Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 91 to 101 of 101

Thread: Question

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,983
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    I hold to partial amil and partial preterist so I see the beast and false prophet defeated back in the first century
    There is no way I can possible believe that any of these scriptures are alreeady fulfilled:

    Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
    Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
    Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
    Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
    Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
    Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
    Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
    Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
    Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
    Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
    Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


    Never has a heavenly army led by Jesus fought and defeated a human army at Armageddon...
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,846
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    There is no way I can possible believe that any of these scriptures are alreeady fulfilled:

    Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
    Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
    Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
    Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
    Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
    Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
    Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
    Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
    Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
    Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
    Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


    Never has a heavenly army led by Jesus fought and defeated a human army at Armageddon...
    But what if its a symbolic image of Jesus defeating all of His enemies over time with the sword of His mouth His word which is all He needs. In the verses you provided above we don't fight the only weapon mentioned is Jesus' sword out of His mounth

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,983
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    But what if its a symbolic image of Jesus defeating all of His enemies over time with the sword of His mouth His word which is all He needs.
    Nothing in the passage would support that view. This is a specific time, a literal and physical second coming with his armies, at a specific place 66 miles from Jerusalem, defeats real enemies and casts the beast and FP into the LOF. That happens after the GT has ended and before the thousand years begins.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Oklahoma - USA
    Posts
    543

    Cool Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    There is no way I can possible believe that any of these scriptures are alreeady fulfilled:
    - - - - -
    Never has a heavenly army led by Jesus fought and defeated a human army at Armageddon...
    Why do you continue to argue with these Amils? They twist so much scripture, I don't even know where to start with them. You have more patience than me with them.
    John 15:17 "These things I command you, that ye love one another."

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,983
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Deade View Post
    Why do you continue to argue with these Amils?
    It helps me strengthen my own views and better understand theirs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deade View Post
    Why do you continue to argue with these Amils?
    It helps me strengthen my own views and better understand theirs.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,846
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Nothing in the passage would support that view. This is a specific time, a literal and physical second coming with his armies, at a specific place 66 miles from Jerusalem, defeats real enemies and casts the beast and FP into the LOF. That happens after the GT has ended and before the thousand years begins.

    So why it the only weapon mentioned the sword (Jesus' word) of His mouth?

    That is symbolic so its puts symbolism into the passage and makes it a symbolic battle as know one else fights so why are we even there what John see is Jesus and His army up in heaven

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,983
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    So why it the only weapon mentioned the sword (Jesus' word) of His mouth?
    Because it's the only weapon used? Note that zero fire is used to kill anyone proving fire is not used in the second coming as a weapon.


    That is symbolic so its puts symbolism into the passage and makes it a symbolic battle as know one else fights so why are we even there what John see is Jesus and His army up in heaven
    Yes the sword is symbolic but that doesn't make everything symbolic.

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    So why it the only weapon mentioned the sword (Jesus' word) of His mouth?
    Because it's the only weapon used? Note that zero fire is used to kill anyone proving fire is not used in the second coming as a weapon.


    That is symbolic so its puts symbolism into the passage and makes it a symbolic battle as know one else fights so why are we even there what John see is Jesus and His army up in heaven
    Yes the sword is symbolic but that doesn't make everything symbolic.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,887

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    If the events of Revelation are in our future then why doesn’t it mention a future antichrist desecrating a future temple?

    Isn't it supposed to be a major end time event?
    Maybe Revelation does, but that you are looking for this to take place in a literal temple, assuming it is still future, except that maybe it's not meaning in a literal temple at all? Unless I'm mistaken, in Rev 11, aren't you taking the temple mentioned there, in the literal sense? I am Premil, as you know, and I don't take the mentioning of the temple in Rev 11 in the literal sense. To be consistent, maybe I need to treat Rev 20 and the thousand years the same way, not take it in the literal sense either? Maybe one day I will do just that, not take the the thousand years in Rev 20 in the literal sense. But that day hasn't arrived yet though. But who knows? Maybe one day I may change my mind about the thousand years. So far I haven't seen any good reasons to do so, at least meaning Amils are not overly convincing that their interpretation of Rev 20 is correct. That leaves that maybe I'm not being consistent in my interpreting of the book of Revelation as a whole, if I'm concluding some things don't have to be literal, while at the same time concluding some things have to be literal, maybe being a good reason to start treating Rev 20 differently..

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,846
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Maybe Revelation does, but that you are looking for this to take place in a literal temple, assuming it is still future, except that maybe it's not meaning in a literal temple at all? Unless I'm mistaken, in Rev 11, aren't you taking the temple mentioned there, in the literal sense? I am Premil, as you know, and I don't take the mentioning of the temple in Rev 11 in the literal sense. To be consistent, maybe I need to treat Rev 20 and the thousand years the same way, not take it in the literal sense either? Maybe one day I will do just that, not take the the thousand years in Rev 20 in the literal sense. But that day hasn't arrived yet though. But who knows? Maybe one day I may change my mind about the thousand years. So far I haven't seen any good reasons to do so, at least meaning Amils are not overly convincing that their interpretation of Rev 20 is correct. That leaves that maybe I'm not being consistent in my interpreting of the book of Revelation as a whole, if I'm concluding some things don't have to be literal, while at the same time concluding some things have to be literal, maybe being a good reason to start treating Rev 20 differently..
    Yes I see the temple in Rev 11 as literal.

    I hope you do rethink it the way I see it is that a literal sense of some of the events of Revelation seam to contradict some scriptures

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Maybe Revelation does, but that you are looking for this to take place in a literal temple, assuming it is still future, except that maybe it's not meaning in a literal temple at all? Unless I'm mistaken, in Rev 11, aren't you taking the temple mentioned there, in the literal sense? I am Premil, as you know, and I don't take the mentioning of the temple in Rev 11 in the literal sense. To be consistent, maybe I need to treat Rev 20 and the thousand years the same way, not take it in the literal sense either? Maybe one day I will do just that, not take the the thousand years in Rev 20 in the literal sense. But that day hasn't arrived yet though. But who knows? Maybe one day I may change my mind about the thousand years. So far I haven't seen any good reasons to do so, at least meaning Amils are not overly convincing that their interpretation of Rev 20 is correct. That leaves that maybe I'm not being consistent in my interpreting of the book of Revelation as a whole, if I'm concluding some things don't have to be literal, while at the same time concluding some things have to be literal, maybe being a good reason to start treating Rev 20 differently..
    Yes I see the temple in Rev 11 as literal.

    I hope you do rethink it the way I see it is that a literal sense of some of the events of Revelation seam to contradict some scriptures

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,887

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Yes I see the temple in Rev 11 as literal.

    I hope you do rethink it the way I see it is that a literal sense of some of the events of Revelation seam to contradict some scriptures




    Let's start with this verse then.

    Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

    This temple mentioned here, since you see it as literal, obviously you see it meaning before the events of 70 AD. That is a given. But what about in relation to Christ's death and sacrifice followed by His resurrection? These seen worshiping in the temple, per your view, are they seen doing this pre or post Christ's death and sacrifice followed by His resurrection?

    If the latter, how can that not be contradicting Scriptures? Why would a literal temple still be defined as the temple of God post Christ's death and sacrifice followed by His resurrection? And why would God desire anyone to still be worshiping therein when they should be worshiping His Son instead?

    The Greek word for temple in that verse is naos. Paul often used that same Greek word in a lot of his writings involving a temple.

    But take note of a passage such as Matthew 21:15 though, for example. A temple is also mentioned there, yet the same Greek word naos is not used though. hieron is used instead. Obviously the temple meant in Matthew 21:15 is meaning the literal temple in Jerusalem. If it obviously means the literal temple in Jerusalem in Revelation 11:1 as well, why wasn't hieron used in that verse instead, rather than naos?

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,846
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Question

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Let's start with this verse then.

    Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

    This temple mentioned here, since you see it as literal, obviously you see it meaning before the events of 70 AD. That is a given. But what about in relation to Christ's death and sacrifice followed by His resurrection? These seen worshiping in the temple, per your view, are they seen doing this pre or post Christ's death and sacrifice followed by His resurrection?

    If the latter, how can that not be contradicting Scriptures? Why would a literal temple still be defined as the temple of God post Christ's death and sacrifice followed by His resurrection? And why would God desire anyone to still be worshiping therein when they should be worshiping His Son instead?

    The Greek word for temple in that verse is naos. Paul often used that same Greek word in a lot of his writings involving a temple.

    But take note of a passage such as Matthew 21:15 though, for example. A temple is also mentioned there, yet the same Greek word naos is not used though. hieron is used instead. Obviously the temple meant in Matthew 21:15 is meaning the literal temple in Jerusalem. If it obviously means the literal temple in Jerusalem in Revelation 11:1 as well, why wasn't hieron used in that verse instead, rather than naos?
    In the book of Acts we see that the disciples still went to the temple and Paul even did a offering there thus the temple did still held some meaning I believe until Josephus explains the strange events and light that lite up and then exited the temple right before it was destroyed. The issue was that the sin sacrifice needed to end and it didn't and God still used the temple for a time period for the disciples to show the people who Jesus was as that was were they gathered. That all came to an end forever in 70AD

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Question?
    By bondservant4him in forum Young Adults Fellowship
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Jan 18th 2010, 08:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •