have done a complete u-turn half way through this discussion. You actually started by describing your supposed future millennium as a "perfect world," "a return to eden" and a "perfect environment." Please check out post #15 in this discussion. The sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future earthly millennial kingdom you are now describing is totally the opposite of what you commenced with. Your millennium has went from a pristine earth that is free of the curse to a millennium of havoc plagued by all the ravages of the curse. It seems like you are not totally sure of what you expect.


#`15



One satans best doctrines is enviroment.

Man is the way he is because of his enviroment; if man had a better enviroment than all will be well.

All this fuss to fight global warming and fighting world hunger is doctrine that is not of Christ.

There will be perfect enviroment; exactally what the doctrine of man and demons have been says was needed for a perfect world; a return to eden.

Satan and man will rebel against that perfect enviroment; thus exposeing that perfect world doctrine as the lie it is.


satan dogma is a perfect enviroment will make perfect men. That people are a product of their enviroment.

Christs kingdom will have perfect enviroment.
Good weather; good food; long life; happiness; just rule.

Man and satan will reject that; they will reject that which they claimed is needed to make man good and perfect.


I dont see any "u-turn" of what i have stated.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 08:09 PM
wpm



James 1:18
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1 cor 15


23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.



24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Also many passages on how we are the body of Christ; Part of Christ; his bride; etc..

I don't see any reference to the effect that "when he returns as the king all Jewish saints are ressurected."

Paul

third hero
Mar 16th 2007, 08:21 PM
I don't. It is not speaking of the second Coming, but the first. Zechariah 14:1 declares, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.”

This passage and especially its rendering in the King James Version has caused confusion to many Bible students over the years. However, a closer examination of the original dispels a lot of ambiguity surrounding the passage. Firstly, the Hebrew does not actually say “the day of the Lord” as the King James Version renders it but ‘a day is coming for the Lord’. There is no definite article in the Hebrew in the text, so “a day” would be a better translation than “the day.” There is no doubt, the phrase “the day of the Lord” normally relates to the Second Coming in Scripture, but Zechariah 14:1 does not state that in the original. Therefore, we cannot insist that it is referring to the day of the Lord. This places a completely different slant on the meaning of the whole chapter. Other versions translate the reading more accurate.

The NASB says: "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you."

The YLT states: "Lo, a day hath come to Jehovah, And divided hath been thy spoil in thy midst."


We must add to this the Greek LXX Septuagint, which supports this interpretation, saying,

idou Behold
hmerai day
erxontai cometh
tou the
kuriou Lord
kai even (or indeed)
diamerisqhsetai divides
ta the
skula spoils
sou you
en with
soi you

When we look at the usage of the Greek throughout the Old Testament (in the Greek LXX Septuagint) and our New Testament we find a definite pattern in relation to the wording and identification of the day of the Lord in the original.

In the New Testament:

Of the five “day of the Lord” passages in the New Testament, they read in the original:

Three are: “hemera kurios” (Acts 2:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3).

Two are: “hemera ho kurios” (1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14).

In the Greek LXX Septuagint

Of the twenty “day of the Lord” passages in the Old Testament:

Eleven are: “hemera kurios” (Isaiah 13:6, 9, Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 2:31, 3:14, Obadiah 1:15, Zephaniah 1:14, Malachi 4:5)

Four are: “hemera ho kurios” (Joel 2:11, Amos 5:18, 20, Zephaniah 1:7)


We can see, fifteen align precisely with the Greek New Testament wording and confirm that this would be the normal rendering of the Coming of Christ in the Greek. That is 75%.

One reads: “hemera ekeinos kurios” (Jeremiah 46:10), also meaning day of the Lord.

One is: “hemera gar kurios” (Isaiah 2:12), literally meaning day for the Lord.

Finally, there are two references (one after the other in Zephaniah) that refer to the same climactic day. One says, “hemera thumos kurios” (Zephaniah 2:2), meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. The other reads, “hemera orge kurios” (Zephaniah 2:3), similarly meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. Plainly, they are both speaking of the same day in the same reading and in the same context.

That brings us to Zechariah 14:1, which is worded completely different from the rest, saying, “hmerai erxontai tou kuriou,” literally meaning “a day is coming for the LORD.” None of the other passages say this. It is not unreasonable to make a distinction between Zechariah’s description and that of the other nineteen references. The only similarity is the King James Version’s translation of the same in the English. Notwithstanding, regardless of how high we value our A.V. we cannot use this as conclusive proof for equating the day Zechariah is speaking of to the other nineteen. The original rendering supersedes any other translations. It seems like he may not have been referring to the day of the Lord as is commonly used to describe the last day. If it was, it would have most likely read “hemera kurios” or “hemera ho kurios” in the Greek LXX Septuagint. Or failing that: “hemera ekeinos kurios.” Whilst the wording of Zechariah 14:1 doesn't prevent it referring to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus the phrase ‘a day is coming for the Lord’ and ‘the day of the Lord’ are definitely not synonymous. It is therefore reasonable for us to question its identification with the Second Coming of the Lord and to consider the possibility that it relates to Christ’s first advent.

Paul

Must we go through this again?

Every time the term, "Day of the Lord" is mentioned in the OT, judgment came along with it. It doesn ot mean that everytime that the words, "Day of the Lord" appear that it means the return of te Lord. Looks like I am going to have to give examples.

Jeremiah 46:10, this is not talking about the return of the Lord, but the time that Josiah defeats the Gentile nations that attack him. Ezekiel 13:5, the day of the Lord is mentioned, and yet, it is in reference to preparing Israel to go to war. That has nothing to do with thw return of the Lord. Ezekiel 30:3, the Lord is saying to Ezekiel to tell the people that Egypt, the place in which they think they will be safe against Nebachadnezzar, will be defeated soundly. This has nothing to do with the return of the Lord. It seems that your definition of the term "day of the Lord" is derived from Isaiah, for in every time that Isaiah mentioned Day of the Lord, it was considered the return of the Lord. The problem lies in that Isaiah was not Israel's only prophet. In every time that the term "day of the Lord" is mentioned, it is a time of bloodshed and vengeance, whereas the Lord takes action against the wicked, whether they be Israel or abroad.

Therefore, your argument doesn't hold weight, because it is based on the assumption that if one prophet makes the term mean one thing, that all of them followed suit, where they did not.

Also, the day of the Lord that Zachariah 14:1 is talking about is defined within that verse, where Jerusalem is ransacked. It is not until verse 5 when the actual term, then the Lord my God shall come, comes into effect. Therefore, the day of the Lord is still a day of vengeance, but in that case, it is the day the Lord takes action to save Jerusalem from the invaders.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 08:23 PM
wpm

#`15

satan dogma is a perfect enviroment will make perfect men. That people are a product of their enviroment.

Christs kingdom will have perfect enviroment.
Good weather; good food; long life; happiness; just rule.

Man and satan will reject that; they will reject that which they claimed is needed to make man good and perfect.


I dont see any "u-turn" of what i have stated.

Your millennium is as Eden-like as day is to night. They are complete opposites.

In Ireland we have "a chicken in every pot; a roof over every head." We also get "good weather; good food; long life; happiness; just rule" (well maybe the rule thing is sometimes "just" sometimes unjust, but we get all the rest of your supposed millennial blessings). So I put that to you as another reason why we are in the millennium. :lol: :lol: :lol:

We also get all the wicked humans, death, sin, war, rebellion, decay, corruption, sickness, pain, tears, sorrow that plagues your millenium. Again, more evidence that the millennium is now.

If you can't see what you are now describing and what you were first suggesting is poles apart then there is something wrong. Amils and Premils go their separate ways (major) in their expectation of the new earth and the physical manifestation of the kingdom that Christ introduces at His Coming. The two hopes are miles apart. The Amillennialist believes that Christ destroys every vestige of corruption and consequence of the fall at His return. Romans 8:19-23 confirms, “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be (future tense) delivered from the bondage of corruption (death, sin and decay) into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.” Creation and the creature will see a final and complete deliverance from the current bondage of corruption. Paul locates this liberation for creation at the time when the saints experience “the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.” This conclusively proves that the glorification of the earth occurs simultaneously with the glorification of our bodies.

I Corinthians 15:50 – makes it explicitly clear, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." This passage is speaking of the period immediately following the Coming of Christ. The whole context is man’s final deliverance from the corruptible state. It is talking of glorification and the eternal state on the new earth. It confirms that the new earth that is to be inherited is free of corruption. This come through the fiery conflagration. Therefore, “flesh and blood” or mortal believers cannot inherit a glorified earth that has been purified by fire of every last vestige of the curse. Man in his sinful corruptible state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth. Nothing could be plainer. Amils see the Lord’s return as climactic and all-consummating. They believe Jesus is Coming to destroy the wicked and all wickedness and introduce a new pristine order of righteousness on the new earth for ever. Peter confirms, “we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:13).

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 08:26 PM
wpm


I don't see any reference to the effect that "when he returns as the king all Jewish saints are ressurected."


Those that are his; is a referance to the Jewish saints.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 08:30 PM
wpm

Those that are his; is a referance to the Jewish saints.

Sorry??? Those that are His are the redeemed saints (Jews and Gentiles) - period. 2 Timothy 2:19 says, "the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

Paul

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 08:32 PM
CF

Are you saying James 1:18 and 1 Cor 15 is not referring to NT Gentile believers?

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 08:34 PM
wpm



Creation and the creature will see a final and complete deliverance from the current bondage of corruption.
You State satan is not the ruler of this world; then post a passage of how creation is under bondage waiting to be set free at Christs return.

Mind Boggling.




I Corinthians 15:50 – makes it explicitly clear, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." This passage is speaking of the period immediately following the Coming of Christ.
inherit; ie to rule; partake in the ruler ship with Christ.

Those alive will not be rulers the earth; even more witness to the perfection of that day.
NO humans running politcs, now that to me would be all most in eden.

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 08:35 PM
wpm


Sorry??? Those that are His are the redeemed saints (Jews and Gentiles) - period. 2 Timothy 2:19 says, "the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

The part in discussion was in 1 cor 15.



Are you saying James 1:18 and 1 Cor 15 is not referring to NT Gentile believers?


Why the hopping around.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 09:13 PM
wpm

Those that are his; is a referance to the Jewish saints.

You have really lost me in your reasoning. What Scriptures do you consider indicates: "when he returns as the king all Jewish saints are ressurected"?

I though you presented James 1:18 and 1 Cor 15 to support this?

Paul

John146
Mar 16th 2007, 09:22 PM
In 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 it talks about the order of the resurrection. It states that Jesus Christ is the first fruits and then those at his second coming will be resurrected. It states then that the end is to come where He hands the Kingdom over to the Father, and He puts an end to all rule and authority and power. Then in verses 25 and 26 it states that He must reign until all enemies are put under His feet, and the last enemy that must be destroyed is death. Paul later goes on to describe when death will be defeated when he tells them the "great mystery".



So, what we have here is the statement that death is the final thing that is defeated, and it is defeated when we are all resurrected (or changed in a twinkling of an eye if you are one of those who are alive and remain) in an incorruptible body that has put on immortality. What it is also saying is that Jesus Christ's reign will carry through until death has been defeated. Therefore, the end of Jesus Christ's reign and the defeat of death is happening at the same time at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ when we are all resurrected with glorified bodies. That would mean that Revelation chapter 20 is happening right now, and His reign will continue until His return when He finally puts that last enemy (death) under His feet. Once death is defeated, Jesus Christ's reign is over and the Kingdom is ready to hand back over to the Father.

Thoughts?

Couldn't agree more. This is the prophecy that 1 Corinthians 15:54 is quoting from:

8He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.
9And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
10For in this mountain shall the hand of the LORD rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under him, even as straw is trodden down for the dunghill.
11And he shall spread forth his hands in the midst of them, as he that swimmeth spreadeth forth his hands to swim: and he shall bring down their pride together with the spoils of their hands. 12And the fortress of the high fort of thy walls shall he bring down, lay low, and bring to the ground, even to the dust. - Isaiah 25:8-12

This passage lines up very well with the amillenialist view. Notice the destruction described in verses 11 and 12. Reminds me of 2 Peter 3. But, I want to point out an amazing similarity between the first half of Isaiah 25:8 and the following verse where John is speaking of the new heavens and new earth:

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. - Revelation 21:4

The part I bolded from the verse above lines up exactly with the first half of Isaiah 25:8. Isaiah 25:8 says that death will be swallowed up in victory. 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 confirms that this happens at the time we receive our new, immortal bodies, which we know to occur at the second coming of Christ at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:52). Revelation 21:4 says there shall be no more death. Does the idea of death being swallowed up in victory not go hand in hand with the idea of no more death? I believe so. Then we read in Isaiah 25:8 that "the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces". Revelation 21:4 says something extremely similar: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes". Since we know that Isaiah 25:8 is speaking of the second coming of Christ, we can now directly associate Revelation 21:4 with the time of Christ's return and therefore we can see that the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth, where there is no more death, coincides with the time of Christ's return.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 09:28 PM
CF



You State satan is not the ruler of this world; then post a passage of how creation is under bondage waiting to be set free at Christs return.

Mind Boggling.


We are in the world but not of this world. Jesus said in John 15:19, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."


inherit; ie to rule; partake in the ruler ship with Christ.

Those alive will not be rulers the earth; even more witness to the perfection of that day. No humans running politics, now that to me would be all most in eden.


There would need to be a lot more to your millennium than "no humans running politics" for your supposed future millennium to qualify as a "perfect world," "a return to eden" and a "perfect environment." I think you are pulling at straws here. A "perfect world" like "eden" seems to boil down to such carnal things like:

(1) "Good weather"
(2) "good food"
(3) "long life"
(4) "happiness"
(5) "just rule"
(6) "No humans running politics."

We must of course must add to this the countless mortal rebels that have saturated the kingdom, never mind the continuation of sin, death and wickedness.

Q. 1. How can flesh and blood inherit the millennium kingdom, when the Bible clearly states they won’t? It is only glorified believers – flesh and bone?

1 Corinthians 15:50 clearly states, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”

Q. 2. How can the unsaved enter into the Kingdom when the Bible clearly says they can’t?

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 says, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 10:01 PM
wpm



We are in the world but not of this world. Jesus said in John 15:19, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." You stated satan is not the ruler of this world; then posted about all creation being in bondage.



There would need to be a lot more to your millennium than "no humans running politics" for your supposed future millennium to qualify as a "perfect world," "a return to eden" and a "perfect environment." I think you are pulling at straws here. A "perfect world" like "eden" seems to boil down to such carnal things like:

(1) "Good weather"
(2) "good food"
(3) "long life"
(4) "happiness"
(5) "just rule"
(6) "No humans running politics."

Sorry. I find this extrordinary. Never mind about the countless mortal rebels that have saturated the kingdom, never mind the continuation of sin, death and wickedness.

All that and Christ personally on earth fellow shipping with man; just "like" in eden.

Isa 65:17

18"But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing
And her people for gladness.

19"I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people;
And there will no longer be heard in her
The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.

20"No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
Or an old man who does not live out his days;
For the youth will die at the age of one hundred
And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred
Will be thought accursed.

21"They will build houses and inhabit them;
They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

22"They will not build and another inhabit,
They will not plant and another eat;
For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people,
And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.

23"They will not labor in vain,
Or bear children for calamity;
For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD,
And their descendants with them.

24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.

25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.


Q. 1. How can flesh and blood inherit the millennium kingdom, when the Bible clearly states they won’t? It is only glorified believers – flesh and bone?

1 Corinthians 15:50 clearly states, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”
It seems your dogma is in a upset then.




Q. 2. How can the unsaved enter into the Kingdom when the Bible clearly says they can’t?

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 says, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
They dont; they are all cast off; like the days of Noah.

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 10:05 PM
wpm


You have really lost me in your reasoning. What Scriptures do you consider indicates: "when he returns as the king all Jewish saints are ressurected"?

We are the firstfruits; we are all ready in resurrection bodies and with him as he returns.
Thus the jewish saints and the dead of the great tribulation are in need of resurrection bodies at his return.

John146
Mar 16th 2007, 10:12 PM
wpm


Resurrection of the damed which occurs at the end of his 1000 year kingdom.

So, do you believe Daniel 12:2, Acts 24:15 and John 5:28-29 speak of that resurrection?

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 10:27 PM
John146


So, do you believe Daniel 12:2, Acts 24:15 and John 5:28-29 speak of that resurrection?

The overall doctrine is;

Both the righteous and non-righteous will be raised in their own time.

There is specifics as to the order of the righteous.

That being Christ and his church as the first fruits; then those that belong to him.

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 11:12 PM
wpm


We are the firstfruits; we are all ready in resurrection bodies and with him as he returns.
Thus the jewish saints and the dead of the great tribulation are in need of resurrection bodies at his return.


You are not answering my question. What Scriptures do you consider indicates: "when he returns as the king all Jewish saints are ressurected"?

Paul

wpm
Mar 16th 2007, 11:14 PM
wpm

You stated satan is not the ruler of this world; then posted about all creation being in bondage.

All that and Christ personally on earth fellow shipping with man; just "like" in eden.



Isa 65:17
18"But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing
And her people for gladness.


19"I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people;
And there will no longer be heard in her
The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.


20"No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
Or an old man who does not live out his days;
For the youth will die at the age of one hundred
And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred
Will be thought accursed.


21"They will build houses and inhabit them;
They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.


22"They will not build and another inhabit,
They will not plant and another eat;
For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people,
And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.


23"They will not labor in vain,
Or bear children for calamity;
For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD,
And their descendants with them.


24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.


25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.It seems your dogma is in a upset then.


They dont; they are all cast off; like the days of Noah.

Who are Gog and Magog then?

Where does the wicked (Gog and Magog) appear from if the wicked are destroyed at the Second Advent?

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 16th 2007, 11:58 PM
wpm



You are not answering my question. What Scriptures do you consider indicates: "when he returns as the king all Jewish saints are ressurected"?


1 cor 15
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


Christ the firstfruits; = Christ and the Church
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. = OT saints and those believers who died in the great tribulation,


Now then,

Are the OT saints Christs or not; if not why not?

Centurionoflight
Mar 17th 2007, 12:00 AM
wpm




Who are Gog and Magog then?

Where does the wicked (Gog and Magog) appear from if the wicked are destroyed at the Second Advent?


Where did the wicked come from? Since all the wicked was drowned in the flood in Noahs day?

wpm
Mar 17th 2007, 12:14 AM
wpm



1 cor 15
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


Christ the firstfruits; = Christ and the Church
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. = OT saints and those believers who died in the great tribulation,


Now then,

Are the OT saints Christs or not; if not why not?

If "Christ" means "Christ and the Church" then it would have said "Christ and the Church." But it doesn't and we aren't. We are not Christ, we are the body of Christ, He is the head. Christ is indeed the firstfruits, and in Him we have our part in His first resurrection (Revelation 20:5-6).

"Christ" is Christ in this passage and "they that are Christ's at his coming" (or parousia) are the redemed of all ages (which involves OT saints and NT saints). Could I ask: how many other times in the NT that mentions Christ should we take it to literally mean "Christ and the Church"?

I feel you are totally distorting the meaning of this reading in order to allow Pretrib to fit. The fact is there is not passage in Scripture that indicates (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a Coming of Christ. This was invented by Darby from a vision by Margaret McDonald in 1830.

Paul

wpm
Mar 17th 2007, 12:18 AM
wpm




Where did the wicked come from? Since all the wicked was drowned in the flood in Noahs day?

You are avoiding my question again. They came from the offspring of those on the ark. The saints rescued into the ark were not glorified like we will be at Christ's Coming, so they could procreate. Also, this was not the end of the world - only the end of the wicked of Noah's generation. So, if the elect are caught up and glorified and the wicked are destroyed - as in Sodom and Noah's day then there are no mortals or wicked to populate your anticipated future millennium.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 17th 2007, 12:25 AM
wpm


"Christ" is Christ in this passage and "they that are Christ's at his coming" (or parousia) are the redemed of all ages (which involves OT saints and NT saints). Could I ask: how many other times in the NT that mentions Christ should we take it to literally mean "Christ and the Church"?The church is the body of Christ.
We are one with him; in holy priesthood and his royal victory titles.



I feel you are totally distorting the meaning of this reading in order to allow Pretrib to fit. The fact is there is not passage in Scripture that indicates (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a Coming of Christ. This was invented by Darby from a vision by Margaret McDonald in 1830.I dont really care about darby or McDonald.

The doctrine is solid that is what I go from.

On your position I see no doctrines, no over all picture; just a little passage here and a tad there in a distorted format; there is no over all game plan;
You fail cover why the plan you believe exists and what purposes are served.
All you really cover is why I am wrong.

The reason I see the dispensational lay out is because it supports many firm doctrines; that would not have the same firmness in other viewpoints.

Centurionoflight
Mar 17th 2007, 12:29 AM
wpm


You are avoiding my question again. They came from the offspring of those on the ark. The saints rescued into the ark were not glorified like we will be at Christ's Coming, so they could procreate. Also, this was not the end of the world - only the end of the wicked of Noah's generation. So, if the elect are caught up and glorified and the wicked are destroyed - as in Sodom and Noah's day then there are no mortals or wicked to populate your anticipated future millennium.


Isa 65:23"They will not labor in vain, Or bear children for calamity; For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD, And their descendants with them.

There will be morals that being "those who endured to the end of the tribulation"; who will bear kids.

wpm
Mar 17th 2007, 01:07 AM
wpm


Isa 65:23"They will not labor in vain, Or bear children for calamity; For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD, And their descendants with them.

There will be morals that being "those who endured to the end of the tribulation"; who will bear kids.

Whilst there is much about eternity that has been concealed from the finite mind, we do have glimpses of what it will be like in Scripture. The reading above is one such passage. In this reading we see the difference between our age and the age to come. In this age we labour much in vain. Also, through the fallen nature, we bring forth our progeny for trouble. Why? All men are born sinners and therefore prone to rebel and head for trouble. The Bible says that we are all “by nature the children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). The new heavens and a new earth will be completely different. Our wearisome labours in this life will come to an end, all our service then will be joyous and tireless unto God. Moreover, childbirth shall be no more.

The passage say: the righteous “are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.” This tells us, the redeemed won’t make heaven alone. Mother and fathers will see their believing offspring join them. The circle in many homes will be unbroken. This shows us God’s faithfulness in gathering in the offspring of the redeemed. Blessing is indeed passed down from generation for the righteous, just like curses are to the wicked.

Can I remind you the passage you quote is referring to the "new heavens and new earth," not a supposed future millennium. Are you suggesting there are two new earths and two new heavens?

In your paradigm: are these mortals saved or unsaved? Are their offspring saved or unsaved? How do the survive the fire that accompanies the Second Coming? 2 Peter 3:10-13 says, “the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

How can any mortal survive this?

II Thessalonians 1:7-10 expressly says, “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”

What unsaved individuals do you consider are excluded from those "that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

Paul

wpm
Mar 17th 2007, 01:09 AM
wpm
The church is the body of Christ.
We are one with him; in holy priesthood and his royal victory titles.


I dont really care about darby or McDonald.

The doctrine is solid that is what I go from.

On your position I see no doctrines, no over all picture; just a little passage here and a tad there in a distorted format; there is no over all game plan;
You fail cover why the plan you believe exists and what purposes are served.
All you really cover is why I am wrong.

The reason I see the dispensational lay out is because it supports many firm doctrines; that would not have the same firmness in other viewpoints.

If your doctrine is solid maybe you would show us where in Scripture indicates (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a Coming of Christ?

Paul

moonglow
Mar 17th 2007, 02:21 AM
I just had a question for the a-millers - anybody who would care to answer. Why do you believe taking Zechariah 14 literally contradicts your viewpoint. These are the verse I am specifically asking about.




4And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.







Rev. 21 speaks about a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem so why do you feel taking these verses literally occuring at the Lord's return contradict your viewpoint? I hope my question makes sense. Please let me know if not.


In reading this passage again, it just seems to fit with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Since I am also new in studying this view point I can't come up with all the right verses and put everything together as well as wpm or David or some others on here, so I rely on either them answering...;) or finding other sources that help explain it. Here is one article I found on it:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/demar-gary_pp_01.html
Zechariah 14 and the Coming of Christ

In the premillennial view of Bible prophecy, the events depicted in Zechariah 14 are most often interpreted as depicting the second coming of Christ when Jesus will descend from heaven and stand on the Mount of Olives and from there set up His millennial kingdom. The chronology outlined in Zechariah, however, does not fit this scenario. Events actually begin in chapter thirteen where it is prophesied that the Shepherd, Jesus, will be struck and the sheep will be scattered (Zech. 13:7). This was fulfilled when Jesus says, "'You will all fall away, because it is written, "I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED"'" (Mark 14:27).

What follows describes events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. God will act as Judge of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. As the king, He will send "his armies" and destroy "those murderers, and set their city on fire" (Matt. 22:7).

For I will gather all the nations [the Roman armies] against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered [Matt. 24:17], the women ravished [Luke 17:35], and half the city exiled [Matt. 24:16], but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city" (Zech. 14:2). (read the rest at the link)
******************************************
The funny thing is I just read through the whole book of Zechariah last night again and could spot all the references to Christ...its pretty neat. Zechariah is filled with very heavy symbology...it would seem odd to think only certain parts are symbologic then have it suddenly change over to the literal. Its not a book a person can just breeze through and fully understand, certainly not without having a good knowledge of the OT and what all of this means.

God bless

Centurionoflight
Mar 17th 2007, 10:27 AM
wpm


If your doctrine is solid maybe you would show us where in Scripture indicates (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a Coming of Christ?

Repeat;

On your position I see no doctrines, no over all picture;
just a little passage here and a tad there in a distorted format; there is no over all game plan;
You fail cover why the plan you believe exists and what purposes are served.
All you really try to cover is why I am wrong.

Thus I am done with the circle.

wpm
Mar 17th 2007, 11:06 AM
wpm



Repeat;

On your position I see no doctrines, no over all picture;
just a little passage here and a tad there in a distorted format; there is no over all game plan;
You fail cover why the plan you believe exists and what purposes are served.
All you really try to cover is why I am wrong.

Thus I am done with the circle.

I have repeatedly showed how Scripture depicts the Coming of the Lord as climactic. I have presented many passages in their context that prove such. I don't see that with the Pretrib/Premil position which I believe lacks any real scriptural foundation. Anyway, I think this thread has been pulled away from the Ops original proposal[s], we should therefore pull it back on line.

Paul

cwb
Mar 17th 2007, 05:14 PM
The funny thing is I just read through the whole book of Zechariah last night again and could spot all the references to Christ...its pretty neat. Zechariah is filled with very heavy symbology...it would seem odd to think only certain parts are symbologic then have it suddenly change over to the literal. Its not a book a person can just breeze through and fully understand, certainly not without having a good knowledge of the OT and what all of this means.



I don't believe you can take any part of the bible as completely symbolic nor any book of the bible as completely literal. I do believe verse nine as being literal.



And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


We do not yet see the lord ruling the earth from the mount of olives. That is why I believe this has to be a second coming passage. The reason I asked my question is that I don't believe it would necessarily contradict the a-mil position for this to be a second coming passage if when He rules the earth from the mount of olives, it is speaking of the new Jerusalem that is spoken of in Rev 21 and not the millenium spoken of in Rev 20.

moonglow
Mar 17th 2007, 06:26 PM
We do not yet see the lord ruling the earth from the mount of olives. That is why I believe this has to be a second coming passage. The reason I asked my question is that I don't believe it would necessarily contradict the a-mil position for this to be a second coming passage if when He rules the earth from the mount of olives, it is speaking of the new Jerusalem that is spoken of in Rev 21 and not the millenium spoken of in Rev 20.


But then how does what Jesus said fit in with this idea:

John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Christ IS reigning now...that is what most of this thread has been about...He is reigning over the earth from His place in Heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:24-26

24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

The new Jerusalem are the believers. Its not a literal city of Jerusalem. Re-read what wpm posted on this thread.

Or read this:

http://mikeblume.com/matrevjer.htm
A DISCUSSION REGARDING MATTHEW 24, THE BOOK OF REVELATION, AND THE NEW JERUSALEM:

God bless

cwb
Mar 17th 2007, 07:38 PM
But then how does what Jesus said fit in with this idea:

John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Christ IS reigning now...that is what most of this thread has been about...He is reigning over the earth from His place in Heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:24-26

24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

The new Jerusalem are the believers. Its not a literal city of Jerusalem. Re-read what wpm posted on this thread.

Or read this:

http://mikeblume.com/matrevjer.htm
A DISCUSSION REGARDING MATTHEW 24, THE BOOK OF REVELATION, AND THE NEW JERUSALEM:

God bless

It seems to me that the very verse you quoted answers whether He is reigning over the entire earth at this present time

John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

He is clearly not ruling the kingdoms of this present world. Of course Jesus Christ reigns now. His reign is over those that are His - not the ungodly kingdoms of this world. No Jesus Christ does not reign over the middle east countires. Neither did He rule over Hitler's Germany not Stalin's Russia.

It seems to me it is pretty clear that new Jerusalem does not occur until the new heavens and earth.

Rev 21:1 and 2

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


Zechariah 14:4 says He sets His feet on the mount of olives.

verse 9 says
And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

In that day He will be King over all the earth. Ther will be no unbelievers then.

wpm
Mar 17th 2007, 07:53 PM
It seems to me that the very verse you quoted answers whether He is reigning over the entire earth at this present time

John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

He is clearly not ruling the kingdoms of this present world. Of course Jesus Christ reigns now. His reign is over those that are His - not the ungodly kingdoms of this world. No Jesus Christ does not reign over the middle east countires. Neither did He rule over Hitler's Germany not Stalin's Russia.

It seems to me it is pretty clear that new Jerusalem does not occur until the new heavens and earth.

Rev 21:1 and 2

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


Zechariah 14:4 says He sets His feet on the mount of olives.

verse 9 says
And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

In that day He will be King over all the earth. Ther will be no unbelievers then.

You make Satan sovereign over the affairs of this world - and he is not. Christ is. Satan is subject to the purposes of God for this age. God raises and removes, He gives life and He takes it. Satan has no ability to thwart the perfect plan of God. When Christ defeated the devil at the cross he invaded his territory and took a spoil. Those that are redeemed of the Gentiles were taken from the nations and made one with the believing Jews. The Gospel has went from a national reality to an international one, and there is nothing the devil can do about it. If Satan controlled the wicked then none of us could be saved, but God intervened in our lives and saved us by His sovereign grace.

Paul

John146
Mar 17th 2007, 08:31 PM
wpm
The church is the body of Christ.
We are one with him; in holy priesthood and his royal victory titles.


I dont really care about darby or McDonald.

The doctrine is solid that is what I go from.

On your position I see no doctrines, no over all picture; just a little passage here and a tad there in a distorted format; there is no over all game plan;
You fail cover why the plan you believe exists and what purposes are served.
All you really cover is why I am wrong.

The reason I see the dispensational lay out is because it supports many firm doctrines; that would not have the same firmness in other viewpoints.

What other Scripture supports your interpretation of 1 Cor 15:23 that those who are Christ's at His coming are only OT saints?

moonglow
Mar 18th 2007, 01:36 AM
You make Satan sovereign over the affairs of this world - and he is not. Christ is. Satan is subject to the purposes of God for this age. God raises and removes, He gives life and He takes it. Satan has no ability to thwart the perfect plan of God. When Christ defeated the devil at the cross he invaded his territory and took a spoil. Those that are redeemed of the Gentiles were taken from the nations and made one with the believing Jews. The Gospel has went from a national reality to an international one, and there is nothing the devil can do about it. If Satan controlled the wicked then none of us could be saved, but God intervened in our lives and saved us by His sovereign grace.

Paul

Yea what he said. :lol:

God bless

Naphal
Mar 18th 2007, 09:27 AM
You make Satan sovereign over the affairs of this world - and he is not. Christ is.

No. Satan has been given a great amount of authority over the world/kosmos and that will continue until Christ's return. This is part of that perfect plan of God you mentioned.

wpm
Mar 18th 2007, 01:38 PM
No. Satan has been given a great amount of authority over the world/kosmos and that will continue until Christ's return. This is part of that perfect plan of God you mentioned.

I have great news for you - Christ's power and authority is greater than Satan's and is active now. Also, it is not just in heaven or amongst believers as you seem to be intimating. Christ announced to His disciples after the resurrection: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). All power!!!

Paul

cwb
Mar 18th 2007, 03:31 PM
You make Satan sovereign over the affairs of this world - and he is not. Christ is. Satan is subject to the purposes of God for this age. God raises and removes, He gives life and He takes it. Satan has no ability to thwart the perfect plan of God. When Christ defeated the devil at the cross he invaded his territory and took a spoil. Those that are redeemed of the Gentiles were taken from the nations and made one with the believing Jews. The Gospel has went from a national reality to an international one, and there is nothing the devil can do about it. If Satan controlled the wicked then none of us could be saved, but God intervened in our lives and saved us by His sovereign grace.

Paul


Your statements here contradicts scriptures. Satan is clearly the god of this world.

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.


It is the the Father or Jesus Christ who blinds people from having the glorious godpel of Christ shine unto them. The true God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowlege of the truth.

The reason we can still get saved even though the enemy rules this present evil world is because God the father of our lord Jesus Christ is greater than satan the god of this world. He puts Christ in us which is greater than our adversary.

I john 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

"The world" is in contrast to Christ in us.

I feel their are serious flaws in your doctrine when you even suggest that Hitler did what he did under Christ's leadership. I can not even consider that contries in the middle east are forcing Islamic laws upon people under Christ's leadership. The killing fields in Cambodia was under Christ's leadership? Sadam Hussein gased his own people under Christs leadership? Koerean and Chinese governments persecute and send Chirstians to labor camps for merely preaching the gospel under Christ's leadership? American presidents have acted so foolishly and incompetently that our very freedoms are under jeopardy under Christ's leadership? I could go on and on.

cwb
Mar 18th 2007, 03:39 PM
I have great news for you - Christ's power and authority is greater than Satan's and is active now. Also, it is not just in heaven or amongst believers as you seem to be intimating. Christ announced to His disciples after the resurrection: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). All power!!!

Paul

That is great news. I am grateful that all power was given unto Him.


John 17:2

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him


He was given power to give eternal life - not to rule the kindoms of this present evil world. He will rule the kingdoms of the earth at a latter date. When He is the one ruling the kingdoms of the world things will be far different than they are today.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 18th 2007, 03:41 PM
Does the OT not clearly state that it is God that causes Kings to rise and it is God who causes Kings to fall? Does that not place the ultimate authority with God - not with anybody else?

cwb
Mar 18th 2007, 04:01 PM
Does the OT not clearly state that it is God that causes Kings to rise and it is God who causes Kings to fall? Does that not place the ultimate authority with God - not with anybody else?

Yes, Who did God give orinal dominion to? Adam. Who was that dominion delivered to after Adam sinned? the devil. Who will it be given to at Christ's return? Christ. It is because of God's utimate authority that the enemy is allowed to rule in this world. When Christ comes back, the devil will fall and Christ will be the one ruling. It is because of man's sin that God is allowing the adversary to rule in this present evil world.

Daniel 7: 13-14

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.


We do not yet see all nations serving Him. This will occur at a future date.

moonglow
Mar 18th 2007, 04:27 PM
Does the OT not clearly state that it is God that causes Kings to rise and it is God who causes Kings to fall? Does that not place the ultimate authority with God - not with anybody else?

Yes! And bad things were allowed to happen in the OT! Nothing happens without God allowing it to happen.

I think the Garden of Eden is the perfect example of this. The word 'good' is used seven times in just the first chapter of Genesis for everything God created, including Adam and Eve. Yet the Lord allowed satan in His perfect garden. Now why let something evil come into a perfect place knowing full well its going to mess things up? Because God had a plan....and satan didn't mess things up...though he probably thought he did.

http://preteristsite.com/docs/demarsatan.html
Is Satan the "God of This World"?
by Gary DeMar

Christians will use all types of excuses to keep themselves out of today's religious-moral-cultural battles. One of the most diabolical excuses is to claim that Satan is the rightful god of this world. This translates into believing that this world is demonic. LetÕs see what the Bible actually says about this.

Satan is a creature. Like all creatures, he has certain limitations. Even under the Old Covenant, Satan had to be granted permission by God before he could act (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). Satan's limitations have been multiplied since the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.

The Bible shows us that if we "resist the devil he will flee from" us (James 4:7). The only power that Satan has over the Christian is the power we give him and the power granted to him by God (2 Cor. 12:7-12). Scripture tells us that Satan is defeated, disarmed, and spoiled (Col. 2:15; Rev. 12:7; Mark 3:27). He has "fallen" (Luke 10:18) and was "thrown down" (Rev. 12:9). He was "crushed" under the feet of the early Christians, and by implication, under the feet of all Christians throughout the ages (Rom. 16:20).

He has lost "authority" over Christians (Col. 1:13). He has been "judged" (John 16:11). He cannot "touch" a Christian (1 John 5:18). His works have been destroyed (1 John 3:8). He has "nothing" (John 14:30). He must "flee" when "resisted" (James 4:7). He is "bound" (Mark 3:27; Luke 11:20). Finally, the gates of hell "shall not overpower" the advancing church of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18).[2] Surely Satan is alive, but he is not well on planet earth.

So then, what does Paul mean when he describes Satan as "the god of this world,[3] actually, Òof this age"? (2 Cor. 4:4). To hear some people tell it, this verse teaches that Satan has all power and authority in this dispensation and in the locale of planet earth. Where God is the God of heaven and of the age to come, Satan is the god of this world and this present evil age. This dualistic view of the universe may be part of Greek philosophy, but it has no place in biblical theology.

While it's true that the devil is said to be the god of this age, we know that God is "the King of the ages" (1 Tim. 1:17). Paul is simply stating that Satan is the chosen god of those who deny Jesus as Gods rightful heir of all things (Matt. 22:1-14). These are the true antichrists (2 John 2:7; 1 John 2:18). Jesus is in possession of "all authority," in both heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18-20).

In addition, we know that Satan's power has not increased since Job's day. He is still a permission-seeking creature. This is especially true under the new and better covenant inaugurated by Jesus Christ. As the above verses make clear, Satan is a second-class creature who has been cast out and judged: "The ruler of this world shall be cast out" (John 12:31); "the ruler of this world has been judged" (16:11).

What, then, does the apostle mean when he describes Satan as "the god of this age"? First, we must never allow one passage to finalize our understanding of a particular doctrine. Scripture must be compared with Scripture. There are no contradictions. Therefore, we can't have the Bible saying of the one true God;I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God; (Isa. 45:5) and then making Satan a rival god.

Paul must have something else in mind. We can't say that Satan has been judged and cast out, something that does not happen to gods, and still maintain that he is the god of this world similar to the way Jehovah is God of this world. Paul is making a theological point. For example, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the devil is their father (John 8:44). We know that Satan is not their biological father. Rather, he is their spiritual father in that they rejected their true Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Physically these Jews, to be sure, are children of Abraham; but spiritually and morally--and that was the issue--they are the children of the devil.[4]

Jesus is describing the devil as one who gives birth to a worldview, a worldview that includes lying and murder. In this sense, Satan is their spiritual father. In the same way, Satan is a god to those who cling to the fading glory of Moses, "the ministry of death" (2 Cor. 3:7). This is the age over which he is a god, an age that "has no glory on account of the glory that surpasses it" (v. 10).

Second, the devil is chosen as a god by "those who are perishing," and he must blind them before they will follow him: "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 4:4). This passage teaches that unbelievers are fooled into believing that "the old covenant" where the "veil remains unlifted" is the way to life (v. 14). Satan is the god of the "ministry of death." The "god of this age" keeps them in bondage, "but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away" (v. 16).

Liberty from the ministry of death only comes where the Spirit of Lord is: "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (v. 17). But Satan has blinded the eyes of the unbelieving so they cannot see the lifted veil. They are still trusting in the shadows of the Old Covenant. (read the rest at the link)
*******************************

The idea of Jesus ruling during a 1000 year time period and with the devil bound everything is perfect, no sin, no bad things happening is a man made idea. Its not from the bible. In reading, for instance, of satan being bound it says ONLY to stop him from decieving the nations. Not one word is said about sin stopping or anything bad stopping. People have written into that verse in popular books...its become so ingrained in the churches today and taught that no one question it anymore. (kind of like how you can't watch TV without hearing the word: evolution.) They think we, the saints, will be literally ruling on a perfect world with Christ...but ruling over what? With no sin their can't be any wicked unbelievers can there? Either they have become believers or are already judged and in the lake of fire...but that doesn't come until later...:hmm: So what would we be ruling over with Christ? A bunch of trees and plants?

For those that think Revelation is written in order this happens first in Revelation 20:

Satan Bound 1000 Years

so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished.

The Saints Reign with Christ 1000 Years
(though this seems to only be talking about those killed for their faith by the way...:hmm: )

Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus

Then satan is unbound and gathers nations to fight ...who are the nations? People...so apparently the wicked unbelievers are still around...meaning, life wasn't perfect during this thousand year reign.

Satanic Rebellion Crushed

7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[b] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

THEN after that, the Great White Throne judgement of which judgement only happens once.

So following in strict order here, first we see NO scriptures about sin stopping and peace coming to the earth in that passage about satan being bound..

1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

Not one hint that once satan is bound no one can sin. Our sinning hasn't a thing to do with satan anyway. He can only tempt...he certainly cannot make anyone sin.

The Saints Reign with Christ 1000 Years

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

In the literal reading of this ONLY the saints who were beheaded get to reign with Christ....and ONLY those who were beheaded for not taking the mark. That would certainly leave out millions of Christians who have died over the centuries and died in other ways...being burned to death, fed to the lions, boiling to death, cut in half, etc, like the first century Christians went through. Only the lucky few that were actually beheaded and only for refusing the mark get to reign with Christ...IN the literal reading of this passage anyway...and all those that died a natural death certainly wouldn't be included in that reigning.

So I guess the peace and wonderful things don't happen until chapter 21 because in the great white throne judgement ONLY then do we see satan, the beast, false prophet, death and hell thrown into the lake of fire:

Revelation 21

All Things Made New

1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

God bless

wpm
Mar 18th 2007, 04:44 PM
Your statements here contradicts scriptures. Satan is clearly the god of this world.

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

It is the the Father or Jesus Christ who blinds people from having the glorious godpel of Christ shine unto them. The true God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowlege of the truth.

The reason we can still get saved even though the enemy rules this present evil world is because God the father of our lord Jesus Christ is greater than satan the god of this world. He puts Christ in us which is greater than our adversary.

I john 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

"The world" is in contrast to Christ in us.

I feel their are serious flaws in your doctrine when you even suggest that Hitler did what he did under Christ's leadership. I can not even consider that contries in the middle east are forcing Islamic laws upon people under Christ's leadership. The killing fields in Cambodia was under Christ's leadership? Sadam Hussein gased his own people under Christs leadership? Koerean and Chinese governments persecute and send Chirstians to labor camps for merely preaching the gospel under Christ's leadership? American presidents have acted so foolishly and incompetently that our very freedoms are under jeopardy under Christ's leadership? I could go on and on.



There are two spiritual domains on this earth - "the Church" and "the world." Men are either part of one or part of the other. Christ is God of the Church, Satan is god of this world. Nothing could be simpler. Even though Satan is god of the wicked does not mean that he controls events, determines the direction of this world or does he govern all creation. Christ does that.

Ephesians 1:20-23 tells us that God hath “raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And ‘hath put’ (aorist active indicative) all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

As you can see this is a current reality, not merely a future hope. He reigns sovereignly now over the nations.

Paul confirms the validity of this truth, in 1 Corinthians 15:22-24, stating, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his Coming. Then (or) eita (or thereupon) cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down (or) katargeésee (or abolished) all rule and all authority and power.”

The Coming of the Lord, described in this reading, is here carefully located at “the end.” In fact, the whole tenure of the passage is distinctly pointing to a climactic time in history when God separates righteousness and wickedness forever. It is the occasion approaching when Christ finally presents “up the kingdom to God” and will have, as He promised, “put down all rule and all authority and power.” Simultaneously, the glorification of the kingdom of God sees the destruction of the kingdom of darkness. It is the end-game for Satan and the conclusion of his evil efforts to obstruct the plan of God for mankind. Wickedness has finally and eternally been abolished.1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us that “all rule and all authority and power” are finally “put down” or katargeésee or abolished at the “Coming” or parousia of the Lord, which is, as we have established, confirmed in the next sentence as “the end.” The kingdom of God is finally and eternally presented “up,” whereas the kingdom of darkness is finally and eternally “put down.” This all-consummating last day that ushers in the end (or completion) of all things.

1 Corinthians 15:25-28 continues, speaking of Christ’s current reign, “For (or gar or seeing) he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For ‘he hath put' (aorist active indicative) all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be hupotageé (Strong’s 5293) subdued (or subordinated) unto him (speaking of the Second Coming), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

The usage of the word “for” in this reading simply tells us that what follows is a deduction drawn from what has previously been stated. The dual usage of the word “for” in this reading demonstrates (in both cases) what is being spoken of is an inference to what has just been stated. In this particular passage, the Greek word gar links and then further expands upon the fact that the Second Advent is the time “when he (Christ) shall have (finally) put down all rule and all authority and power.” The Greek word ‘gar’, which interprets and carries the same meaning as our English word “for” is used as a key constituent part of the previous statement or subject matter, to simply allocate a fuller enlargement or reinforcement of the matter just mentioned. The word is mainly used for the purpose of argument, explanation or intensification.

So after telling us that Christ’s Coming sees the termination of the wicked and their evil operations, the writer tells us that Christ’s reign over His enemies must continue until this climactic point. Whilst “all power” is now assuredly given unto Christ “in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18) through His life, death and resurrection, and whilst through this victorious work, “he hath put all things under his feet” in a Sovereign manner, we have not yet seen the final subduing of wickedness. This assuredly comes at the Second Coming of the Lord. He is bringing everything to its final conclusion by Sovereignly ruling over mankind. Nothing happens without His permission. Satan or man cannot override the mind of Christ on the throne. What evil occurs, happens because the Lord in His infinite wisdom allows it. However, there is nothing that is out of His control or influence. If it were then Satan or man would be sovereign. He is seeing His purposes being fulfilled. Every scheme of the devil and every act of the flesh is being turned for the good of God’s purposes and the good of His people.

Paul

wpm
Mar 18th 2007, 04:49 PM
Yes, Who did God give orinal dominion to? Adam. Who was that dominion delivered to after Adam sinned? the devil. Who will it be given to at Christ's return? Christ. It is because of God's utimate authority that the enemy is allowed to rule in this world. When Christ comes back, the devil will fall and Christ will be the one ruling. It is because of man's sin that God is allowing the adversary to rule in this present evil world.

Daniel 7: 13-14

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.


We do not yet see all nations serving Him. This will occur at a future date.

Ok. Who determines when and how a man dies - God or Satan?

Paul

cwb
Mar 18th 2007, 05:05 PM
There are two spiritual domains on this earth - "the Church" and "the world." Men are either part of one or part of the other. Christ is God of the Church, Satan is god of this world. Nothing could be simpler. Even though Satan is god of the wicked does not mean that he controls events, determines the direction of this world or does he govern all creation. Christ does that.

Ephesians 1:20-23 tells us that God hath “raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And ‘hath put’ (aorist active indicative) all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

As you can see this is a current reality, not merely a future hope. He reigns sovereignly now over the nations.

Paul confirms the validity of this truth, in 1 Corinthians 15:22-24, stating, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his Coming. Then (or) eita (or thereupon)cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down (or) katargeésee (or abolished) all rule and all authority and power.”

The Coming of the Lord, described in this reading, is here carefully located at “the end.” In fact, the whole tenure of the passage is distinctly pointing to a climactic time in history when God separates righteousness and wickedness forever. It is the occasion approaching when Christ finally presents “up the kingdom to God” and will have, as He promised, “put down all rule and all authority and power.” Simultaneously, the glorification of the kingdom of God sees the destruction of the kingdom of darkness. It is the end-game for Satan and the conclusion of his evil efforts to obstruct the plan of God for mankind. Wickedness has finally and eternally been abolished.1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us that “all rule and all authority and power” are finally “put down” or katargeésee or abolished at the “Coming” or parousia of the Lord, which is, as we have established, confirmed in the next sentence as “the end.” The kingdom of God is finally and eternally presented “up,” whereas the kingdom of darkness is finally and eternally “put down.” This all-consummating last day thus ushers in the end (or completion) of all things.


1 Corinthians 15:25-28 continues, speaking of Christ’s current reign, “For(or gar or seeing) he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For ‘he hath put' (aorist active indicative) all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be hupotageé (Strong’s 5293) subdued (or subordinated) unto him (speaking of the Second Coming), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

The usage of the word “for” in this reading simply tells us that what follows is a deduction drawn from what has previously been stated. The dual usage of the word “for” in this reading demonstrates (in both cases) what is being spoken of is an inference to what has just been stated. In this particular passage, the Greek word gar links and then further expands upon the fact that the Second Advent is the time “when he (Christ) shall have (finally) put down all rule and all authority and power.” The Greek word ‘gar’, which interprets and carries the same meaning as our English word “for” is used as a key constituent part of the previous statement or subject matter, to simply allocate a fuller enlargement or reinforcement of the matter just mentioned. The word is mainly used for the purpose of argument, explanation or intensification.

So after telling us that Christ’s Coming sees the termination of the wicked and their evil operations, the writer tells us that Christ’s reign over His enemies must continue until this climactic point. Whilst “all power” is now assuredly given unto Christ “in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18) through His life, death and resurrection, and whilst through this victorious work, “he hath put all things under his feet” in a Sovereign manner, we have not yet seen the final subduing of wickedness. This assuredly comes at the Second Coming of the Lord. He is bringing everything to its final conclusion by Sovereignly ruling over mankind. Nothing happens without His permission. Satan or man cannot override the mind of Christ on the throne. What evil occurs, happens because the Lord in His infinite wisdom allows it. However, there is nothing that is not out of His control or influence. If it were then Satan or man would be sovereign. He is seeing His purposes being fulfilled. Every scheme of the devil and every act of the flesh is being turned for the good of God’s purposes and the good of His people.

Paul


I actually agree with most of what you wrote here. The exception would be this line here:


Even though Satan is god of the wicked does not mean that he controls events, deternines the direction of this world or does he govern all creation.

While I agree with you that satan does rule all creation, there are times when the enemy has been allowed to control events and the direction of this world because of man's rebellion and the lack of Christians standing up against him. (not because the true God willingly allowed it.)

Naphal
Mar 19th 2007, 01:46 AM
I have great news for you - Christ's power and authority is greater than Satan's and is active now. Also, it is not just in heaven or amongst believers as you seem to be intimating. Christ announced to His disciples after the resurrection: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). All power!!!

Paul

That's not news.


What you are missing is that God has given authority to Satan for a little while. This continues until Christ returns.

moonglow
Mar 19th 2007, 02:44 AM
That's not news.


What you are missing is that God has given authority to Satan for a little while. This continues until Christ returns.

Scriptures please......thanks.

Naphal
Mar 19th 2007, 02:47 AM
Scriptures please......thanks.

Start at the NT and work forward to its end. Either that or go back to CWB's post where he posted some.

moonglow
Mar 19th 2007, 02:54 AM
Start at the NT and work forward to its end. Either that or go back to CWB's post where he posted some.

I have read the NT many times, thanks...and I read CWB's post. you can't post the verses to support your view?

here is a link to biblegateway...you can look up where God handed control over to satan and post those verses right here: http://www.biblegateway.com/

Naphal
Mar 19th 2007, 02:56 AM
I have read the NT many times, thanks...and I read CWB's post. you can't post the verses to support your view?

here is a link to biblegateway...you can look up where God handed control over to satan and post those verses right here: http://www.biblegateway.com/

There is no reason when most of them have already and recently been posted. This is one long thread, you can't act like someone else hasn't already done what you have asked of me.

moonglow
Mar 19th 2007, 03:07 AM
There is no reason when most of them have already and recently been posted. This is one long thread, you can't act like someone else hasn't already done what you have asked of me.

So I am suppose to guess here as to which post on this long thread has the verses on it you are refering too then? :rolleyes:

How hard is it to just post a verse? Sounds like you want to just poke at this thread but not work at making your point clear here. I mean if you are going to say something, at least make the effort to post your reasons based on scriptures...considering this discussion, as all on here, revolve around scriptures, that is kind of expected...for folks to post the scriptures that have caused them to view things a certain way. Other wise all we can do is guess as to which one you are refering too. The scripture that popped into my mind when I read your post:
What you are missing is that God has given authority to Satan for a little while. This continues until Christ returns.

made me think of this verse:

Revelation 20

3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

My FIRST thought was that you think satan has been unbound (though even when he is he certainly won't have total control of things) but I know you don't even think he is bound yet...so that couldn't be the right verse...so I honestly do not know what you are thinking. I cannot read your mind as shocking as that may be....and I am not all knowing either by the way...so a little help in figuring out what you are thinking would be helpful. thanks.

Tru_Knyte
Mar 19th 2007, 03:43 AM
I still find it amazing how the Bible can be interpreted in so many different ways. I mean, I don't think God was trying to confuse us as to when the rapture and tribulation are going to occur.

Naphal
Mar 19th 2007, 04:05 AM
So I am suppose to guess here as to which post on this long thread has the verses on it you are refering too then? :rolleyes:

How hard is it to just post a verse? Sounds like you want to just poke at this thread but not work at making your point clear here. I mean if you are going to say something, at least make the effort to post your reasons based on scriptures...considering this discussion, as all on here, revolve around scriptures, that is kind of expected...for folks to post the scriptures that have caused them to view things a certain way. Other wise all we can do is guess as to which one you are refering too. The scripture that popped into my mind when I read your post:

made me think of this verse:

Revelation 20

3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

My FIRST thought was that you think satan has been unbound (though even when he is he certainly won't have total control of things) but I know you don't even think he is bound yet...so that couldn't be the right verse...so I honestly do not know what you are thinking. I cannot read your mind as shocking as that may be....and I am not all knowing either by the way...so a little help in figuring out what you are thinking would be helpful. thanks.

I am talking about the verses that discuss Satan being the prince of the world/air. Paul also talks about destroying him at the second coming.

third hero
Mar 19th 2007, 04:07 AM
I still find it amazing how the Bible can be interpreted in so many different ways. I mean, I don't think God was trying to confuse us as to when the rapture and tribulation are going to occur.

In truth, this is the result of people trying to interpret the Bible for themselves instead of relying on th Holy Spirit to lead them to all truth, as the Lord Himself said the Spirit will do. (Johyn 14:15-21) If people would take the time to forget their cherished traditions or their theological interpretations of scripture, and just ask the Lord to teach them, a whole new world would open up to them, and the many different interpretations would disappear, since the people will be led by the Spirit. and not by their own intuitions and thought patterns.

John146
Mar 19th 2007, 04:15 AM
In truth, this is the result of people trying to interpret the Bible for themselves instead of relying on th Holy Spirit to lead them to all truth, as the Lord Himself said the Spirit will do. (Johyn 14:15-21) If people would take the time to forget their cherished traditions or their theological interpretations of scripture, and just ask the Lord to teach them, a whole new world would open up to them, and the many different interpretations would disappear, since the people will be led by the Spirit. and not by their own intuitions and thought patterns.

Finally, a post of yours that I can agree with. ;)

Tru_Knyte
Mar 19th 2007, 04:20 AM
In truth, this is the result of people trying to interpret the Bible for themselves instead of relying on th Holy Spirit to lead them to all truth, as the Lord Himself said the Spirit will do. (Johyn 14:15-21) If people would take the time to forget their cherished traditions or their theological interpretations of scripture, and just ask the Lord to teach them, a whole new world would open up to them, and the many different interpretations would disappear, since the people will be led by the Spirit. and not by their own intuitions and thought patterns.

True. I'm planning on really studying the Bible more this summer (something i haven't done in a long time) once my finals are over. It'll probably help a lot so I actually understand what you guys are talking about. :P

Quick question before I log off for the night.

Although the futurists and preterists all have their different interpretations on the end times, do they both share in common the idea that there will be a rapture?

wpm
Mar 19th 2007, 09:55 AM
True. I'm planning on really studying the Bible more this summer (something i haven't done in a long time) once my finals are over. It'll probably help a lot so I actually understand what you guys are talking about. :P

Quick question before I log off for the night.

Although the futurists and preterists all have their different interpretations on the end times, do they both share in common the idea that there will be a rapture?

Futurists, Idealists, Historists and most Preterists believe that there will be a rapture. There a small group of 'Full Preterists' who deny this - all groups view them as heretics.

Paul

Naphal
Mar 19th 2007, 10:07 AM
Futurists, Idealists, Historists and most Preterists believe that there will be a rapture. There a small group of 'Full Preterists' who deny this - all groups view them as heretics.

Paul

I really think "Preterists" which are of the non-"full" group should consider changing their name as a "partial-preterist" to me sounds a lot like a "partial-Mormon".

wpm
Mar 19th 2007, 11:30 AM
I really think "Preterists" which are of the non-"full" group should consider changing their name as a "partial-preterist" to me sounds a lot like a "partial-Mormon".

I agree, although, to be fair, Full Pretrism is a break-away from Preterism, just like Romanism and Mormonism is from Christianity. I am not a Preterist (I am an Idealist) because I have several difficulties with that school of thought.

Paul

moonglow
Mar 19th 2007, 01:59 PM
Futurists, Idealists, Historists and most Preterists believe that there will be a rapture. There a small group of 'Full Preterists' who deny this - all groups view them as heretics.

Paul

I am partial preterist and no we don't believe in a rapture.....though I understand what wpm is refering too, but the word, rapture, is very misleading ...people tend to think of it in terms of the believers being removed from the earth alone! I use the word that is actually in the bible, the resurrection of which everyone will be raised for judgement. There is only one bodily resurrection in the bible. The word rapture comes from the greek word, 'catching up'...but too many relate the word 'rapture' to something like the pre-trib rapture and that is why I don't like using it...its misleading and I want to be very clear on this. No rapture...only the resurrection.

I also make sure I use the word PARTIAL and not just preterist as too many assume we mean full preterist which heretical...because they believe ALL propheties have been fullfilled including the second coming of Christ and I don't think Full preterist is even allowed on this board. I think all partial preterist on here DO say partial to make it clear they aren't full preterist.

God bless

moonglow
Mar 19th 2007, 02:10 PM
In truth, this is the result of people trying to interpret the Bible for themselves instead of relying on th Holy Spirit to lead them to all truth, as the Lord Himself said the Spirit will do. (Johyn 14:15-21) If people would take the time to forget their cherished traditions or their theological interpretations of scripture, and just ask the Lord to teach them, a whole new world would open up to them, and the many different interpretations would disappear, since the people will be led by the Spirit. and not by their own intuitions and thought patterns.

I did and that is why my views changed...;)

I gave up the man made pre-tribulation rapture view.

God bless

wpm
Mar 19th 2007, 03:00 PM
I am partial preterist and no we don't believe in a rapture.....though I understand what wpm is refering too, but the word, rapture, is very misleading ...people tend to think of it in terms of the believers being removed from the earth alone! I use the word that is actually in the bible, the resurrection of which everyone will be raised for judgement. There is only one bodily resurrection in the bible. The word rapture comes from the greek word, 'catching up'...but too many relate the word 'rapture' to something like the pre-trib rapture and that is why I don't like using it...its misleading and I want to be very clear on this. No rapture...only the resurrection.

I also make sure I use the word PARTIAL and not just preterist as too many assume we mean full preterist which heretical...because they believe ALL propheties have been fullfilled including the second coming of Christ and I don't think Full preterist is even allowed on this board. I think all partial preterist on here DO say partial to make it clear they aren't full preterist.

God bless

I should have worded that better. Idealists, Historists and most Preterists do not believe in the Pretrib rapture theory, although they believe that there will be catching away of the saints at Christ's one future Coming.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 19th 2007, 03:27 PM
moonglow


I gave up the man made pre-tribulation rapture view.


Then in essence you are saying those who hold that view believe something that is man made, rather than of God.

{Ignoreing the fact that its all about Christ and the Church and how he protects her and blesses her.}

Seems to be a veiled insult if you ask me.

third hero
Mar 19th 2007, 03:59 PM
I am partial preterist and no we don't believe in a rapture.....though I understand what wpm is refering too, but the word, rapture, is very misleading ...people tend to think of it in terms of the believers being removed from the earth alone! I use the word that is actually in the bible, the resurrection of which everyone will be raised for judgement. There is only one bodily resurrection in the bible. The word rapture comes from the greek word, 'catching up'...but too many relate the word 'rapture' to something like the pre-trib rapture and that is why I don't like using it...its misleading and I want to be very clear on this. No rapture...only the resurrection.

I also make sure I use the word PARTIAL and not just preterist as too many assume we mean full preterist which heretical...because they believe ALL propheties have been fullfilled including the second coming of Christ and I don't think Full preterist is even allowed on this board. I think all partial preterist on here DO say partial to make it clear they aren't full preterist.

God bless

If there is only one rsurrection, then please explain Revelation 20:6?

third hero
Mar 19th 2007, 04:05 PM
I did and that is why my views changed...;)

I gave up the man made pre-tribulation rapture view.

God bless

According to your own view, you said that you seen some prophecies that pre-tribs said was future events as already fulfilled. Since you seen some of them as fulfilled, you went all of the way to say that most of them are fulfilled, and thus changed your view. Also, it seemed like you have heavily relied on preterists to define terms for you that God has no problem explaining to you.

I would venture to say that your doctrines relies too much on men in order to give definitions to tough texts for you, such as Revelation 19-20:10, Isaiah 65, and Ezekiel 38-39. Saying that things you do not understand is symbolic is a cop-out in my opinion, since God has given the Word to us, He can define those "hard" terms for us. He does not need men to help Him speak what He means, and by God, whatever is written, in the context in which it is written, is what God meant, whether we like it or not. This is why I am a post-trib premil, because I have first read the bible, gained God's perspective, and then researched the historical records to see what is fulfilled, and what is not. The definitions do not come at the hands of men, but from God, and this is what I was talking about. I have no problem with Revelation 20 as it is written, to take it at face value. How about you? Would you reword it, or just llleave it as written?

VerticalReality
Mar 19th 2007, 04:12 PM
If there is only one rsurrection, then please explain Revelation 20:6?

I wonder if it is referring to this . . .



Matthew 27:51-53
Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Tru_Knyte
Mar 19th 2007, 04:14 PM
Thanks for answering my question. :) Got another though for partial preterists. By "resurrection" do you mean that we all die and lose consciousness until Christ returns? Thanks again for any clarification. :)

moonglow
Mar 19th 2007, 04:15 PM
moonglow




Then in essence you are saying those who hold that view believe something that is man made, rather than of God.

{Ignoreing the fact that its all about Christ and the Church and how he protects her and blesses her.}

Seems to be a veiled insult if you ask me.

I grew up being taught this view...and it finally doing the research on it myself and how it came about and all, this is my personal conviction...that it was an invention of man. The whole pre-trib rapture idea didn't even come about until the 1900's. Wouldn't you be a little concerned with that if you held this view? I sure would be and I was! I didn't know that until someone posted the information on here about it. I think people have the right to know the history of thei views...don't you?


If there is only one rsurrection, then please explain Revelation 20:6?



4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

In the plain literal reading of this passage it say first the SOULS only of those beheaded for not taking the mark get to reign with Christ. I see no mention of other Christians here that died other ways. Nor those who just died a natural death being able to reign with Christ either. It says these souls lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years and they will be priests of God and of Christ.

What do you see when you read it third hero?

Tru_Knyte
Mar 19th 2007, 04:23 PM
Btw, if the preterists are right then are we already living in the "1000" year reign? Like, what stage would we currently be at now?

third hero
Mar 19th 2007, 04:24 PM
I wonder if it is referring to this . . .
Matthew 27:51-53
Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.


Understand this, Abraham, Moses, David, and the other major and minor saints who died before Christ died on the Cross could not enter Heaven. Although GTod found them blameless, they still had the stain of sin on them. They were not in hell, but they still were in the sheol. In order for them to ascend to heaven, Christ had to die. When He died, their sins were paid for, and thus they went on to heaven, to reside with God until the completeion of everything. Look at these verses for a sec.

Luke 16:19-31.

Although this is a parable, Jesus is describing the "then" current position of the dead. There, he talks of a poor man and a rich man, both dead. The poor man went to a place called Abraham's Bosom. Again, they are in the place called the sheol, or the grave. The rich man was in hell. They could see each other, but there was a huge gulf between them. In the parable, the poor man got to see God's wrath on the rich man who ignored him. However, this is important, that we finally see a glimpse of the sheol, in detail that no one has ever described before. Now look at these verses.

John 5:24-29

Jesus proclaims that the dead are listening to His message, and those who hear it shall live. In other words, although Abraham's Bosom was nice, it still did not match heaven, and when Christ paid the price for their sins, their souls rose from the grave, otherwise called the Sheol, and walked, so that the people can see that those who believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. They walked the earth, and then went to heaven when they disappeared. This is not a resurrection, but in a way, it is. Their souls were released from the sheol, even in the nice part of it, and therefore went to heaven, to be with God until the completion of all things, whereas they themselves will receive the same reward as the believers will, everlasting life in New Jerusalem.

I hope this helps a little.

third hero
Mar 19th 2007, 04:28 PM
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.[/b]

In the plain literal reading of this passage it say first the SOULS only of those beheaded for not taking the mark get to reign with Christ. I see no mention of other Christians here that died other ways. Nor those who just died a natural death being able to reign with Christ either. It says these souls lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years and they will be priests of God and of Christ.

What do you see when you read it third hero?

That's funny, I see the same thing, that the souls of those beheaded were judged, and that they gained the right to rule with Christ for 1000 years. I see them raised to life, hence the term, first resurrection. I see only those who were beheaded by the beast for their testimony as those who rule with Christ for 1000 years, and like verse 5 says, the rest of the dead do not come to life until after the 1000 years are completed.

I also see the corelation to Daniel 7:13-14, 22, and 27. I see all of this in those verses.

I would welcome you to posts some differences you have with the view I hold to on the thread, why I am a post-trib premil, and then we can honestly debate this and any other issue you have with what I believe.

moonglow
Mar 19th 2007, 04:39 PM
According to your own view, you said that you seen some prophecies that pre-tribs said was future events as already fulfilled. Since you seen some of them as fulfilled, you went all of the way to say that most of them are fulfilled, and thus changed your view. Also, it seemed like you have heavily relied on preterists to define terms for you that God has no problem explaining to you.

I would venture to say that your doctrines relies too much on men in order to give definitions to tough texts for you, such as Revelation 19-20:10, Isaiah 65, and Ezekiel 38-39. Saying that things you do not understand is symbolic is a cop-out in my opinion, since God has given the Word to us, He can define those "hard" terms for us. He does not need men to help Him speak what He means, and by God, whatever is written, in the context in which it is written, is what God meant, whether we like it or not. This is why I am a post-trib premil, because I have first read the bible, gained God's perspective, and then researched the historical records to see what is fulfilled, and what is not. The definitions do not come at the hands of men, but from God, and this is what I was talking about. I have no problem with Revelation 20 as it is written, to take it at face value. How about you? Would you reword it, or just llleave it as written?

I know you are extremely annoyed with me because of other discussions we have had on here. That is ok. you can be annoyed with me. Just know that I am praying for you.

Second you can think what you want too about me and judge me if you want too...just make sure the plank is out of your own eye first. I will not sit here and defend myself on every point you have brought up. I don't have too. I will tell you this, I prayed mightly about the views I grew up being taught, the pre-trib rapture views ...I really wrestled with them for a long time....asking the Lord alot of questions. He told me one thing...that the 'rapture' wasn't going to be like what people thought. And that is it...which of course only leads me to more questions. I think He does that on purpose to get us to search His Word. I am still learning the PP view, and I have to rely on commentaries and other sources because I don't have it all memorized in my mind like I did with the pre-trib rapture stuff that was drilled into my head. I am having to unlearn alot of things I was taught my whole life and its not easy, especially at my age to erase what you were taught by others...NOT by the bible. I was TOLD this verse meant such and such and that verse meant such and such. I feel like I spent my life being brain washed with this stuff...I really do!

Take a look at this passage:

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

I was told this was the rapture of the believers before the seven year tribulation. In order for this to not be the Second Coming, I had to overlookd the word 'shout' and the 'trumpet' and basically pretent it wasn't going to be nearly as loud and noisey as this passage clearly says it will be. Later to counter this obviously loudness of the Lord return they came up with a secert rapture idea. Because if the Lord is THAT noisey in everyone is going to see Him. This is a BIG announcement! How can it not be the Second Coming? It doesn't say all the unbelievers suddenly become blind and deaf and don't notice the Lord descending and all this blowing of trumpets and shouting. It just doesn't work as a pre-trib rapture idea. That would make Christ returning at a later time again, which would make it a third coming and that simply isn't in the bible. At any rate I had to ingore the obvious in order to stick to my pre-trib rapture idea and this is just one example of many scriptures I was taught to only 'see' in a certain way. Like I said, its like being brainwashed and sometimes I slip up on here and express those pre-trib rapture ideas again..its very ingrained and very difficult to unlearn it all.

But like I said, I worked WITH the Lord on this in prayer for a long time, I didn't just read someone's post on here or a bible commentary or whatever and then go, oh well that makes sense, I'll just switch over to what they believe. Hardly. When a person is taught one idea their whole life its not an easy thing to give up....not by any means.

I am sure my ideas on the end times aren't perfect and I don't expect them to be...I really think the reason we all have different views on it is because that IS how God wants it to be right now. When we need to really 'see' clearly He will remove the scales. Its like when Jesus disciples were following Him...while they claimed Him as Lord and said they knew who He was, they really didn't. It wasn't until after He rose from the dead they finally truly saw Him for who He really was. Before that time they were not allowed to 'see'.


Tru_Knyte Thanks for answering my question. Got another though for partial preterists. By "resurrection" do you mean that we all die and lose consciousness until Christ returns? Thanks again for any clarification.

Oh no...its just like it says in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17...some will be alive and some won't be. :)


wmp: I should have worded that better. Idealists, Historists and most Preterists do not believe in the Pretrib rapture theory, although they believe that there will be catching away of the saints at Christ's one future Coming.

Thanks...that is ok. I just...well because of what I have struggled through with being raised pre-trib rapture, I very much dislike the word rapture at all. Its not in the bible...but the word resurrection is, so I just would rather use that one instead.

God bless

third hero
Mar 19th 2007, 05:01 PM
Moonglow, I do not judge you, nor am I annoyed with you at all. quite the opposite, I have enjoyed the many posts you have had, and even the ones in which we disagreed with. So, to think I am judging you is a serious misnomer. I am not. I do believe that you do not have an understanding of what I believe. It appears that you think that although I am classified as a post-trib premil, that I hold to the pre-trib POV, which I clearly do not.

1 Thess 4:15 eliminated any possibility of there being a secret rapture, because Paul clearly says that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, which links the second coming to the "rapture". So, I never argued with you concerning that point. What I have argued with you on is Matthew 24 in comparison to Luke 21, and Revelation 20:1-10, which I do not believe that we have either called each other out of character, (and if I have, I apologixe in advance). And unlike some others in here, (you know who I am talking about), I have never felt the need to defend myself with you. So, please do not think that I am the hammer trying to slam you, I am not. Nor do I try to be.

I did not go so far as to say that you have your doctrine from men, all I said is that in order to define things that trouble you, like Revelation 20:1-10, you turn to men's definitions, which change not only the context of the passage, but also the wording. The definitions that label Rev 20 as symbols is what I find offensive. I could be wrong, and if I am, I am inviting you to come to the thread, "Why I am a post-trib premil" and let's have at it, but in the same spirit as me and quiet dove have been duking it out. We neither call each other names, nor do we try to offend each other, which is the way most, if not all of these debates should be carried out.

moonglow
Mar 19th 2007, 05:12 PM
Moonglow, I do not judge you, nor am I annoyed with you at all. quite the opposite, I have enjoyed the many posts you have had, and even the ones in which we disagreed with. So, to think I am judging you is a serious misnomer. I am not. I do believe that you do not have an understanding of what I believe. It appears that you think that although I am classified as a post-trib premil, that I hold to the pre-trib POV, which I clearly do not.

1 Thess 4:15 eliminated any possibility of there being a secret rapture, because Paul clearly says that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, which links the second coming to the "rapture". So, I never argued with you concerning that point. What I have argued with you on is Matthew 24 in comparison to Luke 21, and Revelation 20:1-10, which I do not believe that we have either called each other out of character, (and if I have, I apologixe in advance). And unlike some others in here, (you know who I am talking about), I have never felt the need to defend myself with you. So, please do not think that I am the hammer trying to slam you, I am not. Nor do I try to be.

I did not go so far as to say that you have your doctrine from men, all I said is that in order to define things that trouble you, like Revelation 20:1-10, you turn to men's definitions, which change not only the context of the passage, but also the wording. The definitions that label Rev 20 as symbols is what I find offensive. I could be wrong, and if I am, I am inviting you to come to the thread, "Why I am a post-trib premil" and let's have at it, but in the same spirit as me and quiet dove have been duking it out. We neither call each other names, nor do we try to offend each other, which is the way most, if not all of these debates should be carried out.

Oh I know you aren't pre-trib rapture...I was reply to another poster on that one. I think our ideas on the end times are actually closer them most of the others. Right now I need to go take care of my mom's cat....they are out of town. talk to you later. :)

God bless

VerticalReality
Mar 19th 2007, 05:19 PM
Understand this, Abraham, Moses, David, and the other major and minor saints who died before Christ died on the Cross could not enter Heaven. Although GTod found them blameless, they still had the stain of sin on them. They were not in hell, but they still were in the sheol. In order for them to ascend to heaven, Christ had to die. When He died, their sins were paid for, and thus they went on to heaven, to reside with God until the completeion of everything. Look at these verses for a sec.

Luke 16:19-31.

Although this is a parable, Jesus is describing the "then" current position of the dead. There, he talks of a poor man and a rich man, both dead. The poor man went to a place called Abraham's Bosom. Again, they are in the place called the sheol, or the grave. The rich man was in hell. They could see each other, but there was a huge gulf between them. In the parable, the poor man got to see God's wrath on the rich man who ignored him. However, this is important, that we finally see a glimpse of the sheol, in detail that no one has ever described before. Now look at these verses.

John 5:24-29

Jesus proclaims that the dead are listening to His message, and those who hear it shall live. In other words, although Abraham's Bosom was nice, it still did not match heaven, and when Christ paid the price for their sins, their souls rose from the grave, otherwise called the Sheol, and walked, so that the people can see that those who believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. They walked the earth, and then went to heaven when they disappeared. This is not a resurrection, but in a way, it is. Their souls were released from the sheol, even in the nice part of it, and therefore went to heaven, to be with God until the completion of all things, whereas they themselves will receive the same reward as the believers will, everlasting life in New Jerusalem.

I hope this helps a little.

I'm aware of all that, third hero. What I'm addressing is that it appears that others were resurrected with Jesus Christ according to Matthew 27:51-53. Who were these saints that were resurrected, and could it be the saints that are reigning with Jesus Christ now? That's what I'm curious about. I'm not sure either way, but it's interesting to know that there were others resurrected just after Jesus Christ was.

Centurionoflight
Mar 19th 2007, 05:53 PM
moonglow




I grew up being taught this view...and it finally doing the research on it myself and how it came about and all, this is my personal conviction...that it was an invention of man. The whole pre-trib rapture idea didn't even come about until the 1900's. Wouldn't you be a little concerned with that if you held this view?


I guess that would be to Ignore the fact that it is in harmony with other doctrines;
Since people today are more focused on the letter rather than the doctrine,
I can see why they would jumped around.




I sure would be and I was! I didn't know that until someone posted the information on here about it. I think people have the right to know the history of thei views...don't you?
Since I dont go by a "history of Views"; that is not a concern for me; my focus is on how the doctrines merge and line up.

The "other veiw" leaves to many "hanging chads" for me to see it as any thing solid.




In the plain literal reading of this passage it say first the SOULS only of those beheaded for not taking the mark get to reign with Christ. I see no mention of other Christians here that died other ways. Nor those who just died a natural death being able to reign with Christ either. It says these souls lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years and they will be priests of God and of Christ.
I guess it should be a persons goal, to get their head hacked off for Christ?
Then they can reign.

I guess people today will rather ignore the fact that

Those are tribulational saints;
We are of the church;
There is a differance.

As much of a difference as day and night.

third hero
Mar 19th 2007, 07:19 PM
I'm aware of all that, third hero. What I'm addressing is that it appears that others were resurrected with Jesus Christ according to Matthew 27:51-53. Who were these saints that were resurrected, and could it be the saints that are reigning with Jesus Christ now? That's what I'm curious about. I'm not sure either way, but it's interesting to know that there were others resurrected just after Jesus Christ was.

I do not think that they are the ones who are ruling with Christ right now, mainly because the reign of Christ, as foretold in Psalms 2 and in many other places in the OT, is centered in Jerusalem, where all of the nations will have to pay tribute to Him there at the Feast of Tabernacles, or else face famine. I think that these are just those who have been given access to the Kingdom of Heaven by the sacrifice of Christ at that point.

wpm
Mar 19th 2007, 07:51 PM
I'm aware of all that, third hero. What I'm addressing is that it appears that others were resurrected with Jesus Christ according to Matthew 27:51-53. Who were these saints that were resurrected, and could it be the saints that are reigning with Jesus Christ now? That's what I'm curious about. I'm not sure either way, but it's interesting to know that there were others resurrected just after Jesus Christ was.

I believe that Jesus is the first resurrection. We experience Him upon salvation. In conversion we identify with Him, we have our part in Him. Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (or) echo méros in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

Is there scriptural backing for such a claim?

I believe so.

Jesus the first resurrection

Acts 26:23 describes Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be protos ek anastasis nekros (or) the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (ethnos Strong’s 1484)."

We should note in this passage, the enlightening of the Gentiles (or) ethnos is carefully connected to the first resurrection of Christ. It is only through this powerful event that the deception that smothered the Gentiles was lifted. Moreover, the binding of Satan is expressly connected to the enlightenment of the Gentiles (or) ethnos. The Amil understanding of "the first resurrection" can only be understood “in Christ.” The spiritual resurrection that a sinner realises upon conversion is only realised in "the first resurrection" of Christ. Our second physical resurrection is also procured through the victory of "the first resurrection" of Christ. A Christian is raised from the grave of his sin in this life solely on the grounds of Christ’s first resurrection.

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

This passage, which is clearly referring to Christ’s physical resurrection, describes Christ’s status after triumphing over death and the grave as the prootótokos or put another way first begotten from the dead. This was the first resurrection that the believer enters into upon salvation

Revelation 1:5 uses the same Greek word to describe Christ’s triumphant resurrection, saying, “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) of the dead,and the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Since Christ has conquered the grave for His redeemed, they can now walk in the fullness of the resurrection life. Paul similarly says in 1 Corinthians 15:20, “now is Christ egeégertai (or) risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”

Our resurrection at the Second Coming can only be the first resurrection (as Premils allege) if we totally circumvent Christ's resurrection.

Our part in Christ

What about our part in the first resurrection? How can that be?

Christ physically conquered the grave. He did this all on our behalf. That is why this passage says that we now have our portion in this first resurrection. That is what happens on salvation, we are identified with His death, burial and resurrection. In fact, all that have their part in salvation are delivered from eternal punishment (the second death). This is the only resurrection that spares all the redeemed the horrors of the Lake of Fire. The new birth experience is continually depicted as the means by which one escapes eternal punishment, why would this passage teach anything different. Christ doesn’t present the physical resurrection as our confidence of escaping eternal punishment, but salvation. Moreover, our participation in this hope is active and ongoing, not merely a future hope at His Coming.

1 Peter 1:3-5 confirms, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Hebrews 3:14 records of those that are saved, “we are made partakers of Christ.”

Peter says of us now, that we are “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

Anything that we are, or anything that we possess, that is of any spiritual worth, emanates solely from what Christ has done for us and how we partake in that, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). The fact is, “we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” (Ephesians 5:30). We cannot comprehend the authority of the child of God outside of this spiritual union, because without this oneness we are powerless. Christ is our representative head who has obtained victory over sin, death, condemnation, guilt fear, Satan and every other enemy of our soul. We reign because He reigns. We exercise authority because He exercises authority, at the right hand of majesty on high. Romans 11:36 says, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever.”

Our involvement in the first resurrection is positional. Christ’s victory over death, sin and hell was not on His own behalf, but on behalf of the redeemed. His life, death and resurrection were representative for us. Our part in the same comes exclusively by faith.

Paul

third hero
Mar 19th 2007, 08:13 PM
Of course, according to wpm, let us forget that Christ was already resurrected and in heaven when the Book of Revelation was written. Again, a not-so-sly ploy to overlook Revelation 20:1-10. But I must say that other attempts were much better than this one.

wpm
Mar 19th 2007, 08:43 PM
Of course, according to wpm, let us forget that Christ was already resurrected and in heaven when the Book of Revelation was written. Again, a not-so-sly ploy to overlook Revelation 20:1-10. But I must say that other attempts were much better than this one.

Again, instead of insults it would be more profitable if you would address the issues and clear scriptural passages presented. :)

Paul

ScottJohnson
Mar 19th 2007, 09:05 PM
Play nicely people, Feel free to attack the issues, but be nice to each other.

"k" ?

John146
Mar 19th 2007, 09:18 PM
That's funny, I see the same thing, that the souls of those beheaded were judged, and that they gained the right to rule with Christ for 1000 years. I see them raised to life, hence the term, first resurrection. I see only those who were beheaded by the beast for their testimony as those who rule with Christ for 1000 years, and like verse 5 says, the rest of the dead do not come to life until after the 1000 years are completed.

I also see the corelation to Daniel 7:13-14, 22, and 27. I see all of this in those verses.

I would welcome you to posts some differences you have with the view I hold to on the thread, why I am a post-trib premil, and then we can honestly debate this and any other issue you have with what I believe.

How does John 5:28-29 fit into your view? That passage says that an HOUR is coming when ALL of the dead are resurrected. Which resurrection do you believe that is, the first or the second? Acts 24:15 speaks of the resurrection of the dead, including both the just and unjust. Which resurrection is that, the first or the second?

John146
Mar 19th 2007, 09:20 PM
Of course, according to wpm, let us forget that Christ was already resurrected and in heaven when the Book of Revelation was written. Again, a not-so-sly ploy to overlook Revelation 20:1-10. But I must say that other attempts were much better than this one.

Jesus was already born when Revelation 12 was written, but that didn't prevent John from writing about it.

David Taylor
Mar 19th 2007, 09:22 PM
Of course, according to wpm, let us forget that Christ was already resurrected and in heaven when the Book of Revelation was written.

Christ ascended circa 33A.D.
Revelation was written decades and decades after that.

wpm is right.

VerticalReality
Mar 20th 2007, 03:41 AM
I believe that Jesus is the first resurrection. We experience Him upon salvation. In conversion we identify with Him, we have our part in Him. Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (or) echo méros in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

Is there scriptural backing for such a claim?

I believe so.

Jesus the first resurrection

Acts 26:23 describes Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be protos ek anastasis nekros (or) the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (ethnos Strong’s 1484)."

We should note in this passage, the enlightening of the Gentiles (or) ethnos is carefully connected to the first resurrection of Christ. It is only through this powerful event that the deception that smothered the Gentiles was lifted. Moreover, the binding of Satan is expressly connected to the enlightenment of the Gentiles (or) ethnos. The Amil understanding of "the first resurrection" can only be understood “in Christ.” The spiritual resurrection that a sinner realises upon conversion is only realised in "the first resurrection" of Christ. Our second physical resurrection is also procured through the victory of "the first resurrection" of Christ. A Christian is raised from the grave of his sin in this life solely on the grounds of Christ’s first resurrection.

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

This passage, which is clearly referring to Christ’s physical resurrection, describes Christ’s status after triumphing over death and the grave as the prootótokos or put another way first begotten from the dead. This was the first resurrection that the believer enters into upon salvation

Revelation 1:5 uses the same Greek word to describe Christ’s triumphant resurrection, saying, “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) of the dead,and the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Since Christ has conquered the grave for His redeemed, they can now walk in the fullness of the resurrection life. Paul similarly says in 1 Corinthians 15:20, “now is Christ egeégertai (or) risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”

Our resurrection at the Second Coming can only be the first resurrection (as Premils allege) if we totally circumvent Christ's resurrection.

Our part in Christ

What about our part in the first resurrection? How can that be?

Christ physically conquered the grave. He did this all on our behalf. That is why this passage says that we now have our portion in this first resurrection. That is what happens on salvation, we are identified with His death, burial and resurrection. In fact, all that have their part in salvation are delivered from eternal punishment (the second death). This is the only resurrection that spares all the redeemed the horrors of the Lake of Fire. The new birth experience is continually depicted as the means by which one escapes eternal punishment, why would this passage teach anything different. Christ doesn’t present the physical resurrection as our confidence of escaping eternal punishment, but salvation. Moreover, our participation in this hope is active and ongoing, not merely a future hope at His Coming.

1 Peter 1:3-5 confirms, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Hebrews 3:14 records of those that are saved, “we are made partakers of Christ.”

Peter says of us now, that we are “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

Anything that we are, or anything that we possess, that is of any spiritual worth, emanates solely from what Christ has done for us and how we partake in that, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). The fact is, “we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” (Ephesians 5:30). We cannot comprehend the authority of the child of God outside of this spiritual union, because without this oneness we are powerless. Christ is our representative head who has obtained victory over sin, death, condemnation, guilt fear, Satan and every other enemy of our soul. We reign because He reigns. We exercise authority because He exercises authority, at the right hand of majesty on high. Romans 11:36 says, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever.”

Our involvement in the first resurrection is positional. Christ’s victory over death, sin and hell was not on His own behalf, but on behalf of the redeemed. His life, death and resurrection were representative for us. Our part in the same comes exclusively by faith.

Paul

I appreciate your thoughts and the Scriptures you presented along with it.

third hero
Mar 20th 2007, 06:42 AM
Christ ascended circa 33A.D.
Revelation was written decades and decades after that.

wpm is right.

I disagree. The pretext of Revelation from chapter 4 onward is to describe future event, all of them. The first resurrectiuon that John writes about is not the same as the first one to be resurrected. Christ indeed was resurrected first, but the ones in wuestion ae the tribulation saints, the very same ones written in Revelation 20:4-6. In a vain attempt to overlook what was written and what context it was written in, one goes back in time to say that what John meant by Revelation 20:4-6 is not what he actually written, but a tribute back to when Christ was resurrected. I am sure that John was one of the disciples who seen Christ in His resurrected body, and in that light, I would not be so light as to say that he suddenly broke from the context of that passage to offer a tribute to the resurrected Christ, when he was tributing everything he saw to Christ interspersely throughout the book.

I stand by my earlier statement. A vain attempt to subvert Revelation 20:4-6 by wpm will yield the same results as before, me disagreeing and the topic slowing leading back to God's promise to David.

As far as John 5:28-29 is concerned, I would go back to John 5:23 first, and read that entire passage to understand what Christ is saying. Christ is telling the pharisees that He is doing His Father's work, and all those who accept His message shall have eternal life. Even those in the grave, in the sheol, await to hear the message of Salvation. Now Christ said there is a time coming, where all will hear his voice, and the living dead will be resurrected to eternal life, and the dead damned will go to their damnation. This sounds like the last day to me, when all of the dead are resurrected to be judged by Christ, who said so himself in John 5:22.

Now, the question you want to ask me is how does John 5:25 fit in? Well, that answer is amazingly simple. The message was heard by the dead, the living dead, whose abode before the death of Christ was a place in the sheol called Abraham's Bosom. Although they were considered blameless to God, although their sins were not of their choosing, they still had the stain of sin on them via Adam's transgression. These are the righteous dead, from Abel, to John the Baptist. When Christ died, as Matthew 27 attests to, the righteous souls were released, for their penalties were paid for by that very message that Christ gave before His death. They believed that He is the only acceptible sacrifice to the remittence of sins. And, like Matthew testifies to, the souls of the righteous ones rose and walked among the people, because they were released from Abraham's Bosom and were taken to heaven, to await the day they get resurrected bodies.

Like I said in other posts, I have no problem with John 5, any of it. It all makes sense. It is only a problem to those who wish to omit Revelation 20:4-6 that try to make an issue out of John 5. Well, this time it has not worked, and because I am going to play nice, I'll end this by saying, nice try.

God bless.
Doug, the Third Hero

wpm
Mar 20th 2007, 11:24 AM
3H


I disagree. The pretext of Revelation from chapter 4 onward is to describe future event, all of them.

I realise this is classic Dispensational teaching, but I disagree with it. Who then is the "man child" who "was to rule all nations with a rod of iron:" who is described as being “caught up unto God, and to his throne”? (Revelation 12:5). To me, this is a plain description of Christ and His glorious resurrection.



The first resurrectiuon that John writes about is not the same as the first one to be resurrected. Christ indeed was resurrected first, but the ones in wuestion ae the tribulation saints, the very same ones written in Revelation 20:4-6. In a vain attempt to overlook what was written and what context it was written in, one goes back in time to say that what John meant by Revelation 20:4-6 is not what he actually written, but a tribute back to when Christ was resurrected. I am sure that John was one of the disciples who seen Christ in His resurrected body, and in that light, I would not be so light as to say that he suddenly broke from the context of that passage to offer a tribute to the resurrected Christ, when he was tributing everything he saw to Christ interspersely throughout the book.

I stand by my earlier statement. A vain attempt to subvert Revelation 20:4-6 by wpm will yield the same results as before, me disagreeing and the topic slowing leading back to God's promise to David.

As far as John 5:28-29 is concerned, I would go back to John 5:23 first, and read that entire passage to understand what Christ is saying. Christ is telling the pharisees that He is doing His Father's work, and all those who accept His message shall have eternal life. Even those in the grave, in the sheol, await to hear the message of Salvation. Now Christ said there is a time coming, where all will hear his voice, and the living dead will be resurrected to eternal life, and the dead damned will go to their damnation. This sounds like the last day to me, when all of the dead are resurrected to be judged by Christ, who said so himself in John 5:22.

Now, the question you want to ask me is how does John 5:25 fit in? Well, that answer is amazingly simple. The message was heard by the dead, the living dead, whose abode before the death of Christ was a place in the sheol called Abraham's Bosom. Although they were considered blameless to God, although their sins were not of their choosing, they still had the stain of sin on them via Adam's transgression. These are the righteous dead, from Abel, to John the Baptist. When Christ died, as Matthew 27 attests to, the righteous souls were released, for their penalties were paid for by that very message that Christ gave before His death. They believed that He is the only acceptible sacrifice to the remittence of sins. And, like Matthew testifies to, the souls of the righteous ones rose and walked among the people, because they were released from Abraham's Bosom and were taken to heaven, to await the day they get resurrected bodies.

Like I said in other posts, I have no problem with John 5, any of it. It all makes sense. It is only a problem to those who wish to omit Revelation 20:4-6 that try to make an issue out of John 5. Well, this time it has not worked, and because I am going to play nice, I'll end this by saying, nice try.


Jesus describes two resurrections in John 5:24-29: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live (speaking of the first or spiritual resurrection). For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life (speaking of the second or physical resurrection); and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

There are clearly two resurrections here:

(1) Spiritual
(2) Physical

The first resurrection outlined here is a spiritual resurrection pertaining solely to the elect: “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live,” it relates to the here-and-now. The second relates to all the dead (saved and unsaved), "the hour is coming, in the which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth." It relates to the all-consummating resurrection day. The physical resurrection is therefore not restricted to the elect alone but to “the dead.” It is they in total that hear Christ’s voice, being raised to two different destinations

Paul

wpm
Mar 20th 2007, 11:26 AM
I appreciate your thoughts and the Scriptures you presented along with it.

Your welcome. Any time. :)

Paul

Naphal
Mar 20th 2007, 11:27 AM
3H

3H



I realise this is classic Dispensational teaching, but I disagree with it. Who then is the "man child" who "was to rule all nations with a rod of iron:" who is described as being “caught up unto God, and to his throne”? (Revelation 12:5). To me, this is a plain description of Christ and His glorious resurrection.

It is but most of Rev is still future to us. Certain parts are the past like some of Rev 12.

moonglow
Mar 20th 2007, 01:37 PM
3H

3H



I realise this is classic Dispensational teaching, but I disagree with it. Who then is the "man child" who "was to rule all nations with a rod of iron:" who is described as being “caught up unto God, and to his throne”? (Revelation 12:5). To me, this is a plain description of Christ and His glorious resurrection.



Jesus describes two resurrections in John 5:24-29: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live (speaking of the first or spiritual resurrection).For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life (speaking of the second or physical resurrection); and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

There are clearly two resurrections here:

(1) Spiritual
(2) Physical

The first resurrection outlined here is a spiritual resurrection pertaining solely to the elect: “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live,” it relates to the here-and-now. The second relates to all the dead (saved and unsaved), "the hour is coming, in the which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth." It relates to the all-consummating resurrection day. The physical resurrection is therefore not restricted to the elect alone but to “the dead.” It is they in total that hear Christ’s voice, being raised to two different destinations

Paul

Just for the record...I do not view your attempts to explain and teach on here as being in vain.

Main Entry: vain
Pronunciation: 'vAn
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, empty, futile, from Latin vanus -- more at WANE
1 : having no real value : IDLE, WORTHLESS <vain pretensions>
2 : marked by futility or ineffectualness : UNSUCCESSFUL, USELESS <vain efforts to escape>
3 archaic : FOOLISH, SILLY
4 : having or showing undue or excessive pride in one's appearance or achievements : CONCEITED
synonym see FUTILE

For some it may be to them, but many others read and do learn on here what you post. I know how discouraging it can be to spend long hours researching scriptures, posting then have it all thrown back in your face. :( It can get to the point where a person just feels like its fruitless and gives up. But as Jesus said those that want to hear and understand will...those that don't, won't. (of course He phrases it much better then that...lol). You show along with several others on the board, the bible explains itself and nothing else can be a better 'witness' to God's Word then that.

God bless

third hero
Mar 20th 2007, 03:49 PM
Revelation 12 talks about the woman who had given birth to the man child who will rule the world with a rod of iron, who is identified latrer as Christ in Chapter 19, who comes to do what in verse 15 wpm? That's right, to rule with a rod of iron. The emphasis is on the woman who gave birth to that man child. In other words, the reference to the man-child is to identify who the woman is, which is Israel, the nation. To those who think they are Israel, that passage means nothing, but thankfully, I am not one of them. Shall I show you? Ok, I will.

Revelation 12:1
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of 12 stars.

Verse 2. And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delievered.

Verse 3. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Verse 4. And his tail drew the third of the stars of heaven, and did cast them tot he earth; and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Verse 5.
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God, and to his throne.

Verse 6
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that theyshould feed her there a thousand, two hundred and three score days.

What was the emphasis in these scriptures? Is it the male child, who was caught up to heaven, or the woman who gave birth to him? is this woman Mary, who was the one who gave birth to Jesus, the one caught up to God after His resurrection? Or is it someone else? The answer is the 12 stars. The 12 stars are the twelve tribes of Israel, and we see that the woman indeed was Israel. This wonder is a foreshadowing of an event in which Israel gets attacked by the dragon, and they will be spared by God, who will have a place prepared for her in the wilderness for 3.5 years, or as the scriptures put it, 1260 days.

Now, as far as John is concerned, you still want to make what Christ said in John 5 be connected to Revelation 20, whereas the link is not as you want it to be. Take a look.


Jesus describes two resurrections in John 5:24-29: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live (speaking of the first or spiritual resurrection).For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life (speaking of the second or physical resurrection); and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

The hour coming and was there, we seen that fulfilled in Matthew 27, where the point when Christ died for the sins of all mankind, the souls of the righteous dead before then rose from their graves, and went on to heaven, with people seeing them walking. They were hearing the mesage at the same time s everyone else at that point in time. Again, This is not the same as the first resurrection that Christ is talking about in Revelation 20. IN verse 5, only the tribulation saints whose heads were beheaded were the ones who were resurrected. The only link that you have that is true is the last one, where all are resurrected to be judged by Christ, who said that He is the one who will judge all mankind, whereas the righteous are given eternal life and New Jerusalem, and the condemned are sent to the burning lake. This is not the first and second resurrection in which you attempt to make it sound like. Like I said, I am not the type to easily be fooled by someone who wants to juxtapose scriptures that are not connected into something that is.

In John 5, Jesus is telling about the power of the Gospel, whereas the Words of the Lord are life to those who hear it. Even the dead will hear His Words. In Revelation 20, the reward of the righteous who give their lives for the sake of the Gospel is rewared. Two totally different contexts, and two totally different messages. I do not see why you continue to use the John 5 reference to prove that Revelation 20 is a past event, when it is not. Matthew, John, Luke and Mark were written long before Revelation was, and that aspect had already happened before John received the vision. Or else, like in chapter 12, there would be a wonder in heaven, which would recap the scenario in which a future event would happen.

wpm
Mar 20th 2007, 04:27 PM
Revelation 12 talks about the woman who had given birth to the man child who will rule the world with a rod of iron, who is identified latrer as Christ in Chapter 19, who comes to do what in verse 15 wpm? That's right, to rule with a rod of iron. The emphasis is on the woman who gave birth to that man child. In other words, the reference to the man-child is to identify who the woman is, which is Israel, the nation. To those who think they are Israel, that passage means nothing, but thankfully, I am not one of them. Shall I show you? Ok, I will.

Revelation 12:1
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of 12 stars.

Verse 2. And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delievered.

Verse 3. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Verse 4. And his tail drew the third of the stars of heaven, and did cast them tot he earth; and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Verse 5.
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God, and to his throne.

Verse 6
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that theyshould feed her there a thousand, two hundred and three score days.

What was the emphasis in these scriptures? Is it the male child, who was caught up to heaven, or the woman who gave birth to him? is this woman Mary, who was the one who gave birth to Jesus, the one caught up to God after His resurrection? Or is it someone else? The answer is the 12 stars. The 12 stars are the twelve tribes of Israel, and we see that the woman indeed was Israel. This wonder is a foreshadowing of an event in which Israel gets attacked by the dragon, and they will be spared by God, who will have a place prepared for her in the wilderness for 3.5 years, or as the scriptures put it, 1260 days.

Now, as far as John is concerned, you still want to make what Christ said in John 5 be connected to Revelation 20, whereas the link is not as you want it to be. Take a look.

[/color]

The hour coming and was there, we seen that fulfilled in Matthew 27, where the point when Christ died for the sins of all mankind, the souls of the righteous dead before then rose from their graves, and went on to heaven, with people seeing them walking. They were hearing the mesage at the same time s everyone else at that point in time. Again, This is not the same as the first resurrection that Christ is talking about in Revelation 20. IN verse 5, only the tribulation saints whose heads were beheaded were the ones who were resurrected. The only link that you have that is true is the last one, where all are resurrected to be judged by Christ, who said that He is the one who will judge all mankind, whereas the righteous are given eternal life and New Jerusalem, and the condemned are sent to the burning lake. This is not the first and second resurrection in which you attempt to make it sound like. Like I said, I am not the type to easily be fooled by someone who wants to juxtapose scriptures that are not connected into something that is.

In John 5, Jesus is telling about the power of the Gospel, whereas the Words of the Lord are life to those who hear it. Even the dead will hear His Words. In Revelation 20, the reward of the righteous who give their lives for the sake of the Gospel is rewared. Two totally different contexts, and two totally different messages. I do not see why you continue to use the John 5 reference to prove that Revelation 20 is a past event, when it is not. Matthew, John, Luke and Mark were written long before Revelation was, and that aspect had already happened before John received the vision. Or else, like in chapter 12, there would be a wonder in heaven, which would recap the scenario in which a future event would happen.

"First" is the same in any language. It means the first. You actually rebut your own argument by admitting there is a resurrection prior to the general resurrection at Christ's Coming. What I am saying is that the general resurrection is the second resurrection. If there is a previous resurrection to this final one then it is evidently not the first.

Paul

John146
Mar 20th 2007, 04:46 PM
As far as John 5:28-29 is concerned, I would go back to John 5:23 first, and read that entire passage to understand what Christ is saying. Christ is telling the pharisees that He is doing His Father's work, and all those who accept His message shall have eternal life. Even those in the grave, in the sheol, await to hear the message of Salvation. Now Christ said there is a time coming, where all will hear his voice, and the living dead will be resurrected to eternal life, and the dead damned will go to their damnation. This sounds like the last day to me, when all of the dead are resurrected to be judged by Christ, who said so himself in John 5:22.

And when does the last day happen? Also, you didn't answer my question. Is John 5:28-29 speaking of the first or the second resurrection?



Now, the question you want to ask me is how does John 5:25 fit in? Well, that answer is amazingly simple.

No, I asked how does John 5:28-29 fit in. If ALL of the dead are resurrected at the same HOUR, and this occurs when Christ returns as other Scripture passages support, then who is left to populate a supposed future millenial or Davidic kingdom? All the saved will have their immortal bodies at that point and the unsaved will be thrown into the lake of fire. That means there are no mortals left to populate your Davidic kingdom after Christ's return.



The message was heard by the dead, the living dead, whose abode before the death of Christ was a place in the sheol called Abraham's Bosom. Although they were considered blameless to God, although their sins were not of their choosing, they still had the stain of sin on them via Adam's transgression. These are the righteous dead, from Abel, to John the Baptist. When Christ died, as Matthew 27 attests to, the righteous souls were released, for their penalties were paid for by that very message that Christ gave before His death. They believed that He is the only acceptible sacrifice to the remittence of sins. And, like Matthew testifies to, the souls of the righteous ones rose and walked among the people, because they were released from Abraham's Bosom and were taken to heaven, to await the day they get resurrected bodies.

Since you decided to talk about John 5:25, let's do that. I simply disagree with your interpretation. John 5:24-25 speaks of spiritual resurrection, not physical. We pass from spiritual death to spiritual life when we are saved. Would you agree? Ephesians 2 explains what John 5:24-25 is speaking about. Please pay close attention:

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: - Ephesians 2:1-6

From Jesus' perspective at the time, the hour was coming, and currently was, that the dead would hear His voice and those that heard and believed would live. He makes us spiritually alive after we are dead in our sins. We are spiritually resurrected to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus when we are saved(Eph 2:6).



Like I said in other posts, I have no problem with John 5, any of it. It all makes sense. It is only a problem to those who wish to omit Revelation 20:4-6 that try to make an issue out of John 5. Well, this time it has not worked, and because I am going to play nice, I'll end this by saying, nice try.

Yet your interpretation of John 5 is completely unconvincing and doesn't tie in with what is said in Revelation 20. My contention is that John 5:28-29 can only be referring to the second resurrection because it includes unbelievers. It's obvious that unbelievers do not take part in the first resurrection. This creates a problem for you because ALL people are included in the second resurrection. Do people need to be resurrected physically twice for judgment? I don't believe so. So, what is the first resurrection? It is Christ's resurrection of which we take part spiritually when we are saved and raised to sit together in heavenly places with Christ. When we physically die, ours souls/spirits go to be with the Lord and sit with Him in heaven as He reigns. That is only possible if we take part in the first resurrection. That is the only explanation that does not create a concept not found anywhere in Scripture (two separate physical resurrections each followed by Judgment). Scripture repeatedly speaks of the singular resurrection of the dead. That is the physical resurrection of all of the dead spoken about in Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29 and Acts 24:15.

All are physically resurrected at the same time and brought before the throne for Judgment at the same time, as we can clearly see in Matthew 25:31-46. It's clear from 2 Timothy 4:1 that Christ will "judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom". When? On the day (singular) of Judgment. Scripture repeatedly speaks of only one day of Judgment, not two. See Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:22,24, Matthew 12:36, Mark 6:11, Romans 2:5, 2 Peter 2:9, 2 Peter 3:7, 1 John 4:17 and Revelation 11:18.

John146
Mar 20th 2007, 05:06 PM
Revelation 12 talks about the woman who had given birth to the man child who will rule the world with a rod of iron, who is identified latrer as Christ in Chapter 19, who comes to do what in verse 15 wpm? That's right, to rule with a rod of iron. The emphasis is on the woman who gave birth to that man child. In other words, the reference to the man-child is to identify who the woman is, which is Israel, the nation. To those who think they are Israel, that passage means nothing, but thankfully, I am not one of them. Shall I show you? Ok, I will.

Revelation 12:1
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of 12 stars.

Verse 2. And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delievered.

Verse 3. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Verse 4. And his tail drew the third of the stars of heaven, and did cast them tot he earth; and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Verse 5.
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God, and to his throne.

Verse 6
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that theyshould feed her there a thousand, two hundred and three score days.

What was the emphasis in these scriptures? Is it the male child, who was caught up to heaven, or the woman who gave birth to him?

Both. The birth of the male child is emphasized. It was the greatest event in the history of the world besides His death and resurrection. How can you act as though the male child, Jesus, is not emphasized? And when did the birth of the man child happen? Before Revelation was written. His ascension to the throne of God in heaven is emphasized as well. Therefore, your insistence that everything from Revelation 4 on speaks of the future is proven false. Also, Satan was cast out of heaven before the book of Revelation was written. Read Luke 10:17-19 and John 12:31-33.

third hero
Mar 20th 2007, 05:11 PM
Again, John146,
you still want to make an unconnected thing become connected. Christ in John 5:28-29 shows Christ talking about judgment day, where all of the dead are raised to be judged. You can not get a clear definition of what Christ is talking about in verses 28-29 without reading 21-29. Then, you see that Christ is talking about the Gospel and the effect of it, and on top of that, He reveals who will be at that throne in Revelation 20, judging mankind. It is the second resurrection, as Christ had John proclaim it in Revelation 20:5, separating the first resurrection from the second one.

As far as Revelation 12, it deals not with the child, but much more so with the woman who gave birth to that child.

third hero
Mar 20th 2007, 05:14 PM
NO where in Revelation 12 is there being mentioned that the man child died. No, instead, it said that the child was caught up by God to sit on His throne. The woman was the one chased by the dragon. We find in verse 13-17, that the moment that the dragon is cast out of heaven, the dragon will try to eliminate the woman, who brought forth the male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. When he fails, then he will go after the "children of the woman", who are those who hold to the Gospel of Christ.

third hero
Mar 20th 2007, 05:16 PM
Jesus made no distinction between whether it is a spiritual resurrection or a literal one. He said that the dead were listening to his word, and they will live, which happened in Matthew 27.

John146
Mar 20th 2007, 05:26 PM
Again, John146,
you still want to make an unconnected thing become connected.

We should look at all Scripture related to the resurrection of the dead for help in our understanding of Revelation 20. And we should realize that Scripture speaks of spiritual resurrection as well as physical. I'm sorry that you don't think it is important to use other Scripture for help in understanding Revelation 20.



Christ in John 5:28-29 shows Christ talking about judgment day, where all of the dead are raised to be judged. You can not get a clear definition of what Christ is talking about in verses 28-29 without reading 21-29. Then, you see that Christ is talking about the Gospel and the effect of it, and on top of that, He reveals who will be at that throne in Revelation 20, judging mankind. It is the second resurrection, as Christ had John proclaim it in Revelation 20:5, separating the first resurrection from the second one.

Okay, so you equate John 5:28-29 with the second resurrection. So do I. And you acknowledge that the second resurrection is when ALL of the dead are raised for judgment. Would you agree that is a physical resurrection? The same time when believers receive their immortal bodies? Who are raised in the first resurrection then if ALL are raised at the second resurrection? Would you agree that Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:11-15 both speak of this one judgment that occurs at the second resurrection? When does this judgment take place? According ot Matthew 25:31 and 2 Timothy 4:1, it takes place at the second coming of Christ. As I pointed out, the dead in Christ are raised to receive their immortal bodies at the second coming as well. Since ALL, both saved and lost, are raised at the second resurrection, then that would include the dead in Christ. Therefore, the first resurrection must occur before the second coming of Christ because that resurrection only applies to believers. Please let me know your thoughts on what I've said here and please leave out any insults and reply specifically to my comments and Scripture references. I would really appreciate that.



As far as Revelation 12, it deals not with the child, but much more so with the woman who gave birth to that child. It is not my fault that you willfully refuse to see it.

Which has more emphasis is not important. The point is, as you are finally acknowledging here, that both are emphasized to some extent. You say that everything after Revelation 4 is future. That is easily proven wrong by Revelation 12 alone.

third hero
Mar 20th 2007, 05:33 PM
I do concur that the second resurrection is when all mankind is judged. However, I believe Revelation 20:5, where the dead in Christ who died during the Great Tribulation are judged and given the kingdom that God gives to Christ.

And as far as scripture for scripture is concerned, try these on for size.

Revelation 20:4-6
Daniel 7:13-14, 22, 27
Revelation 2:26-27.

Let's see you compare these and tell me that these are not directly linked.

Revelation 20:4-6 talks of the saints being judged, and they are given thrones, to rule with Christ for the MIllennium. Revelation 2:26-27 is Jesus Himself promising the overcomer that he will be given a crown to rule over the nations with a rod of iron. Daniel 7 13-14 show people being judged by God, and the SOn of man comes to the Ancient of Days, right there with the people who are being judged, and He is given a kingdom, in which all of the nations of the earth will serve him. Verse 22 shows that the ones who are judged at that point are saints, and they are given the earth to posess, and verse 27 concurs. How is this not connected, which unequivocally proves Revelation 20 as a literal event, where the saints who die during the Great tribulation are literally risen to life, to rule the world with Christ starting with the moment Satan is sealed.

John146
Mar 20th 2007, 05:36 PM
Jesus made no distinction between whether it is a spiritual resurrection or a literal one. He said that the dead were listening to his word, and they will live, which happened in Matthew 27. I do not care if you disagree with it, it's not my problem.

He said the dead were currently ("and now is") hearing His voice and that the hour was coming when the dead would hear His voice as well. Are those that are physically dead still hearing His voice and passing from death to life, Doug? You use Matthew 27 to try to explain the "and now is" part, but what about "the hour is coming" part. Matthew 27 couldn't explain that. But Ephesians 2 does.



Removed insultive comment from HeroAbsolutely not. I don't refer to commentaries at all when I study the Bible. I believe people rely too much on them. We are supposed to rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding. I try to do what is described in the following:


10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ. - 1 Corinthians 2:10-16

wpm
Mar 20th 2007, 06:52 PM
NO where in Revelation 12 is there being mentioned that the man child died. No, instead, it said that the child was caught up by God to sit on His throne. The woman was the one chased by the dragon. We find in verse 13-17, that the moment that the dragon is cast out of heaven, the dragon will try to eliminate the woman, who brought forth the male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. When he fails, then he will go after the "children of the woman", who are those who hold to the Gospel of Christ.

The woman is the Israel of God:

"she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron."

"her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne"

These two events refer to Christ and His incarnation and His victorious ascent to the throne, not to some end-time period prior to the Lord's return.

Paul

wpm
Mar 20th 2007, 06:57 PM
Jesus made no distinction between whether it is a spiritual resurrection or a literal one. He said that the dead were listening to his word, and they will live, which happened in Matthew 27. I do not care if you disagree with it, it's not my problem. I do not need commentaries to tell me whether my doctrine is right or wrong. How about you john146?

How do you consider physically dead corpses are "listening to his word, and they will live"? This is speaking spiritually. Can I remind you? Jesus said, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." The terminology “the hour is coming, and now is” is used here and in other places to simply indicate – ‘the time is now upon us’.

Paul

third hero
Mar 20th 2007, 07:25 PM
How do you consider physically dead corpses are "listening to his word, and they will live"? This is speaking spiritually. Can I remind you? Jesus said, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." The terminology “the hour is coming, and now is” is used here and in other places to simply indicate – ‘the time is now upon us’.

Paul

Souls are not dead. In case you forgeotten, Jesus referred to Abraham, Moses, and the other blameless dead as living, and not dead. So figure that one out yourself. The time is not now, but then, when Christ was proclaiming the message of Salvation. When CHrist died, this was fulfilled in Matthew 27, where the souls of the dead were raised to life, to live with God until Judgment Day.

Again, you highlight the term, Now is, when at the point when Christ said that, there was a place in the sheol called Abraham's Bosom, whereas the souls of the Blameless dead went to await the time where Christ dies for their sins, so they were listening back then. They are not NOW, since NOW, those who hear the message while they ree yet living do not go to Abraham's Bosom, but to heaven, where God is. So your highlighted portion hold NO MEANING NOW, since the now Christ was talking about was the now when He was walkingthe earth. The dead who are in the grave are not now listening to the words of the Gospel, and being freed, or else there is no longer any need for a place for the damned anymore, since they will hear the Gospel in hell and live. This is what you are implying when you juxtapose 2007 AD with 26 AD. Different time periods, different eras, different covenants.

wpm
Mar 20th 2007, 09:25 PM
Souls are not dead. In case you forgeotten, Jesus referred to Abraham, Moses, and the other blameless dead as living, and not dead. So figure that one out yourself. The time is not now, but then, when Christ was proclaiming the message of Salvation. When CHrist died, this was fulfilled in Matthew 27, where the souls of the dead were raised to life, to live with God until Judgment Day.

Again, you highlight the term, Now is, when at the point when Christ said that, there was a place in the sheol called Abraham's Bosom, whereas the souls of the Blameless dead went to await the time where Christ dies for their sins, so they were listening back then. They are not NOW, since NOW, those who hear the message while they ree yet living do not go to Abraham's Bosom, but to heaven, where God is. So your highlighted portion hold NO MEANING NOW, since the now Christ was talking about was the now when He was walkingthe earth. The dead who are in the grave are not now listening to the words of the Gospel, and being freed, or else there is no longer any need for a place for the damned anymore, since they will hear the Gospel in hell and live. This is what you are implying when you juxtapose 2007 AD with 26 AD. Different time periods, different eras, different covenants.

Are you relating this to a second-chance Gospel after physical death?

Paul

quiet dove
Mar 21st 2007, 03:38 AM
Are you relating this to a second-chance Gospel after physical death?


I dont think that is what he trying to say. I think he is talking about others, like Abraham, who lived and died prior to Christ first advent, they were also men of faith, like Abraham, these others believed God, and like Abraham,

Romans 4:2 ...Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Christ death paid for their sin just as ours, I think we all agree there.

But as per
Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:
this was prior to Christ death and resurrection

And now, after His death and resurrection we are promised
2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

So the difference is prior to Christ death and resurrection, the dead souls were somewhere not of torment
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

And those in this place called "Abrahams bosom", those who already believed God, they may not have understood all but they believed Him and were faithful to Him. These were aware of what Christ did for them, just as us. And now when we die our souls go to be with God, just like in Revelation
Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

It isnt that they died, unfaithful, unbelieving of/in God, then heard the gospel after they died and were saved. They were the faithful of God who lived and died prior to Christ death and resurrection. They had made a decision of believing God and He would accomplish His promises of salvation.

wpm
Mar 21st 2007, 10:39 AM
I dont think that is what he trying to say. I think he is talking about others, like Abraham, who lived and died prior to Christ first advent, they were also men of faith, like Abraham, these others believed God, and like Abraham,

Romans 4:2 ...Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Christ death paid for their sin just as ours, I think we all agree there.

But as per
Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:
this was prior to Christ death and resurrection

And now, after His death and resurrection we are promised
2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

So the difference is prior to Christ death and resurrection, the dead souls were somewhere not of torment
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

And those in this place called "Abrahams bosom", those who already believed God, they may not have understood all but they believed Him and were faithful to Him. These were aware of what Christ did for them, just as us. And now when we die our souls go to be with God, just like in Revelation
Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

It isnt that they died, unfaithful, unbelieving of/in God, then heard the gospel after they died and were saved. They were the faithful of God who lived and died prior to Christ death and resurrection. They had made a decision of believing God and He would accomplish His promises of salvation.


I agree with all this. It is the statement: "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." It is applying that to it.

If this is speaking in the physical then it is the physical resurrection - which only occurs at the Coming of Christ.

If this is spiritual then it must be conversion.

Paul

John146
Mar 21st 2007, 12:07 PM
I dont think that is what he trying to say. I think he is talking about others, like Abraham, who lived and died prior to Christ first advent, they were also men of faith, like Abraham, these others believed God, and like Abraham,

Romans 4:2 ...Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Christ death paid for their sin just as ours, I think we all agree there.

But as per
Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:
this was prior to Christ death and resurrection

And now, after His death and resurrection we are promised
2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

So the difference is prior to Christ death and resurrection, the dead souls were somewhere not of torment
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

And those in this place called "Abrahams bosom", those who already believed God, they may not have understood all but they believed Him and were faithful to Him. These were aware of what Christ did for them, just as us. And now when we die our souls go to be with God, just like in Revelation
Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

It isnt that they died, unfaithful, unbelieving of/in God, then heard the gospel after they died and were saved. They were the faithful of God who lived and died prior to Christ death and resurrection. They had made a decision of believing God and He would accomplish His promises of salvation.


That's all fine and dandy and something I think most of us already knew, but the issue at hand is the meaning of John 5:24-25. How do you interpret that passage?

quiet dove
Mar 22nd 2007, 04:03 AM
The reason I posted what I did was because I didnt see it as "second chance gospel" That just wasnt what I understood the post to be saying.


john146
That's all fine and dandy and something I think most of us already knew, but the issue at hand is the meaning of John 5:24-25. How do you interpret that passage?


But since you asked about John 5:24-25:)
I am going to go with the dead being the unsaved who will live because they accept the gospel, so I guess that is spiritual, and then later in verse 29 the resurrection, but I dont necessarily disagree that those like Abraham could hear the gospel. That wouldnt be dead corpses hearing the gospel, it would be the souls of faithful OT men/women knowing that the prophesies they believed God for had come to pass.

v25 is interesting in that it says "...and believes in Him who sent Me" so he who believes in God who sent Jesus, and since that would include people like Abraham, there isnt any reason to think they were unaware of Christ fulfilling the prophesies and that the salvation promised by God had come to pass.

I guess I'm repeating myself, sorry, to much yard work, VERY tired.

quiet dove
Mar 23rd 2007, 04:45 AM
john146

I didnt edit your post, I accidently clicked the wrong place:)

That would have been cheating:lol:

John146
Mar 23rd 2007, 05:14 AM
john146

I didnt edit your post, I accidently clicked the wrong place:)

That would have been cheating:lol:

I was definitely wondering about that, because I couldn't think of any reason for you to edit my post. While we obviously disagree on some things, I don't think of you as someone who would try to abuse your Moderator privileges to get back at me or something. So, I decided to just let it go. :)

quiet dove
Mar 23rd 2007, 05:19 AM
Thanks for your trust there john. I appreciate that. I am sorry, I didnt realize what I had done until a while ago. I am very tired lately and I couldnt figure out what I did until a second ago when I almost did it again, I must have been going to post and just clicked the wrong thing as I all but did it just now. I think I will call it a day and get some sleep.